Jump to content


Photo

Ron Paul


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#41 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 19 October 2011 - 09:11 PM

Joe Scarborough Credits Ron Paul for Predicting the Housing Bubble
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/AdJhHsAdXro

#42 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 October 2011 - 12:37 PM

Here's yet another good reason to not vote for Ron Paul. It's a sin and a choice, but to each his own as we were given free will. Just keep it out of the military.


Ron Paul: Heterosexuals in military 'causing more trouble than the gays'

By Justin Sink - 10/26/11 10:42 AM ET

Ron Paul said heterosexuals in the military were "causing more trouble than the gays" in explaining his support for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" during an interview with the Iowa State Daily.

Paul was arguing that heterosexual relationships in the military were equally disruptive, and, due to the larger proportion of heterosexual soldiers, more likely to occur.

"Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn’t a problem," Paul said. "It’s only if they’re doing things they shouldn’t be, if they’re disruptive. But there’s … men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there’s a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they’re causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same.”

Paul had originally favored keeping the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but decided in 2010 to switch his vote and support repeal. Then he explained his shift as one based in economics, and again reiterated that both hetero- and homosexual service members had the potential to be "disruptive."

"I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," Paul said to The Washington Post. "To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense."

Paul also touched on gay marriage during his interview with the Daily, saying that the federal government should have "no say" in whether gay couples are allowed to marry. Paul has previously signaled his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal law that allows local governments not to recognize gay marriages from other states.

“The government has no business in your private life, you know, so if one person is allowed to do something, so should everyone else," Paul said. "The whole gay marriage issue is a private affair, and the federal government has no say.”



#43 JNKish

JNKish

    Member

  • Members
  • 240 posts

Posted 26 October 2011 - 05:09 PM

Consider this: Rick Perry and Ron Paul are the only two in the field that have military experience.
http://www.washingto...jjEJJ_blog.html

#44 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 27 October 2011 - 04:30 PM

I'm on the Cain train. The 999 plan is fantastic and, if we survive long enough, can transform this economy and stop our slide into oblivion.

#45 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2011 - 05:28 AM

I'm on the Cain train. The 999 plan is fantastic and, if we survive long enough, can transform this economy and stop our slide into oblivion.


I'm with you. Cain is my ticket since West won't run. Ron Paul is getting nuttier by the day and the rest are just fakes to me. For whatever reason though, there's something about Rick Perry that makes me think he'll be the winner through dirty politics -- such as what happened with what McCain and Huckabee did to Romney last election to rob him of his votes.

#46 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 28 October 2011 - 07:18 AM

Consider this: Rick Perry and Ron Paul are the only two in the field that have military experience.
http://www.washingto...jjEJJ_blog.html


I just don't buy into either of them. Rick Perry to me is destructive and worse than a RINO while Ron Paul has suicidal policies.

#47 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 31 October 2011 - 02:22 PM

I think Rick Perry is not a bad guy, but he simply does not have the vision or the guts of Herman Cain. I think Perry would make a good VP, or someone who can take over after Cain's second term (if West doesn't feel ready to run yet). The 999 plan will totally change the way this nation works, really doing a lot to transform our culture from a culture of "hand outs" to "hand ups".

Ron Paul is an effeminate baboon who is anti-American. If he was at least a patriot, I would support him... But he isn't. He thinks the United States is to blame for 9/11. That it was "blowback" for our imperialism in the Middle East. The SOB can drop dead.

I think the Russkies are promoting him because his "brand" provides a pathway where the anti-Americanism of the left can intersect with the "right". I will also add that Ron Paulism is horribly tied together with NWO-Alex Jones nonsense, that is also deeply anti-Jewish. It's incredibly frightening to see how far it has spread over these past few years. I saw friends of mine turn from good conservatives into rabid, anti-Jewish conspiracy theorists quite suddenly. It's sickening and dangerous. We need to fight them just as much as we fight the communists.

#48 SJL

SJL

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,319 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 November 2011 - 12:21 PM

I think Ron Paul is one of those who believe there cannot be bad people, so to speak, only bad government. He is utterly crypto-naive.

Perry and Gingrich use populist GOP voice out, gangster like, and we need this, but if only they could follow up like Reagan on their Cow Boy or John Wayne talk. I am tired of these irresponsible clowns.

#49 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 13 November 2011 - 06:19 PM

I think Ron Paul is one of those who believe there cannot be bad people, so to speak, only bad government. He is utterly crypto-naive.


I heard an interview by Ron Paul on a Christian radio show. They asked him about his stance on homosexuality as a sin, and he responded that he didn't buy into that "simplistic" thinking and that everyone is a child of God. The radio-host was strong and gave a biblical response, to which Paul-bot made no reply. I had heard an interview right before that where it seemed Ron Paul had denied the theory of evolution. I thought perhaps he might be a Christian, until I heard this second interview.

#50 IRISH

IRISH

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2011 - 12:36 AM

I must've missed the part in the Constitution that stated that "only gold and silver are 'money'....".

<_<

Article 1 Section 10 Clause 1 reads... No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I'm not sure if that's exactly applicable but it is in the Constitution.

#51 Jason

Jason

    Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted 10 December 2011 - 08:05 PM

I have a piece up on American Thinker today: The case for Ron Paul. Gentlemen, if we don't start enforcing the Rule of Law, enforcing immigration laws, and getting our monetary system under control, we are not going to HAVE a foreign policy, or a defensive function. America first -- we MUST save Liberal Democracy or it will be wiped from the Earth.



December 10, 2011
The Case for Ron Paul

By Jason McNew



Ron Paul, a physician, has earned himself the name "Dr. No" by refusing to vote for any bill which assumes powers other than those given in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution. When one takes a sober look at our country today, it's easy to see why Dr. Paul would behave this way.

Take note that there is no authority in the Constitution for the setting of interest rates (as the Federal Reserve does) -- interference which led directly to the housing bubble (which Ron Paul predicted). Despite U.S. participation in several sizable wars, Congress has not bothered itself with actually declaring war since 1942 (on Romania). There is no authority to bail out banks, intervene in labor disputes, subsidize farming, regulate health insurance, or set educational policies. Every one of these unauthorized activities drives costs up (or drives prosperity down) and ultimately hurts average Americans. Increasingly, Americans are realizing that most of our social and economic ills can be traced to a failure to follow our own Constitution. Ron Paul has always been a strict, unapologetic Constitutionalist. How Ron Paul would govern as president can be envisioned by simply reading Article II of the Constitution (The Executive Branch.)

When it comes to the science of government, this statement by John Adams makes a perfect starting point for any debate: "The form of government which communicates happiness to the greatest number of persons, and in the greatest degree, is best."

No matter what position an individual occupies on the political spectrum, this statement is very difficult to disagree with (unless one is an advocate of totalitarianism). Once we start debating exactly what people need in order to be happy, or how they can go about securing these needs, things get ugly.

Americans are fond of calling our country an "experiment in democracy" -- but what exactly was so "experimental" about it? Democracy, the Constitutional Republic, checks and balances, and an array of other ideas in the Constitutions were not new at all. In truth, nearly every mechanism in the Constitution was many centuries old (at least) and had been borrowed from past political thinkers.

What was experimental was the way in which power flowed (from the bottom up) and how people would go about securing what they needed in order to be happy. Provided that people did not harm or injure others, they were generally not to be bothered by government, and they were to have their civil and economic freedoms protected. The Founders theorized that when human problems were solved at the lowest and most localized level possible -- be that in the family, the township, the city, the county, or a state -- the aggregate human happiness would be the greatest. Only in cases where it was not feasible for the States to solve a particular problem on their own would these problems be elevated (via the Constitution) to the federal government. This bottom-up political system was known (until the advent of Progressivism in the early 20th century) as liberal democracy. We now loosely call it conservatism, or sometimes libertarianism.

To make their classical liberal democracy work, the Founders gave around twenty specific governmental powers to the federal government, all enumerated in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution. These power are as follows: to tax, spend, borrow, regulate interstate and international commerce, establish uniform rules of citizenship, write bankruptcy laws, coin and regulate the value of money, standardize weights and measures, punish counterfeiters, establish a postal system, pass copyright and patent laws, establish federal courts, punish crimes on the high seas, declare war, finance and raise an armed forces, set rules for the armed forces, call up state militias, administer the seat of government (Washington, D.C.), and administer federal lands. Lastly, Congress was then given the actual authority for passing laws to implement these specific powers. All other authority was reserved to the States and the People.

Why the media ignores Ron Paul

The media tries to pretend that Ron Paul does not exist, claiming that he is "extreme" or "crazy." The reason for this is very simple -- to acknowledge the legitimacy of Paul's ideas is to openly acknowledge how dangerous our national economic problems have actually become. This willful ignorance is known as Normalcy Bias, a primal fight-or-flight mental state which allows otherwise rational people to ignore danger. Notable examples of Normalcy Bias include the refusal of German Jews to flee prior to the Holocaust or the refusal of Americans to evacuate the Gulf Coast before Hurricane Katrina.

Ron Paul has proposed cutting one trillion dollars from the federal budget during his first year in office because it is mathematically unavoidable. If we do not make these cuts voluntarily now, we will be forced to make them later.

Ron Paul's statements on 9/11

Every candidate has their warts, and this is where Paul's blemishes show -- glaringly. Paul has consistently argued that American foreign policy was a contributing factor in the 9/11 attacks, and insists that the attackers were motivated by U.S. troop presence in Muslim lands. It does not matter (as Paul's most die-hard supporters argue) if Paul "has a point" -- these statements are akin to asking what a rape victim was doing or wearing at the time of an attack. There is nothing to be gained from them. Ron Paul needs to back off here (and so do his supporters). For some voters, these statements alone will be a deal-breaker at the ballot box. The upside here is that Paul is a known quantity on everything -- no one is ever left wondering what Ron Paul "really thinks."

Ron Paul on foreign policy

Ron Paul's foreign policy is actually very simple. The physical safety of individual Americans from foreign aggressors should come first. Paul extends to other nations the same basic principles that are applied to individuals -- all foreign nations should be treated equally, unless they cause harm or injury to the United States or her citizens. A strong defensive function should be maintained to disincentivize other nations from hurting or killing Americans. Ron Paul has insisted that war should be waged only when conditions meet all six criteria of the Just War Theory.

Why Ron Paul can beat Barack Obama

Even Ron Paul's detractors concede his anvil-like integrity and unflappable adherence to principle. Barack Obama, having nearly no accomplishments to run on, and deprived of everything but boogeyman arguments, will be forced into a drawn-out war of ideas against a cranky obstetrician with a Jeffersonian mastery of economics, history, philosophy, politics, and theology. In terms of honesty, intellect, and knowledge, Barack Obama has no hope of prevailing in a one-on-one debate against Ron Paul. Such a mismatch on live television would be amusing.

We as Americans are poised at a crossroads. In this race, Ron Paul truly stands alone in his efforts to preserve classical liberal democracy as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers. The Founders had a theory (which was very radical at the time) that individuals, even those of meager education and modest means, were better able to govern their own affairs than were "the wise." The vast majority of those in Washington now, both Republicans and Democrats, view themselves as being a part of "the wise" -- believing that they should govern the affairs of others.

Ron Paul believes, as the Founders did, that individuals can do a much better job governing their own selves, and should not be ruled over by government.

Jason McNew is a 38-year-old IT professional. He can be reached at jasond@mcnew.org.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/12/the_case_for_ron_paul.html at December 10, 2011 - 07:03:42 PM CST

#52 Lonestar

Lonestar

    Member

  • Members
  • 8 posts

Posted 12 December 2011 - 06:06 PM

Jason,
I want to commend you for your article. I have been leaning more and more towards supporting Dr. Paul. He is indeed the only true conservative in the pack and most certainly is the only one who will adhere to the Constitution. My hesitation to support him has been because of his foreign policy and the fact that Alex Jones and his followers support him. Newt and Mitt to me seem like Obama lite and I am not sure that will be good for us. I look forward to hearing others views on this.

#53 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 13 December 2011 - 01:33 AM

Good article Jason. I also am leaning towards Paul since I utterly despise Newt and Romney. Newt is a con artist, as is Romney. Santorum and Bachmann have character issues as well. They want to be President too badly. Perry is not so bad, but I find Paul to be more exciting. (I feel like poking the GOP in the eye for shoving in our faces one RINO after another while letting the conservatives rot.) It's incredible, since not too long ago I disliked Paul... but without a strong conservative in the race any more (Cain was a quitter, unfortunately), all the candidates have their own serious issues.

Ron Paul's chief problem is the one you expressed... His foreign policy and his blaming of the United States. He cites stuff like us allegedly "imposing" a "dictator" on Iran, nevermind that Mossadeq, whose name I probably misspell horribly, was backed by socialists and islamists, and the Shahs were modernizing their country, educating women and so forth. I don't think he has any real understanding of foreign policy or the problems that face us...

BUT, in theory a declaration of war and a strong Republican congress ought to keep him fighting. And, anyway, none of the other candidates understand Russia and China either.

Another issue is that his main supporters tend to be aliens from our standpoint. There are a lot of NWO-freaks who are reflexively anti-Israel and anti-U.S.. THIS DISTURBS ME GREATLY.

However, I do not know if this is an actual reflection of the man Ron Paul himself. If you could shed some light on that, I would be most grateful.

#54 IRISH

IRISH

    Member

  • Members
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 12:17 PM

Joe Scarborough Credits Ron Paul for Predicting the Housing Bubble
VIDEO:

Compare that to Newt's statement.

Ron Paul knows more about economics than everyone else on that stage put together.

#55 Backstop

Backstop

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 03:27 PM

There isn't a candidate alive that I agree with all his policies.

But this I know: Ron Paul is the only one who has the desire and motivation to turn this nation around from the financial brink.

No other candidate will do it, or even attempt it.

Honestly, I don't think it really matters.

Zero has pushed us so far down the sewer, there's little to no chance of recovery.

Please note I'm just talking about finances here.

#56 Guest_That One Guy_*

Guest_That One Guy_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 December 2011 - 04:13 PM

Sorry, but at this present moment in time, and because Cain dropped out; I'll still vote for Romney over Paul any day. Paul will put the nation at physical risk of war whereas Romney still understands national defense and won't close bases world-wide. While Romney is a pathetic socialist, he can still be kept in check on many other issues.

Paul also at the same time hasn't said anything about the Fed solution-wise except for having a radical "tear it down" mentality. This is dangerous thinking, as he also has a NWO-type and highly pushy cult following political base that will egg him on without much questioning of the consequences. Ok, tear it down. Then what? Who controls the country's monetary system, more corrupt politicians or some Czarist and bureaucratic unconstitutional group like the "Super Committee"? Nobody to this date still has an answer to this question.

Sorry, but Paul's still a joke to me. Herman Cain was it, but he got pushed out via Soviet tactics with trumped up stories originating from the USSA apparatchik.

#57 Backstop

Backstop

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 05:08 PM

Sorry, but at this present moment in time, and because Cain dropped out; I'll still vote for Romney over Paul any day.

I wouldn't vote for Romney if my life depended on it.

Plus, below you said Romney's a "pathetic Socialist."

You see his trends, yet you'll still vote for him.

That's difficult to see.

Paul will put the nation at physical risk of war whereas Romney still understands national defense and won't close bases world-wide. While Romney is a pathetic socialist, he can still be kept in check on many other issues.

Well, we're already at war.

On numerous fronts.

Paul has said numerous times, paraphrased: Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone. Attack us and we'll attack you.

I traveled the planet for 22 years doing the government's bidding. 20 years in the mil, and 2 as a civilian. I've seen it first hand.

Paul just may very well be on to something.

Paul also at the same time hasn't said anything about the Fed solution-wise except for having a radical "tear it down" mentality. This is dangerous thinking, as he also has a NWO-type and highly pushy cult following political base that will egg him on without much questioning of the consequences. Ok, tear it down. Then what? Who controls the country's monetary system, more corrupt politicians or some Czarist and bureaucratic unconstitutional group like the "Super Committee"? Nobody to this date still has an answer to this question.

I don't have answers either.

Sorry, but Paul's still a joke to me. Herman Cain was it, but he got pushed out via Soviet tactics with trumped up stories originating from the USSA apparatchik.

Cain most certainly did get slammed.

Apologies: this kinda looks like I'm hammering your position and/or looking for a debate.

Neither is true.

My position is that we're very close to the end.

Zero has done, and will continue to do, everything he can to bring this nation down. If he stays in office, we'll be toast within a few years.

If the GOP makes it to the White House, we're still toast, but it'll take longer. There really is little fundamental difference between the parties.

Paul is the only candidate who has a plan and who has the motivation to enact that plan; the only candidate who consistently supports the Constitution, and who can stop - or maybe just slow - our fall into Socialism.

And I'm sick and freaking tired of this "vote for the lesser evil" crap.

I'm finished with it, and I'll vote for the candidate who has the best plan, attitude, integrity, etc. to turn this nation around.

In my opinion, the 2012 election is do or die for the U.S.

Darn - my nose is bleeding. Guess I climbed up a little too high on this soapbox.

:D

#58 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:14 PM

I had an interesting dream last night. In the dream I was part of a gang, mostly young folks, well dressed, normal looking, and we invaded a store, tied up the respectable owners, and hid them away as we prepared to rob the place (all under the direction of some older man who I never saw, but had an idea of). However, customers came in, so we ended up playing the role of employees in the store. Eventually the store got so incredibly busy that we were all working and handling the store business as the store would ordinarily function. Talking with customers, selling the products, sweeping up, things like that. Finally, someone came in who realized we were frauds, called the police, and we were all arrested. It was a very disturbing dream for me, considering my evil actions in it.

I realized a little bit ago why I had it. Because I had been chatting and "fellow traveling" with the Paul folks. The themes of being manipulated by a shadowy figure, also of being ultimately counterfeit "employees" (Americans), were pretty heavy.

I'm reading a book right now, "I led 3 Lives", by Herbert Philbrick, a "counter spy" for the FBI who worked as an undercover Communist Party member for 9 years. (Started reading it just an hour or so ago.) Right now, in the book, he is discussing communist propaganda, from the communist "source" all the way down to the "non-communist" publications who all pushed, in their own subtle way, the same line of propaganda. This made me suddenly consider the plentiful support Paul has been getting from RTV, that Kremlin Mouthpiece, and also the isolationist view of the average brain dead Paulbot (not referencing any of our patriot friends here who also happen to be Paul supporters. I mean the real sickos with the NWO obsession and the cult-like passion). It's seems perfectly obvious to me that there is a good reason why Russia is pushing this American isolationist, NWO-conspiracist line of propaganda. It is fundamentally anti-American and dangerous to our interests. It even sets us up as "deserving" of a Russian "pre-emptive" strike, since the head of the Illuminati is in the United States.

After that dream and this reading to put my mind into perspective, it seems to me that we are just all around screwed. Newt is a conartist and I don't trust him to do anything productive for this country. The same with Romney. None of them truly understand Russia and China. On the other hand, we have a candidate who is willing to solve our economic decay, but might just be a free-gift to the enemy when it comes to foreign policy. Who knows how many "Libertarians" in high places have been subverted by the enemy.

In this book of mine, Philbrick was describing a conversation he had with a communist young gal after Hitler attacked the USSR. The words she spoke could have come from any Ron Paul supporter. Looking at this book and comparing its descriptions to present day events, the only difference between the zombie-like communists of Herb's time, and the power base of Ron Paul, is the libertarianism. Otherwise, the isolationism, the rhetoric, the behavior, the anti-Christian flavor, all of it is the same. I've spoken with quite a few Paul supporters who all tend to have the same behaviors and ideas. The theme is irreligious, anti-American, anti-Israel, isolationist, sometimes openly hostile to Christianity, and pushed by the "youth". (It would be interesting to see our Ron Paul supporter's reaction if Russia were to be attacked by some foreign country tomorrow. Would they switch positions just as quickly as the commies did in Herb's time?)

I respect our Paul supporters on this forum, and I actually see Paul as superior to Newt or Romney... But, it all feels rather dark and gloomy for me. On the one side, we can count ourselves numbered with a candidate backed by a bunch of NWO-cult members who have the same psychology as communists, who is also supported by Russian propagandists for whatever reason, or we can number ourselves with progressives and career liars. It seems to me God is setting us up for a fall.

I don't know if Paul, the man, is tied up into the NWO business, but they are certainly doing their best to tie support for Paul with the Alex-Jones type mentality.

More research into Kremlin-Ron Paul ties would be very useful.

#59 Backstop

Backstop

    Member

  • Members
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 December 2011 - 06:51 PM

Let me be clear here, and explain my position.

I’m not an absolute Paul supporter.

Matter of fact on some issues I think he’s nuttier than a fruitcake in July.

What I’m fairly convinced of is the first step of the Master Plan in taking us down is to destroy our finances, and Zero is quite possibly their vehicle.

The entire GOP clan is better but not by much. Is the GOP part of the Master Plan?

Possibly. Looking at the current crop of GOPers, they’re nothing more than Socialism Lite.

So in my opinion, the only person who has a plan that might stop the first step of the Master plan – to destroy our finances – is Ron Paul.

That really is the point I was trying to make in my posts #55 and #57.

...it seems to me that we are just all around screwed.

Truth be told, that's pretty much where I'm at.

Thanks for the info on the book. A B&N trip is in the works, and I'll check that out.

#60 Apollo5600

Apollo5600

    Member

  • Members
  • 994 posts

Posted 14 December 2011 - 07:01 PM

Again, no offense to any of our Ron Paul supporters on this forum. I also agree 100% with your assessment. When it comes down to it, I actually prefer Paul over Newt and Romney for precisely the same reasons you have mentioned. When I speak of the "Paul-Bots", I mean the ones with the odious anti-american opinions.

In my opinion, it is possible a Paul Presidency can be tolerated if we have a strong conservative congress who will provide those constitutional declarations of war and will resist any stupid actions against the military. In theory, this would be better than having a conservative congress that would probably lean leftward with a Newt or Romney administration. But this is a faith based thing, as a conservative congress probably would have no interest anyway in maintaining our nuclear weapons or in combating future Russian/Chinese threats.

It is also worth factoring in a possible Israel/Iran war prior to Obama leaving office. I do not know how far such a conflict would go. Perhaps none of our concerns will even matter, as our priorities will be set for us by coming events we have no control over.

And yes, so far the book is very good. It's a very old book though. You'd be better off ordering on Amazon.

Here is Philbrick from back during the good old days when being a Commie was still a bad word: