Why Ron Paul?

My friend Chris wrote this:

"Obama is about to "ask" for another debt limit increase of $1.2 trillion, the third increase in a year, and congress has already rigged his request to be preapproved. Instead of leaping multiple trillions of dollars all at once, they thought it would look better and be more easily accepted by the People if they pushed increases through incrementally.

No federal budget has been passed since April of 2009, allowing automatic increases each year through baseline budgeting while our "leaders" pretend to fight for "cuts over 10 years." Meaning, they'll spend $29 trillion instead of $30 trillion over 10 years and they expect us to get excited. As ridiculous and unsustainable as that sounds, a future congress isn't bound by the decisions of a previous congress. The only spending cut that is real is an immediate spending cut. Anything else is just spin for the People.

It's a shame we have done so well for ourselves while borrowing and spending all of these years because the situation has grown so severely worse, but if we're to believe the economists and the credit agencies that have cut our national rating, those days are over. Whether it's big government liberalism or big government conservatism, it is still Big Government and it's time to decide if we're serious about turning things around.

The Right is not on our side. The Left is not on our side. And the media is not independent in their reporting. We know it and we say it, but we continue to let them choose our leadership, and they're good at it. After all, it is their profession and they're skilled at controlling us. Term after term, our debt increases; the country becomes more divided and mind-numbed; the congress becomes more corrupt; promises are made and broken and our freedoms are stripped away.

Let me get to the point as this post is already getting long; don't let someone else pick your president for you. If we are to believe that the country is on the brink of financial ruin, and the environment we live in certainly bares that out, please take the time to choose for yourself. If you're reading this, then you have probably already guessed that I support Ron Paul.

If you're a Republican, do you truly believe that the deficit spending and debt will be reduced under the leadership of one of the other candidates? When debt continues to increase, will you still be satisfied with your choice? The previous Republican nominee sponsored the now law National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) and in fact drafted the indefinite detention provisions of the bill that have everyone so disturbed. Republicans reluctantly accepted McCain as their choice and now make excuses like the "anyone but Obama" argument. Is that really good enough? Is that really enough to save our country from the corruption of the politicians running our government?

You will most often hear that Ron Paul is unacceptable as a presidential nominee due to his foreign policy. They also complain that Ron wants to cut military spending. Do you think the nation will only cut from the social "entitlement" side without any cuts to the military? Do you think the media will allow that to happen? Do you even think it would be enough? One way or another, the cuts are coming; either as planned changes or as our nation defaults.

If you research the donations Dr. Paul received last year, you will find that Ron received more military donations than Obama and the other Republican candidates combined. Do you trust the media, the politicians and conservative talkers, or do you trust the men and women who are on the front lines? Cuts to all areas of the government are needed and Ron has even suggested that the Left make the military cuts and the Right make the "entitlement" cuts.

If you're a Democrat, do you think the level of spending is sustainable? What happens if it's not and the security net is cut all at once? During the Bush administration, we watched the daily death-toll counts and protest marches against the war. Where is your opposition now? Where you truly opposed to the war and the over-seas spending, or where you just being manipulated? Are you equally outraged by the loss of freedoms under the Bush administration and the Obama administration? What about the continued use of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp?

We all want freedom, and we want it for different and personal reasons. Is it possible for the People to rally around the guy who wants nothing but for you to have it? What's the alternative; Obama with his massive spending and continued wars? Romney is just another Teleprompter-reading Obama want-to-be, and the other candidates have now turned against their so-called beliefs as they denounce free enterprise.

Ron is attacked from the Left and Right, if not completely ignored. It is reported that his winning of a state primary disqualifies the state, but when another candidate wins, it's reported as unprecedented and significant. The Left and Right will do anything in their power to defeat him because, as they love to say, he's dangerous. It's true; he is a monkey wrench in the status quo.

Recognize our government for what it has become. They group and pit the People against one another so we will continue to vote for any candidate our party puts forward in an effort to defeat the other side. Allow yourself to have an opened mind and not be tricked or scared into supporting someone you know to be a detriment to the Nation. The two parties have no hold on us and we can release those ties and evaluate objectively for ourselves. Take a little time to do the research; it's important, and allow yourself to consider the guy both the Left and Right are afraid of.

Take a look at the speech Ron gave after the latest primary. It's nothing special and typical of Ron Paul, but listen to his message of freedom and decide if this is something you should support. Watch as this 76 year old man is treated like a rock star. He's a Texas congressman who won 2nd place in Romney's backyard of New Hampshire, but he was almost completely ignored by both the conservative and liberal media. He is straight-talking, with no rhetoric and no Teleprompters, and no researched or rehearsed sound bites, either. If you aren't familiar him, or if you've formed your opinions based on biased reporting, I'm asking you to take a look at Ron Paul; even if you have always trusted your sources for information. If you believe these are desperate times, please do the research."

I dig it!!

 

The issue with Ron Paul is that underneath the surface of some good ideas lies a guy who's Cuckcoo for Cocoa Puffs.

 

While I would agree that some of his ideas are out there a little, there are still checks and balances in place as no president gets to do everything he sets out for. What would the US be like if Obama got do everything?
Paul's ideas on smaller gov't and states rights is enough to sell me, if elected would there be fallout to some of his policies? you bet but borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to keep the gov't at the current level is insanity

 

More to the point, do you really expect me to believe that "your friend Chris" wrote that?
I ain't that stupid.

 

Just cus? For the record, I think anyone who believes in creationism is Cuckcoo for Cocoa Puffs too... but I'm willing to let that slide so long as the other parts of them that really matter are consistent with rational thought.

 

Can you give some examples of him being crazy?

 

I'll let his words speak for him. Don't glance through it - if you really want to know somebody's mindset and intent, listen to (or in the case, read) their words, unscripted.

Like I said, under some good ideas lies a mindset that isn't all-together - but that's just my opinion.

 

Any just to clarify, it's not that I hate the guy or support any other candidate that much more. Frankly, so far the entire field is a disappointment, imo. But what I've noticed about Paul is that he has these very interesting ideas about rights, freedom, the economy and federal authority but doesn't offer many viable solutions as to how the current systems in place would be transitioned to his ideology or how the fallout from such dramatic changes would be handled.

 

So, which one is "cuckoo"?

C'mon, be specific.

He has stated that his "shutdown" of the overarching federal government would be a gradual one, that those dependent on those federal programs outside constitutional purview would not be thrown to the wolves, but transitioned out of those programs to ones outside the federal government.

Serious question: no other candidate has ever proposed a movement towards an actual decrease (not simply a decrease in increases) of federal budgets, power and influence; to decry RP's position on a true reduction in the federal footprint could be construed as an acceptance as inevitable that the federal government will grow unabated, leading to the inevitable collapse. Is this your position, and if not, how long do you continue to let the federal government grow before *you* believe it has reached its maximum intrusion into our lives?

 

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims"

"the one remnant of racism in our country is in the court system, enforcing the drug laws and enforcing the death penalty"

"I am convinced that there are more threats to American liberty within the 10 mile radius of my office on Capitol Hill than there are on the rest of the globe. "

"A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper, yet cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and Detroit"

"Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy"

"If we can't or won't define the enemy, the cost to fight such a war will be endless. How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice? [...] I support President Bush and voted for the authority and the money to carry out his responsibility to defend this country, but the degree of death and destruction and chances of escalation must be carefully taken into consideration."

"Some of the strongest supporters of the war declare that we are a Christian nation, yet use their religious beliefs to justify the war. They claim it is our Christian duty to remake the Middle East and attack the Muslim infidels"

"We need to worry about our borders here at home, not worry about the borders around the world, and the border between Syria and Iraq - that doesn't have anything to do with our national security, we have to deal with our own national security"

"I have no right – no moral right or constitutional right – to come with a gun and tax the people and say: "I will take money because I want to do good" ... there's warring factions going on there, it's a civil war... You could've argued that in Somalia as well ... And the American people are generous – there's no reason why we can't help feed the world, and we do. But there's no justification to use violence against our people to extract money to do good overseas."

"It's a mistake to think that poor people get the benefit from the welfare system. It's a total fraud. Most welfare go to the rich of this country: the military-industrial complex, the bankers, the foreign dictators, it's totally out of control. [...] This idea that the government has services or goods that they can pass on is a complete farce."

"A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits"

Aaron Russo: Is there a law that requires people to file a 1040?
Ron Paul: Not explicitly, but it's certainly implied.
Aaron Russo: Well, implied by force?
Ron Paul: Yeah.
Aaron Russo: But is there a law?
Ron Paul: I can't cite a law, no. But, you know, if they think it's the law, and they have all the guns, it's an authoritarian approach.

"The theory of the IRS is rather repugnant to me because the assumption is made that I, the government, owns 100% of your income and I permit you to keep 5%, 10% or 20%."

Howard Fineman: The people who don't pay their taxes on principle are heroic people, in the manner of Gandhi and Martin Luther King?
Ron Paul: I think if they're defending the constitution and they know what they're doing, and this money is supporting some real evil in the world. Preemptive war? That's pretty evil as far as I'm concerned. And so much waste in a system of government that has just overrun our liberties? Yes, I think that in many ways it's heroic for people willing to risk their freedom in order to defend what they believe is freedom.

Question: So do you think the gold standard would fix that?
Ron Paul: The gold standard would keep you from printing money and destroying the middle class.

Question: ...you believe the Fed shouldn't exist... make the case.
Ron Paul: First reason is, it's not authorized in the Constitution, it's an illegal institution. The second reason, it's an immoral institution, because we have delivered to a secretive body the privilege of creating money out of thin air; if you or I did it, we'd be called counterfeiters, so why have we legalized counterfeiting? But the economic reasons are overwhelming: the Federal Reserve is the creature that destroys value. This station talks about free market capitalism, and you can't have free market capitalism if you have a secret bank creating money and credit out of thin air. They become the central planners, they decide what interest rates should be, what the supply of money should be...
Question: How does the gold standard solves that?
Ron Paul: It maintains a stable currency and a stable value. If the Fed concentrated more on stable money rather than stable prices... They push up new money in stocks and in commodities and in houses, and then they have to come in to rescue the situation. They create the bubbles, then they come in and rescue it, and they do nothing more than try to do price fixing. Capitalism depends, and capital comes from savings, but there's no savings in this country, so this is all artificial. It creates the misdirection and the malinvestment and all the excessive debt, and it always has to have a correction. Since the Fed has been in existence, the dollar has lost about 97% of its value. You're supposed to encourage savings, but if something loses its value, why save dollars? There's no encouragement whatsoever. [...] Gold is 6000 years old, and it still maintains its purchasing power. Oil prices really are very stable in terms of Gold. [...] Both conservatives and liberals want to enhance big government, and this is a seductive way to tax the middle class.

Question: As a doctor, is it meaningful to you when somebody say that healthcare is a right, or that people have a right to good medical care?
Ron Paul: That's incorrect, because you don't have a right to the fruits of somebody else's labor. You don't have a right to a house, you don't have a right to a job, you don't have a right to medical care.

Chris Wallace: You talk a lot about the Constitution. You say Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
Ron Paul: Technically, they are. … There’s no authority [in the Constitution]. Article I, Section 8 doesn't say I can set up an insurance program for people. What part of the Constitution are you getting it from? The liberals are the ones who use this General Welfare Clause. … That is such an extreme liberal viewpoint that has been mistaught in our schools for so long and that's what we have to reverse — that very notion that you're presenting.

"A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked."

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked. Most of them, they just don't look very American to me"


Honestly, I've lost track of the amount contradictions, paranoia and sensationalism in each of the above quotes, but I'm not going to spend pages here explaining it.

Show me the blueprints for these 'gradual' shutdowns - I'd love to see them.

I disagree with that sentiment, and couldn't blanket my own opinions in those terms. As much as I may feel the government at many levels is full of overly complicated bureaucracy designed to justify jobs, authority and restrictions I do feel there are certain mandates put in place that are there for the benefit of our population as a whole. I also think we need some significant revisions to our tax code, trade regulations and other standards, but to imply people are justified in not paying federal taxes because the constitution doesn't require it and we should return to the gold standard is simply ridiculous.

I'm not going to bore you for hours debating each point, but just as a blanket statement I'll say though I may agree with certain concepts he has, I don't feel he could carry them out in a reasonable, balanced manner.

 

I don't see anything wrong with what he has said. Where is the cuckoo stuff again? I don't see anything wrong with individual liberty. At least you can put your finger on it. Group liberties (or whats best for the group) sounds kinda socialist, doesn't it comrade?

 

Think deeper then that.

 

Well, how about taking just a couple of those quotes and explaining what is "cuckoo" about them. Logically, not emotionally. Show your work.

Start here: http://ronpaulmyths.com/

See if that answers any of your concerns. :up:

Would you agree that the federal government has been ever-expanding, and that no Congress or President in our lifetime has done a damn thing to so much as slow, much less reverse the growth in infringement of the federal government? Do you have any faith that any of the other GOP candidate has the chops to actually put the brakes on, and if so, who and from what do you derive that faith?

I can appreciate that. By the same token, I don't feel anyone else running for the GOP nomination has the slightest inclination to reduce the federal government and begin a return to constitutionally-limited government, and seeks only to continue our descent into bankruptcy.

 

Nope. It'd go on for hours. All I can say is, compare the mindset in each quote as applicable to the facts, needs, norms and ability to institute.

Yes, yes, yes, no, and not applicable. Can I have my loan now?

You'll have to do better then that if you want an argument from me, because based on who I see running I don't disagree

 

Don't be a stingy bastard, at least give me *one* so I can see you thought process fleshed out!

I think I got $5 in my pocket. It's in nickels and pennies though.

Not an argument, a discussion. If I want an argument, I'll start responding to Doyle.

 

Hey! I heard that!

 

Subrancher's first quote shows that RP is delusional. And a poor historian. He is against laws that prohibit racism, and believes that business owners and property owners should have the right to discriminate for any reason they see fit - its a property right he says.

We had 190 years of legal discrimination because it was often deemed the right of a business owner to discriminate.

But none of that served as an antidote to racism. We are a far less racist country now than before he Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc.

Why RP doesn't recognize this is beyond me. And I'd say we are better off as a nation because the the Civil Rights Act.

 

Okay, one - and one only - from the top

"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims"

Wrong. The true antidote to racism is education, starting in the home by example and permeating through the society and culture in which it exists through reinforcement of rules outlining what is considered acceptable behavior. It was the consolidation of a group which brought attention to the issue and eventual civil-rights movement in our own nation; as individuals, these folks wouldn't necessarily have had the support to push forward their need for recognized equality.

The individual gets stomped, but the group gets attention. Paul's dissatisfaction with Affirmative Action doesn't negate this fact. Although I feel affirmative action has it's flaws, particularily by telling people it's okay if they don't push themselves to the same level as others in order to achieve, I do feel the legislation passed to address racism and hate crimes committed towards specified groups has assisted significantly in addressing criminal acts committed against them.

Go to your local courthouse and claim you were assaulted because of race without the backing of legislation saying it's illegal for that reason, and perhaps you'll see justice for the crime, but then again maybe you won't. With the institution of federal legislation detailing that acts of violence based upon race are particularily prohibited, the actor can be tried at a seperate level beyond the assault itself, and you have additional protections ensuring that persons are held accountable if they decide to try and victimize you for that reason.


Edit - What Foxtrot said :up:

 

This is funny, because it's the problem I consistently have when arguing a point with you. You infer points, or try to, and offer no argument, just an inference that I'm just too dense too understand the point that you don't make.
It's aggravating, isn't it?

 

Do you think you should have an individual right to remain on someone' s property just because your skin is a certain color? That is what you advocate when you support anti-discrimination laws.

Are you referring to government mandated racism and discrimination?.. because that's what we had.
I guarantee you discriminate at least 100 times a day. You can't make decisions without doing so. As such, the freedom to do so is directly related to your ability to survive. You may make poor decisions in your choices (like many who use race as this basis) but you will eventually lose out in the end if you choose irrationally... but, never the less, making poor choices is your right and you will get what you deserve eventually.

The humor there is that you give the government credit for any perceived lessening of racism in the USA. I'd argue it has simply added to the level of animosity between races.

Better for who? We are a nation of individuals, not collective groups like the Borg.