Public Service Announcement: A Real American

[thrash]

Apologies for the OT-ness of this post. I suspect it may generate some controversy, (which I'm not necessarily against, but that is not my intent this time )

The aim of this message is to raise awareness. Hopefully a few people will be introduced to ideas or a personality that they're unfamiliar with.

The title of this thread is "Public Service Announcement". Remember when Public Servants actually served the public? When was the last time any of your elected officals behaved the way you wanted people to think of Americans, or of you?

Do You Want to Know About a Presidential Candidate Who:

• Never voted to raise taxes
• Never voted for an unbalanced budget
• Never voted to raise congressional pay
• Voted against the Iraq war
• Voted against the Patriot Act
• Voted against every bill contrary to or prohibited by the U.S. Constitution

In addition:

• he has never taken a government paid junket
• he is not accepting a government pension
• he returns a portion of the office budget every year
• he is Washington's leading advocate for civil rights, liberty & freedom
• he was voted Taxpayer's Best Friend
• he is Pro-Life, Pro-Liberty, & Pro-Family
• in over 40 years as congressman, he has the most consistent voting record among all members of Congress

And most importantly, he is a proven, dependable conservative who is for a smaller federal government, less spending, less taxes, & more freedom and privacy for the individual.

In spite of all this, Ron Paul gets almost no traditional media attention, but he's amazingly popular on the internet. Perhaps it's only natural that in a medium where publishing is accessible to the common man, and normal people have "a voice" (the internet), Ron Paul stands head and shoudlers as the politican people are talking about and are interested in.

If you're unfamiliar with Ron Paul, please visit the following websites:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

The more people read about Congressman Paul, the more people usually like him.

And if reading about him isn't enough, you can see him speaking in countless youtube videos -- including when he addresses the House of Representatives:

http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Ron+Paul

I've been interested in Paul for a long time, but it recently occured to me that there are too many people that have never heard of him. When normal people hear what he has to say, they often like it. So the challenge to me and other supporters of Ron Paul is -- let's get more people to hear what he has to say!

Thanks,
Matt

[Jim]

"advocating a withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations."

"He has called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and the federal income tax"

Errr.... yeah. I heard this guy on the radio, sounds like sort of a nutcase...

[Jim]

Also what you don't mention is that:

Ron Paul is:

Against Universal Heathcare;
Against gay marriage;
Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);
Against embryonic stem cell research;
Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;
Against a minimum wage increase;
Against a path to citizenship for illegals;
Against gun purchase background checks;
Against an assault weapons ban;
Against "No Child Left Behind";
Against Internet neutrality;
For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

I'm not saying i'm for or against any of these, but just to be fair...

[HandoEX]

Jim;181926 wrote:
Also what you don't mention is that:

Ron Paul is:

Against Universal Heathcare;
Against gay marriage;
Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);
Against embryonic stem cell research;
Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;
Against a minimum wage increase;
Against a path to citizenship for illegals;
Against gun purchase background checks;
Against an assault weapons ban;
Against "No Child Left Behind";
Against Internet neutrality;
For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

I'm not saying i'm for or against any of these, but just to be fair...

:patriot:
Sounds great to me.

[Jim]

Haha I think we all know the political stance of everybody on here, going back like 3 years now lol:icon_cheers:

[thrash]

Jim;181926 wrote:
Also what you don't mention is that:

Ron Paul is:

Against Universal Heathcare;

well, thats pretty consistent with a small-government point of view, wouldn't you say? also, given that he's a DOCTOR, maybe we ought to pay attention to what he thinks about government and medicine?

Against gay marriage;

I'm not sure this is accurate. He's against rights for "groups", as they often cost individuals their individual rights. Why not read it from Ron's own office at the House of Representatives?

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst050707.htm

it's very easy to make a one-line statement saying he is for or against something, but his position almost always derives from "the constitution doesn't allow the federal government to decide on that" or "it makes the government more powerful, at the expense of the individual"

Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);

His position is more nuanced than that. As someone that has delivered over 4000 babies (he's an OB/GYN), he's stated that he's never once seen a case where an abortion was medically necessary. He finds it personally reprehensible. That said, what he finds detestable is different than what the law of the land is or should be.

He actually thinks that the federal government doesn't have the authority to decide on abortion, or to over-rule a states opinion on the matter. I'd suggest you do some more research on his position before distilling it down to a "yes or no" statement.

Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;

Don't you think it's a little suspicious that the Kyoto treaty wants CO2 emissions returned to ~1990 levels? Could that have anything to do with the fact the economies of Europe and many of the other ratifiers completely tanked during the 90s while America boomed? And given that "pre-industrialized" nations are exempted entirely, I might make the arguement that Kyoto is the rest of the world doing little more than ganging up on the US.

And in any case, libertarians generally do not recognzie the interests or opinions of other nations on how we run our own -- which is why we're against UN and NATO involvement as well.

Against a minimum wage increase;

If he's like most libertarians, he's against the minimum wage entirely. It is an artificial intervention into the market that hurts people at the fringes of employability.

Against a path to citizenship for illegals;

Isn't there already a path to citizenship for anyone in the US? it's called -- applying for citizenship?

Against gun purchase background checks;
Against an assault weapons ban;

Ron Paul, like most libertarians, understands that the 2nd amendment is the one that guarantees the other 9. Weaken the 2nd, and the other 9 follow.

The 2nd amendment is not about preserving hobbies of sportsmen. It is the tool that lets people overthrow governments that have come unglued and have lost the trust of the citizens. And it is the threat of this conclusion that keeps governments accountable to the populace in the mean time (which is why congressmen -- many of whom have armed secret service guards -- are so eager to axe gun rights. More control and protection for "them", less for you and me)

Against "No Child Left Behind";

Of course - he thinks that the federal government should have no involvement in education whatsoever. How come Americans keep getting dumber even though we spend more per child at the federal level than anybody else? How come private school taught children do better on tests even though private school teachers get paid less than their public school peers? And how come home-schooled children do better on standardized tests (which they've never had to practice or take growing up, unlike public school kids) than both groups?

Against Internet neutrality;

Said another way, Ron Paul is against governments meddling with how businesses conduct business on the internet. Think through the implications of a government that regulated internet prices and traffic. Is that what you really want? I don't like Verizon or whoever having any say in how the internet works.. but one entity i like having even less say is the federal government. A government that is capable of measuring that company is violating net neutrality is capable of doing a lot of other things to the internet. Are you sure you've thought this through enough?

For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

Do you like funding Islamic terrorism with imported oil and gas? I don't. Let's look for oil in places that aren't exporting just as much Jihad as they are oil.

I'm not saying i'm for or against any of these, but just to be fair...

There's nothing unfair about explaining more of what Ron Paul stands for.. . thanks for staying reasonably objective. I've tried to explain or add nuance to some of the statements you've made.

I didn't try to describe his "positions" earlier, only his voting record and history.

I also don't want to claim to speak for Ron Paul -- if you're curious about what he does or doesn't think, please try and read it fromthe horse's mouth as much as possible.

My goal here isn't to get you to agree with me on this thread, it's to make sure that if you don't know what Ron Paul stands for, that you go and find out to see if he's someone you could support.

[thrash]

Jim;181924 wrote:
"advocating a withdrawal from NATO and the United Nations."

"entangling alliances with none"

If that quote isn't familiar, please go look it up.

"He has called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service and the federal income tax"

With good reason, to. A federal government with less money can't afford to go around playing world police, can it? Never mind that the reason many families are 2-income households is that a majority of the 2nd earners income goes to paying federal income tax for the family. The Federal Income Tax is literally destroying the american family. And what are we buying with our money?

Errr.... yeah. I heard this guy on the radio, sounds like sort of a nutcase...

I'm glad you agree that he doesn't sound like anyone else in Washington. I think that's a *good * thing.

He's well published, well educated, and has been serving his home district as a congressmen for a long time. In that time, he's stayed true to the original principles of the United States experiment, and has not fallen prey to the corruption and waffling that seems to infect everyone else that spends too much time in DC.

The other representatives that work with him don't think he's a nutcase. They generally respect him for being absolutely 100% principled and committed to the US constitution. They call him "Dr. No" because he votes "NO" on almost everything (because almost everything coming up for vote is an expansion of federal power or an affront to the constitution)

[DaveH]

I agree with a lot of what he stands for, but right now if you aren't a Dem or a Rep you don't have a chance. If things keep going like they are I'll guess that a real 3rd party may rise up enough to be a contender in the next 10 years or so.

[Turbo5Oh]

• Voted against the Iraq war

just lost my vote.

[Guest]

Jim;181926 wrote:
Also what you don't mention is that:

Ron Paul is:

Against Universal Heathcare;
Against gay marriage;
Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);
Against embryonic stem cell research;
Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;
Against a minimum wage increase;
Against a path to citizenship for illegals;
Against gun purchase background checks;
Against an assault weapons ban;
Against "No Child Left Behind";
Against Internet neutrality;
For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

I'm not saying i'm for or against any of these, but just to be fair...

Universal Healthcare...depends on how it will be implemented to determine if I'm in favor or not.

Gay Marriage...Taking God out of the equation (seperation of church & state) I can se no reason why gay people can not be legally married (or some other term that means the same as marriage)

Pro Choice...IMO Abortion should not be a form of birth control, but I am not 100% against all abortions.

Stem Cell research...if the cells are being destroyed anyway, why not use them for something beneficial? Should we get rid of organs donated from organ donors then too since they are just going to die and be buried anyway.

Koyoto Treaty...I'm not educated on the subject enough to pose an argument for or against.

Minimum Wage...minimum wage should be a living wage. If you can't live on minimum wage w/o gov't assistance its a worthless number. Min Wage should be increased.

Citizenship...if you came here illegally to find work, you are in violation of the law and should face exportation. Period. Millions of people come to this country legally every year, there is no reason why our neighbors to the south can't do so as well.

Background checks...are a must. I'm ok with anyone w/ a decent background owning a gun, but if you have a record that would indicate that you may cause harm with the gun, then I say hell no you can't have one.

Assault weapons...define assault weapon first. I use my AK47 for deer hunting, but I don't think fully automatice weapons should be handed out to just anyone w/o proper credentials/training.

No Child Left Behind...this bill should GO AWAY FAST. Cutting funding for schools that aren't up to the standards? How about allocating money to them for school improvements instead? For example, if a school that is designated as a school for the mentally challenged fails to meet the criteria set forth by the gov't they can lose funding...seems fair at first, until you realize that those schools are expected to perform as well as schools for "normal" kids. Tell me how that is fair

Internet Neutrality...this is a needed bill IMHO. Keeps ISP's from monopolizing on their own services.

ANWR Drilling...as long as the rig is not in the ANWR I am ok with it, for example, if they do some variation of horizontal drilling from a long ways away, I am ok with removing the oil under the ANWR.

Ok...answered Jims points....will have to give my views on Thrash's in a bit.

[Guest]

more info on Ron Paul and his voting:

*  Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) 

*  Government out of regulating economy & out of our bedrooms. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
* Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000) 

*  Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
* Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
* Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)
* Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration. (Jun 2003)
* Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
* Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
* Rated 67% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002) 

*  Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
* Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 46% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record. (Dec 2003) 

*  Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)
* Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
* Rated 60% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (Dec 2000) 

*  Legalize industrial hemp. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
* Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)
* War on Drugs has abused Bill of Rights . (Dec 2000)
* Legalize medical marijuana. (Jul 2001)
* Rated A by VOTE-HEMP, indicating a pro-hemp voting record. (Dec 2003) 

*  Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
* Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)
* Voted NO on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror. (Nov 2001)
* Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
* Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
* Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public education. (Dec 2003)
* Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997) 

*  Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)
* Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
* Voted NO on passage of the Bush Administration national energy policy. (Jun 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing Bush-Cheney national energy policy. (Nov 2003)
* Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)
* Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
* Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001) 

*  Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)
* Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes. (Dec 2003) 

*  Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
* Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003) 

*  Our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests. (Jun 2007)
* Bush mistake: ran on humble foreign policy; now runs empire. (Jun 2007)
* Non-intervention is traditional American & Republican policy. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on reforming the UN by restricting US funding. (Jun 2005)
* Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)
* Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
* Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
* Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
* Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)
* Ban foreign aid to oil-producers who restrict production. (May 2001) 

*  Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
* Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998)
* No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
* End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)
* Rated 76% by CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002) 

*  Close departments of Energy, Education & Homeland Security. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)
* Voted YES on protecting whistleblowers from employer recrimination. (Mar 2007)
* Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)
* Voted NO on restricting independent grassroots political committees. (Apr 2006)
* Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits about obesity against food providers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)
* Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)
* Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)
* Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
* Limit federal power, per the 10th Amendment. (Dec 2000)
* Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000) 

*  Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
* Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003)
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000)
* Rated A by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record. (Dec 2003) 

*  Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on denying non-emergency treatment for lack of Medicare co-pay. (Feb 2006)
* Voted NO on limiting medical malpractice lawsuits to $250,000 damages. (May 2004)
* Voted NO on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients. (Nov 2003)
* Voted YES on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on small business associations for buying health insurance. (Jun 2003)
* Voted NO on capping damages & setting time limits in medical lawsuits. (Mar 2003)
* Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
* Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
* Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 56% by APHA, indicating a mixed record on public health issues. (Dec 2003)

[Guest]

• Pre-emptive war is not part of the American tradition. (Jun 2007)

  • DHS is unmanageable bureaucracy--eliminate it. (May 2007)

  • Military aggressiveness weakens our national defense. (May 2007)

  • Be cautious about warrantless searches & habeas corpus. (May 2007)

  • Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)

  • Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)

  • Voted YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts. (Mar 2007)

  • Voted NO on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant. (Sep 2006)

  • Voted NO on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

  • Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

  • Voted YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. (Feb 2005)

  • Voted NO on supporting new position of Director of National Intelligence. (Dec 2004)

  • Voted NO on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Apr 2003)

  • Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)

  • Voted NO on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)

  • Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)

  • End draft registration; all-volunteer forces . (Dec 2000)

  • Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)

  • Rated 67% by SANE, indicating a mixed record on military issues. (Dec 2003)

  • No amnesty, but border fence isn't so important. (Jun 2007)

  • We subsidize illegal immigration, so we get more. (Jun 2007)

  • Keep rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)

  • Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

  • Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

  • Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)

  • Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

  • Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)

  • Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

  • Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

  • Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)

  • Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)

  • Member of the Congressional Rural Caucus. (Jan 2001)

  • Rated 47% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a mixed record on union issues. (Dec 2003)

  • The champion of the Constitution. (Jun 2007)

  • Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state. (Jun 2007)

  • Given epithet "Dr. No" by colleagues in Congress. (Jan 2007)

  • Religious affiliation: Protestant. (Nov 2000)

  • Member of the Republican Liberty Caucus. (Dec 2000)

  • Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable. (May 2001)

  • Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)

  • Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

  • Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

  • Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)

  • Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007)

  • Campaign slogan in 2004: The Taxpayers' Best Friend. (Jan 2007)

  • Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)

  • Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)

  • Voted YES on making permanent an increase in the child tax credit. (May 2004)

  • Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

  • Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

  • Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

  • Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

  • Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

  • Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)

  • Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)

  • Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

  • Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)

  • Rated 89% by NTU, indicating a "Taxpayer's Friend" on tax votes. (Dec 2003)

  • Trusts the Internet a lot more than the mainstream media. (May 2007)

  • Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

  • Voted NO on increasing fines for indecent broadcasting. (Feb 2005)

  • Voted YES on promoting commercial human space flight industry. (Nov 2004)

  • Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

  • Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access. (Feb 2002)

  • We're more threatened now by staying in Iraq. (Jun 2007)

  • Stop policing Iraq's streets; have Iraqis take over. (Jun 2007)

  • We should have declared war in Iraq, or not gone in at all. (May 2007)

  • Ronald Reagan had the courage to turn tail & run in Lebanon. (May 2007)

  • Intervention abroad incites hatred & attacks like 9/11. (May 2007)

  • When we go to war carelessly, the wars don't end. (May 2007)

  • Voted against war because Iraq was not a national threat. (May 2007)

  • Opposes Iraq war and opposes path toward Iran war. (Jan 2007)

  • Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days. (May 2007)

  • Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted NO on approving removal of Saddam & valiant service of US troops. (Mar 2004)

  • Voted NO on authorizing military force in Iraq. (Oct 2002)

  • Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

  • Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006)

  • Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)

  • Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001)

  • Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)

  • Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

[Guest]

[Guest]

All things considered, he is not a bad candidate. No one, besides me, could ever be right on every issue.

[StangerBanger96]

tjamz;181957 wrote:
Background checks...are a must. I'm ok with anyone w/ a decent background owning a gun, but if you have a record that would indicate that you may cause harm with the gun, then I say hell no you can't have one.

Assault weapons...define assault weapon first. I use my AK47 for deer hunting, but I don't think fully automatice weapons should be handed out to just anyone w/o proper credentials/training.

Background checks already required so I don't see why this is even an issue.

Assault weapons are a clever word devised by Democrats to try make AK47's, AR15's, Uzi's, etc. sound like they are fully automatic rifles capable of mass destruction. What they fail to tell people is the fact that Fully Automatic weapons have been illegal to own by John Doe/Jane Doe since the 1930's without a Class 3 weapons license which includes accepting random searches of your home and a several hundred dollar per gun tax.

Alls the AWB ban dealt with was how a gun looked, not how it operated.

Oh and Fred Thompson 08

[Colin]

Jim;181926 wrote:
Also what you don't mention is that:

Ron Paul is:

Against Universal Heathcare;
Against gay marriage;
Against a woman’s right to choose (Abortion Rights);
Against embryonic stem cell research;
Against the Kyoto Treaty on the environment;
Against a minimum wage increase;
Against a path to citizenship for illegals;
Against gun purchase background checks;
Against an assault weapons ban;
Against "No Child Left Behind";
Against Internet neutrality;
For Alaska National Wildlife Reserve oil drilling;

I'm not saying i'm for or against any of these, but just to be fair...

Universal healthcare universally sucks. no one has made it work. If someone could simply get rid of liability lawsuits, healthcare would be affordable. If you choose a doctor that messes up, it's your fault you chose him/her.

Gay marriage. Let anyone marry and fuck whoever they can. last time i checked we had the right to choose anything we want.

Against the right to choose. I'm all for this. Abortion should be illegal because theres never a reason for it. If the birth of a child endangers kills the mother or vise versa, it's the way it was supposed to be. If you don't want a child you shouldnt' be having sex. If you got raped, you were probably asking for it. I would suggest taking more precautions and not stubbling through an alley @ 2am drunk as fuck. If you don't want a child, give birth then kill it with a hammer. It's cheaper. Or try putting it up for adoption. either or

Embryonic research. I think it's a waste of time. If doctors want to research something, they should research how to reset broken bones more effectively, or work on better surgery preformance. Stop trying to cure diseases/viruses. They are a part of the system of life on this planet. The more diseases we cure, the worse diseases nature will throw at us. Plus, the population needs leaning.

I don't now enough about the treaty to comment

Minimum wage is a retards way of getting out of the basement. If you want better pay, work harder, or get an education. A few years of actually having to earn your pay might do this country good.

Fuck illegals. If you can't hack it in your country and you can't get here through proper channels, you should be here and fucking things up for those of us lucky enough to be born here.

Backround checks shouldn't be mandatory. A responsable gun seller would do them anyway, but they shouldn't be the law. Also, the gun sellers should have the right to refuse sale for any fucking reason they want. This goes for all stores.

Assault weapons. Should be sold, at first they'd be used for crime, then everyone and they're mothered be packing. You try robbing a bank where every gaurd has a sub machine gun, or breaking into a house when theres a good chanve of and uzi in the bedroom

No child left behind is the most ignorant idea to ever grace a school. second is mandatory enrollment. Stupid people should be able to wallow in their ignorance and die of stupidity.

The internet should not be governed. period

Alaskan drilling. Screw that. it's pretty up there. Quit being little peace keeping bitches, conquer all of the middle east worth having and drill the fuck out of their ugly country. If history shows us anything, it's that all major powers fall. We should be enjoying the power that we have while we have it. Not dicking around in other peoples problems. Does anyone out there really believe that China won't become militerized before they go democratic? because I'll be my left testicle they'll have no qualms about taking whatever they can when they do.

hows that?

[amicheze]

DaveH;181942 wrote:
I agree with a lot of what he stands for, but right now if you aren't a Dem or a Rep you don't have a chance. If things keep going like they are I'll guess that a real 3rd party may rise up enough to be a contender in the next 10 years or so.

The way our electoral system works, it will ALWAYS naturally boil down to two main parties. In order for a different party to become a real contender, either the Republican or Democratic party will have to basically dissolve.

[thrash]

DaveH;181942 wrote:
I agree with a lot of what he stands for, but right now if you aren't a Dem or a Rep you don't have a chance. If things keep going like they are I'll guess that a real 3rd party may rise up enough to be a contender in the next 10 years or so.

The good news is that he is running as Republican. Infact, his house seats in texas were won as a republican who DIDNT get the official republican nomination (or something like that).

He's a libertarian ideologically, which means he's got a lot of overlap with fiscal republicans and anti-war democrats. The current guys calling themselves republicans have left a lot of us wanting.

Ron is going head to head with Guiliani and the other republicans in the republican primaries. In straw polls, he's doing really, really well.

Ron isn't new to this -- he was one of the first people to endorse Reagan back in 1980 and ran for president on the LP ticket in 1988; he's been in and out of politics (always returning to his medical practice) for a while now.

He polls very badly in phone polls of traditional republicans - nobody has heard of him.

I'm saying -- if you think the guy is interesting, and you think Washington could use a reshuffle... and you think the constitution is a pretty good idea.. get the word out about Ron Paul. Not everyone that hears about him will vote for him.. but people that have never heard about him definitely WONT vote for him.

[JohnW]

Colin;181984 wrote:
If you got raped, you were probably asking for it. I would suggest taking more precautions and not stubbling through an alley @ 2am drunk as fuck.

Wow... just.... wow.

[thrash]

tjamz -- thanks for the awesome links. What I like is that on some of them you can click-through to what he's said. Take stem cells, for instance:

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
A: Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC May 3, 2007

Or on Iraq / War

Q: You're one of 6 House Republicans in 2002 who voted against authorizing Pres. Bush to use force in Iraq.
A: Right.

Q: Now you say we should pull our troops out?

A: In 2002, I offered an amendment to declare war, up or down. Nobody voted for the war. And my argument there was, if we want to go to war, the Congress should declare it. We don't go to war like we did in Vietnam and Korea, because the wars never end. And I argued the case and made the point that it would be a quagmire if we go in.

Q: You voted against the war. Why are all your fellow Republicans up here wrong?
A: You might ask the question, why are 70% of the American people now wanting us out of there? I tried very hard to solve this problem before we went to war by saying, "Declare war if you want to go to war. Go to war, fight it and win it, but don't get into it for political reasons or to enforce U.N. resolutions or pretend the Iraqis were a national threat to us.

Q [to Paul]: You are the only man on the stage who opposes the war in Iraq. Are you out of step with your party? Or is your party out of step with the rest of the world?
PAUL: I think the party has lost its way, because the conservative wing of the Republican Party always advocated a noninterventionist foreign policy. There's a strong tradition of being anti-war in the Republican party. It is the constitutional position. It is the advice of the Founders to follow a non-interventionist foreign policy, and stay out of entangling alliances, be friends with countries, negotiate and talk with them and trade with them. Just think of the tremendous improvement in relationships with Vietnam. We lost 60,000 men [during the Vietnam war]. We came home in defeat. Now we go over there and invest in Vietnam. So there's a lot of merit to the advice of the Founders and following the Constitution. And my argument is that we shouldn't go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don't end.

RP isn't your usual poltical anti-war pussy. He was drafted into the air force during vietnam as a flight surgeon. He was on active duty in multiple theaters during the vietnam war (although not actually in Vietnam). All libertarians are 100% against the draft, but unlike other guys back then, he didn't dodge and actually served.

He's been against the War from the beginning because he doesn't think it's going to make the US any safer, and it's going to cost a lot of US lives in the meantime, and because the way we went into it was unconstitutional -- congress didn't make a full declaration of war.

It's not that he's against getting the bad guys -- he actually introduced something fascinating as a bill precisely to go get OBL (of course, nobody went for it).

Students of naval history may remember "Letters of Marque". Prior to the modern british royal navy, the monarch's of various nations would give certain sailors "letters of marque", which was basically government condoned piracy to combat piracy. The rewards taken from pirates were held in escrow and split with the crown.

George Washington financed several privateer expieditions; many of the wealthiest colonists made their living by basically being naval bounty hunters.

Ron thinks that system could work again. The US military cannot go trapsing all over the world looking for a handful of guys. We can't go violating national borders; there's the issue of all the money it would cost us, and all kinds of other problems. Finally, there's no way for the entire damn army to sneak into afghanistan un-noticed 3 months after we said that we were going to do it. OBL had plenty of time to go hide in Pakistan.

But imagine if we extended the bail-bondsman concept to extra-national matters. IOW, pay a bounty for bringing back OBL -- under strict rules and procedures, of course, and let private organizations have a go at tracking him down and bringing him back.

I just read about it last nite -- its a pretty wild idea, but it has lots of historcal precedence.

Our founders thought Letters of Marque useful enough to include Congressional authority To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution.

Here's the text of the bill he introduced:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.+3076:_blank

And some discussion/background:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/fisk5.html

Personally, I'd love it if some company setup an expedition to go track down OBL for a share of the bounty money. I'd invest in that company for sure.