Ron Paul Facts

[tbrenke]

They all seem to be of the opinion that any republican is better than Obama, so therefore you should just shut up and support their guy.

I am a hard and fast Right wing CONSERVATIVE. I do belive that (most) any republican would be better than Oboma.

but I also belive that Ron Paul would be better than any of the curent canadates running.

 

[Fisherman]

I thought a lot of these were pretty funny!



Jesus wears a wrist band that says “What would Ron Paul Do?”

Not that one.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I think it's clear eye has read and heard plenty of things RP has written and said. I have too. What eye is saying in response to that is a valid concern IMO, since for the most part I share that oppinion. As a supporter of many things RP promotes I understand he can be wrong sometimes. Some of the founders were wrong on some issues too. They lived well before the concept of ICBMs or populations of infantry numbering in the millions with automatic rifles capable of precision hits.

I agree that the gov't shouldn't be involved in welfare at any level, however we find ourselves in a position due to the policies of men who died 60 years ago, that believed they were promoting the ideas of men who died 100 years before they were born. It would be more dangerous to all the inhabitants of the earth if we neglected to perform some of the functions of security the world has depended on us to perform.

Sound bites taken out of context. If you disagree with Ron Paul's semi-non-intervention stand point then use that as a valid argument point. But Eye for all his bluster about being honest and not insulting continues to try to be dishonest in using the term "isolationist", and anyone else who continues to do the same is using nothing but demagoguery and using the same anti tactics used by progressive socialist, for pushing their anti constitutional agenda, shame on them. It's exactly the same tactic as democratic ads showing republicans pushing old ladies off a cliff in a wheel chair.

Ron Paul isn't an Isolationism, because he believes in the capitalist system of free trade with all nations. If anybody was interested they would take the time to read his material to find out where he truly stands. Instead of just bashing him and people who agree with him as 'whackadoodle' or whatever derogatory term they want to come up with because, finally there is a valid threat to their precious, pretend party of the fake right.

 

[PracticalTactical]

We should try to not be too hard on the anti-Paul folks. It's not really their fault.

Paul drives older people on the Internet nuts because he is far and away the frontrunner candidate among 18-29 year olds. Most people in that age bracket don't read newspapers or watch cable news.

Most traditional news outlets are bought and paid for by people heavily invested in the status quo, and therefore will push against people like Paul by dismissing him as isolationist, scaring people about the supposed ills of a gold standard, and other such equine fecal matter.

When a heavily propaganda-soaked individual encounters people who got their ideas from independent sources, it's downright frightening to them. "Everybody knows that's wrong because __________ from the TV box said so." they think to themselves.

The difference between now and 20 years ago is that non-establishment information is readily available as it never before has been.

 

[DangerClose]

The difference between now and 20 years ago is that non-establishment information is readily available as it never before has been.

The power of the internet will set the world free. Maybe that's why they're working on Internet2.

Ron Paul was on Fox News Sunday today. Most of the show was hurricane coverage, so of course when he comes on they hit him with, "We just had the head of FEMA on talking about how they're going to help the hurricane people. You want to get rid of FEMA, right?" haha. Paul went on to mention how even in government circles FEMA is known as huge waste and bureaucracy, how they often screw up bad like for Katrina, how the U.S. is broke and has no extra money to give FEMA anyway, and how FEMA distorts the market and insures people on beaches and other dangerous areas when private insurance won't and then when disaster happens FEMA goes in to rescue them.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Sound bites taken out of context. If you disagree with Ron Paul's semi-non-intervention stand point then use that as a valid argument point. But Eye for all his bluster about being honest and not insulting continues to try to be dishonest in using the term "isolationist", and anyone else who continues to do the same is using nothing but demagoguery and using the same anti tactics used by progressive socialist, for pushing their anti constitutional agenda, shame on them. It's exactly the same tactic as democratic ads showing republicans pushing old ladies off a cliff in a wheel chair.

Ron Paul isn't an Isolationism, because he believes in the capitalist system of free trade with all nations. If anybody was interested they would take the time to read his material to find out where he truly stands. Instead of just bashing him and people who agree with him as 'whackadoodle' or whatever derogatory term they want to come up with because, finally there is a valid threat to their precious, pretend party of the fake right.

You decry the demagoguery against RP, but flippantly accuse people of trying to promote some self interest in protecting a "fake right". You mean you find nothing valid in the concern that RP could take "non-intervention" too far? In spite of my support of most of RP's domestic agenda, and even my agreement that we need to curtail some of our foriegn endeavors. I am not going to promote his nomination over people I believe would be the more effective leaders in advancing the conservative agenda. I saw RP's latest performance in the debate. I took nothing out of context. I was less than impressed by what could easily be percieved as a befuddled old man out of his league on a couple occassions. He was stammering about the moral superiority of allowing evil regimes to do whatever they want. Santorum's "Iran isn't Iceland Ron" was probably the funniest rebuttal because it's true.

If RP is the nominee, I'll put his stickers on my car and support him. I seriously doubt he will be. I hope RP's staunchest supporters will see the wisdom in supporting any candidate that opposes the moonbat messiah.

 

[DangerClose]

I am not going to promote his nomination over people I believe would be the more effective leaders in advancing the conservative agenda.

Wouldn't that be the neoconservative agenda?

 

[PrayingForWar]

Wouldn't that be the neoconservative agenda?

No, because "neoconservative" is a bull$#!t buzzword coined by leftists to demonize "moderate" republicans. If Bush Jr is the model for "neocons", which all the bed wetters I know tell me he is, then you have to dismiss all the liberal nonsense he signed into law, or never opposed in order to imply he was a real conservative.

I would have thought I was clear enough that RP is promoting the conservative agenda, but that there are other contenders that might be more effective in that endeavor even if they don't mirror what RP promotes to the paulbot's satisfaction.

 

[DangerClose]

No, because "neoconservative" is a bull$#!t buzzword coined by leftists to demonize "moderate" republicans. If Bush Jr is the model for "neocons", which all the bed wetters I know tell me he is, then you have to dismiss all the liberal nonsense he signed into law, or never opposed in order to imply he was a real conservative.

Well, a common and broad example of neoconservatives are Republicans who are for big government and U.S. globalism (nation building).

Here's a few sentences from Ron Paul about wars and conservatism. Btw, if anyone has never seen this "Stop Dreaming" video before, check it out. One of the best Ron Paul compilations I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Bfz4qf_rA&feature=player_detailpage#t=250s

 

[PrayingForWar]

Well, a common and broad example of neoconservatives are Republicans who are for big government and U.S. globalism (nation building).

Here's a few sentences from Ron Paul about wars and conservatism. Btw, if anyone has never seen this "Stop Dreaming" video before, check it out. One of the best Ron Paul compilations I've ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3Bfz4qf_rA&feature=player_detailpage#t=250s

We call big government "republicans" RINOs for a reason. Your revulsion against "globalism" is reactionary. Have you even contemplated the possibility some of the founders intended to promote republican principles world wide. You do know that Tom Paine was incarcerated and almost killed in France right? Was he a "globalist"? Were Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin "globalists?

 

[PracticalTactical]

We call big government "republicans" RINOs for a reason. Your revulsion against "globalism" is reactionary. Have you even contemplated the possibility some of the founders intended to promote republican principles world wide. You do know that Tom Paine was incarcerated and almost killed in France right? Was he a "globalist"? Were Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin "globalists?

Paine didn't bring the armed forces with him to France. Apples and oranges, as they say.

 

[DangerClose]

Have you even contemplated the possibility some of the founders intended to promote republican principles world wide.

Were Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin "globalists?

Promoting Republican principles world wide via military and war?

The subject is nation building, and you bring up Thomas Jefferson? This Thomas Jefferson?

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."
"Do what is right, leaving the people of Europe to act their follies and crimes among themselves,"
"No one nation has a right to sit in judgment over another."
"I am decidedly of opinion we should take no part in European quarrels,"
" I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, "
"we shall avoid implicating ourselves with the powers of Europe, even in support of principles which we mean to pursue. They have so many other interests different from ours, that we must avoid being entangled in them."

Anyway, call it what you want, most of the other "conservative" candidates are for not being so conservative when it comes to putting American soldiers in other countries.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

You decry the demagoguery against RP, but flippantly accuse people of trying to promote some self interest in protecting a "fake right". You mean you find nothing valid in the concern that RP could take "non-intervention" too far? In spite of my support of most of RP's domestic agenda, and even my agreement that we need to curtail some of our foriegn endeavors. I am not going to promote his nomination over people I believe would be the more effective leaders in advancing the conservative agenda. I saw RP's latest performance in the debate. I took nothing out of context. I was less than impressed by what could easily be percieved as a befuddled old man out of his league on a couple occassions. He was stammering about the moral superiority of allowing evil regimes to do whatever they want. Santorum's "Iran isn't Iceland Ron" was probably the funniest rebuttal because it's true.

If RP is the nominee, I'll put his stickers on my car and support him. I seriously doubt he will be. I hope RP's staunchest supporters will see the wisdom in supporting any candidate that opposes the moonbat messiah.

Again read carefully who's words I was "decrying" (hint I put his name in his post). And what you called flippant was done on purpose, seemed to have worked :lol:. I stand by my fake right comment, and yes those who insist on standing by and protecting their fake right do have self interests in mind. I listed a few of those too.

No I am not concerned RP will take it too far, I am not a Paulbot or even very political. But having read what he has wrote and where he stands I understand that he won't take it "too far". Again he wasn't the best "speaker" in the debate, but tell me what constitutional authority grants any president to do anything in foreign affairs with out provocation first?

 

[okboomer]

And even if a President sends troops, he still has to have it pass a vote in congress to continue. That is the brake supplied by the constitution ... if it is a just use of American troops, then the public, through congress will sustain the action, if not, congress can then recall the troops.

All that is 'out the window' in regards to the USMC, who take oath with the President of the United States, not to the constitution as the Army, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. Even now, me and the ex have been out of service since early 1980's but when he has a problem with getting records, he still has the option of "Request Mast" all the way to the President and he will be heard.

So far, Inhofe is providing the needed leverage, but an earlier issue resulted in a personal letter from the Commondant of the USMC, a letter from the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and got St. Louis off their butts and the documents received.

Now, there are still ways around congressional support, such as the NATO action Clinton had to resort to during the Serbian issue. Not only were American troops the main force there, our 'consultants' were there also.

 

[Brass Magnet]

Another new Ron Paul Fact

Politicians kiss babies; babies kiss Ron Paul

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Politicians kiss babies; babies kiss Ron Paul

Maybe that's because he has successfully delivered so many. Imagine that a politician who had a real job at one time. And was successful at it.

 

[KBCraig]

Politicians kiss babies; babies kiss Ron Paul

 

[since9]

Promoting Republican principles world wide via military and war?

The subject is nation building, and you bring up Thomas Jefferson? This Thomas Jefferson?

...


"I am decidedly of opinion we should take no part in European quarrels,"

...

Anyway, call it what you want, most of the other "conservative" candidates are for not being so conservative when it comes to putting American soldiers in other countries.

So long as wars were fought in the manner of the Revolutionary War, we could afford to sit back. With the rise of the industrial age came the ability to wage war on a massive scale.

He also wrote, as per your quote:

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto."

How much commerce do you think might have taken place had Hitler occupied the UK as he did France, Austria, and half a dozen other countries?

 

[Daylen]

Ron Paul was the hat maker in Wonderland.