Ron Paul 2008

[bredemeyer]

How can you not like this guy?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[james_mccaine]

Alternatively, Why is it that people like this guy so much?

He is just another in the long line of irresponsible politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who pander to people's emotions, at the expense of reason and healthy and mature public policy. Why on earth should we face the actual facts and make tough decisions when we can simply play to the crowd and create convenient boogie men.

I knew nothing about this guy, other than Bryan likes him.....so I go to his "issues" section to get a taste. I see "property rights and eminent domain." Well, it seems like Mr. Paul is against eminent domain for building highways. He says that the government, through regulatory takings, is depriving property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Really now?

This is the typical irresponsible BS I hear from almost all politicians. Present a bunch of half-truths, in inflammatory terms of course, to appeal to the average man's contempt for government and regulation. This guy is the antithesis of a leader: a fear mongerer playing to the crowd.

Well, this was my long-winded answer to your question on "How can one not like this guy?"

[Lyle O Ross]

His appeal is that he believes in the individual's rights over the rights of the riche and influential. Yes, some of his more Libertarian views are distasteful, but his record shows clearly that he is not for sale and he doesn't believe that our country should be for sale. That makes him appealing.

We live in a country where our politicians are for sale to the highest bidder and where imminent domain has been used for the betterment of business as opposed to the public good. This has led us into a war that serves the best interests of our oil companies, who by the way are taking us to the cleaners at the pump, and to a huge loss of our civil liberties.

Ron Paul represents some integrity. I might not agree with many of his basic principals but I don't have to. Since one of his basic beliefs is that our Constitution has merit, that means the checks and balances of our government would keep his most Libertarian positions in check.

On the other hand, his core belief that we have rights and that we should not go to war on a whim, and that we should stay out of interventionist politics are very appealing. Most of all, the fact that he is informed and is unwilling to fool himself about much of what drives Washington makes him admirable.

Too bad he's a Libertarian at heart.

[denny1210]

This guy is the antithesis of a leader: a fear mongerer playing to the crowd.

If he's playing to the crowd, he must not be very good at it. Many Republicans want him taken off the debate stage and kicked out of the party.

Yeah, standing up to the bullying opportunism of Rudy G. is playing to the crowd!

[Pizza God]

The Next President Thread

I have been trying to educate those that will listen for 5 months now. I have 20+ youtube videos on this thread of intereview with Ron Paul. I add new ones when a good one comes up.

Right now the Ron Paul campaign is on fire. He is being requested so much he has a hard time keeping up. In a phone interview friday, he stated he didn't even know how much money his campaign has raised because it is comming in so fast. He still does not have as much as it will take to fun a front runner campaign, but he is now the top of the "so called 2nd tier canidates"

It wont be much longer till he passes up McCain.

James, unlike all the other candidates, Ron Paul has been saying the same things for 31 years. He votes based on his beliefs and not who gives him money. In fact he gets little to no PAC money because most know they can't buy him. (the PAC money he does get comes from groups that support his views)

His nickname on Capital Hill is "Dr No". He has gotten this name because sometimes he is the only vote against a bill. If he views a bill as unconstitutional, he will vote against it no matter how good it might be.

This is why you have votes against bills that sound good like the Amber Alert Act. (BTW, the Rave Act was attached to this bill too, it make property/business owners of places Raves were held accountable for drug dealing and use on the property. In other words, if I rented out my space for a rave and 100 people showed up, if one was a dealer and got busted selling, under current law, the government could take my business away from me)

This bill was shot down by itself, so someone attached it to the Amber Alert bill, and who can vote against missing children.

So what you hear Ron Paul state is what he fights for, and has been fighting for.

Ron Paul introduced a bill this week that will end the Federal Reserve Act.

Ron Paul introduced a Declaration of War against Iraq, even though he said he would vote against it. He just wanted congress to follow the Constitution.

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.

So like Bredemeyer said, how can you not like this guy.

[james_mccaine]

How is the fact that "Republicans don't want him" and "He stands up to Guliani" some counter to my assertion that he plays to a crowd? Playing to a crowd is akin to riling up a mob. Incite their passions, avoid complexities, or counter-views. Who needs them damnit, I've got people angry and that is enough to get me votes.

My example was a simple argument over eminent domain, and how his position is simply irresponsible, and is often used by right wing nutjobs to play to a crowd. It's always easier to rile up a mob than to take take an issue and study its nuances and bring those nuances up for debate because they are the heart of the issue. In other words, have an adult debate and discuss an issue in it's full complexity and demand your supporters do the same. That is leadership.

btw, I don't give a crap what Republicans or Guliani think, I'm just sick of people acting as if this guy is some political maverick, when he is simply doing what politicians always do.

[bredemeyer]

Alternatively, Why is it that people like this guy so much?

He is just another in the long line of irresponsible politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who pander to people's emotions, at the expense of reason and healthy and mature public policy. Why on earth should we face the actual facts and make tough decisions when we can simply play to the crowd and create convenient boogie men.

I knew nothing about this guy, other than Bryan likes him.....so I go to his "issues" section to get a taste. I see "property rights and eminent domain." Well, it seems like Mr. Paul is against eminent domain for building highways. He says that the government, through regulatory takings, is depriving property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Really now?

This is the typical irresponsible BS I hear from almost all politicians. Present a bunch of half-truths, in inflammatory terms of course, to appeal to the average man's contempt for government and regulation. This guy is the antithesis of a leader: a fear mongerer playing to the crowd.

Well, this was my long-winded answer to your question on "How can one not like this guy?"

Interesting take. You seem more jaded with the entire process and less so with Mr. Paul himself.

Eminent Domain when used for the "public good" - roads, bridges etc. is acceptable. However when a city uses this to take away personal property for sale to investors, I see a major problem.

I don't agree with RP on everything, but I do feel he brings some interesting ideas to the table.

[Pizza God]

Ok James, here are 3 articles written by Ron Paul on

Lessons From the Kelo Decision

The NAFTA Superhighway

The second is really more about a North American Union (or SSP - Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America)

Elected Officials Threatening Property Rights

[Pizza God]

dang, I hate this new board, "The form you have submitted is no longer valid."

Now I have to rewrite the whole thing

[james_mccaine]

Thanks Bryan, now I'm more convinced than ever that his rhetoric is shallow.

I bet if I read everything on the supreme court decision (which I disagree with), I would find that the issue is hardly black and white, but filled with tough calls through and through. Besides, Mr. Paul did not state on his website that he was against eminent domain for the specific purpose of economic development. He did not specifically mention the Kelo decision in his iminent domain section. Instead, he couched whatever complex issues he had in mind in the simple lanaguage of "property rights" and "regulatory takings." Why on earth would he do that?

As to the "Nafta Superhighway" or what I would call a highway to ease congestion in Texas, he basically decries NAFTA. OK, so he disagrees with NAFTA, what the hell does that have to do with the legitimate goverment purpose of condemning land for roads. If I were a pacifist, does that make condemning land for a road to Fort Hood unconstitutional? There is no freaking connection.

Mr. Paul is a smart man, and I propose that the two issues you provided links for are addressed in an intentionally sloppy and superficial manner, solely to create a bogeyman where none has to exist, so he can get the mob moving.

[Pizza God]

James, I know what you are talking about when you say “he plays to a crowd” This is what politicians do to get elected. It is what Rudy Ghooliani did in the second republican debate to Ron Paul.

Sound bites

However, Ron Paul has been saying the same things for 31 years. His voting record shows it too. He votes exactly as he preaches. He introduces bills that support what he says.

Really the only issue that Ron Paul differs significantly from the rest of the Republican field is the issue of the war in Iraq. (Well, we never declared war so it really is not a war)

On this issue, Ron Paul has never wavered as can be seen in his speech in December of 2001

Ron Paul on Another War Against Iraq

On one of your other points, the Republican Party tolerates Ron Paul. He does not vote for an issue just because republicans want it. He votes on what he believes and if it follows the constitution. Please name one politician that votes that way. He is sometimes the only “Nay” in a vote. This is why they call him “Dr. No”

He is only a “political Maverick” in that he can not be purchased.

Most politicians get there campaign contributions from PAC’s. They know Ron Paul can not be purchased so he only gets a few (usually the ones that support the same views)

[Pizza God]

Thanks Bryan, now I'm more convinced than ever that his rhetoric is shallow. Shallow???? how do you figure??

I bet if I read everything on the supreme court decision (which I disagree with) At least we can agree on this , I would find that the issue is hardly black and white, but filled with tough calls through and through. Besides, Mr. Paul did not state on his website that he was against eminent domain for the specific purpose of economic development. 2 years after Kelo, who would remember it?? He did not specifically mention the Kelo decision in his iminent domain section. Instead, he couched whatever complex issues he had in mind in the simple lanaguage of "property rights" and "regulatory takings." Why on earth would he do that?

As to the "Nafta Superhighway" or what I would call a highway to ease congestion in Texas, he basically decries NAFTA. OK, so he disagrees with NAFTA, what the hell does that have to do with the legitimate goverment purpose of condemning land for roads. If I were a pacifist, does that make condemning land for a road to Fort Hood unconstitutional? There is no freaking connection. In short, because the NAFTA super highways is a toll road. That is not even a public road. The company in charage of the road will profit from it.

Mr. Paul is a smart man, and I propose that the two issues you provided links for are addressed in an intentionally sloppy and superficial manner, solely to create a bogeyman where none has to exist, so he can get the mob moving.

in that 3rd link about eminent domain , RP said what congress should do.

Congress can and should act to prevent the federal government from seizing private property. I've introduced and cosponsored several bills that prohibit or severely limit the power of Washington agencies to seize private property in locations around the nation. But the primary fight against local eminent domain actions must take place at the local level. The people of New London, Connecticut, like the people of Texas, could start by removing from office local officials who have so little respect for property rights

[Pizza God]

Posted on YouTube in October of last year

[Pizza God]

Rudy's law firm represents the foriegn companay that will be collecting tolls.

[Lyle O Ross]

Thanks Bryan, now I'm more convinced than ever that his rhetoric is shallow.

I bet if I read everything on the supreme court decision (which I disagree with), I would find that the issue is hardly black and white, but filled with tough calls through and through. Besides, Mr. Paul did not state on his website that he was against eminent domain for the specific purpose of economic development. He did not specifically mention the Kelo decision in his iminent domain section. Instead, he couched whatever complex issues he had in mind in the simple lanaguage of "property rights" and "regulatory takings." Why on earth would he do that?

As to the "Nafta Superhighway" or what I would call a highway to ease congestion in Texas, he basically decries NAFTA. OK, so he disagrees with NAFTA, what the hell does that have to do with the legitimate goverment purpose of condemning land for roads. If I were a pacifist, does that make condemning land for a road to Fort Hood unconstitutional? There is no freaking connection.

Mr. Paul is a smart man, and I propose that the two issues you provided links for are addressed in an intentionally sloppy and superficial manner, solely to create a bogeyman where none has to exist, so he can get the mob moving.

James,

You really need to look at Paul's record. I don't like much of what he stands for either, but your notion that he is simply using hype to get attention is incorrect. He truly says what is on his mind. Remember, many of the positions he takes are not popular and have not been. He stuck by his guns all along. Don't count the attention he's getting as manipulated, he took the negative attention when he had the balls to vote against this war and he has stood by his position all along.

Call him what you will but he is honest.

[rhett]

Rue Paul for President!

[sandalman]

dang, I hate this new board, "The form you have submitted is no longer valid."

Now I have to rewrite the whole thing

dont use the Quick Reply. the message is caused by someone else posting to the thread while you are writing the response.

[james_mccaine]

Shallow. Hmmm. Which line should I choose. from the last article, there is this:

When government can seize your property without your consent, all of your other rights are negated. Our founders would roll over in their graves if they knew that the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment was being used to justify unholy alliances between private developers and tax-hungry local governments.

Well, I guess Americans have had no rights since the 1700s since eminent domain has been around a long time. I also like the fact that he conveniently leaves out that sticky issue of compensation.

Then he rails about eminent domain being used to subsidize developers, like this hasn't been going on since day one in America. I guess the difference now is that these are developers he doesn't like.

I've gone astray. My point about shallowness and mob baiting is best illustrated in his first quoted sentence: an ounce of substance combined with a pound of hyperbole, all in an effort to alert the mob that "their rights will disappear if the government keeps doing what it has done for hundreds of years."

As to the toll road. I know nothing about the right way to run a toll road. I also have complete faith that if Governor Perry is behind the push for tolls, then some supporter will inevitably profit. It's the corruption that is a problem, not the toll roads. Tolls are merely a presently favored way to finance road construction, because the user pays.

In sum, instead of focusing on the corrupt nature of this toll arrangement (those boring details), he attacks the toll system and eminent domain: two legitimate things that have unnecessarily become rallying cries for shallow minded far right. I have seen nothing in his writings to indicate that he is anything more than someone outflanking the Republican Party, using their pet emotional triggers and the same fear-feeding tactics that have hurt this country for a long time. I do give him credit for creating that irony.

One serious question. Does Rush Limbaugh or whomever the present right-wing radio darlings are, support Ron Paul over the other Republicans?

[Lyle O Ross]

Of course he's hyper-bowling. So what's your point? The fact that he's using it doesn't mean he isn't right.

Eminent domain has been abused since the start. I know of many cases, can you say rail-road lines. The plain and simple fact that he's mad about this doesn't make him a bad person; nor does it make him incorrect.

What's more, comparing him to Rush Limbaugh, the king of fantasy conservativism is unfair. Read Rush's history, if he can't find a fact, he makes one up. Ron is the antithesis of this. In the end, Rush and most of the power elite won't support Paul. He doesn't believe that our politics should be for sale. Since that is the one thing that both the GOP and Dems agree on, they won't like Paul one bit.

Paul is pretty factual. Again, I don't like much of his message, but I'm not going to condemn him because he is excited about his issues. That's what the news guys did to Howard Dean. He had the stupidity to be excited and passionate about his campaign and he got ridiculed.

Paul may have a screw loose about some issues but he is honest, he hasn't been bought, and he is right about some of his most basic principles.

So tell us James, who do you like or are you just slamming Paul on basic principals? Who do you think represents the moral fiber of this country. Who's the good guy?

[Pizza God]

Actually I never use the quick reply, but I was on that page for a long time (I am at work today)

[Pizza God]

Rue Paul for President!

Shut the [censored] up Rhett

[Pizza God]

Paul may have a screw loose about some issues

I would like to know which issues you disagree with.

You are right about one thing, Ron Paul is not you’re a-typical politician. I know that is one reason he has so much backing from the independent and normal 3rd party voters. It is one of the main reasons I am 110% behind him. (Well that and I agree with him on about 90% of the issues)

[bredemeyer]

I just got around to watching the last REP debate via DVR. I thought they went to Congressman Paul more than in the previous debate. He seemed to hold his own pretty well.

Its interesting to me that he was the only person on the stage who as against using "tactical" (I guess this means they are safer?) nuclear weapons against Iran as a "pre-emtive measure in the region".

Nuking a country so they arent able to enrich uraniun? Is that a strategy to make the world see how we do things the American way?

[Pizza God]

William, what is scary is that only a few of the 2nd tier Democrats will take a first strike off the table agaist Iran.

If Iran started attacking one of our ships, I could see us bombing them, but bombing a country just because there leader does not like us??? Oh yea, we did that in Iraq

[Pizza God]

I have a flyer that I printed out from the www.ronpaul2008.com web site.

Here is what it says about Property Rights and Eminent Domain

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer.

Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties — all without paying “just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

For those of you in the Austin area, you might be familiar with the NAFTA Superhighway, they are trying to get a one mile wide right of way from Mexico all the way to Canada. One of the problems is how wide this area they want is. (from what I hear, the width has been lessened) Why do they want it so wide. One reason could be so that they would be able to lease land for retail shops or own all billboards located along the way. This eleminates compitition in a way.

For those of us in the DFW area, we should know about the new Cowboy stadium. The city of Arlington used eminent domain to buy up property for the statium. In most cases, they were paying MUCH less than the property was worth. One of the things that was happeneing, they were offering up to half what the property was worth.

For those of us that pay Property taxes, you pay based on what the county apprasial says your house and properety is worth. Well in Arlington, they were paying as much has 1/2 that amount. So when you have been paying Taxes based on a $80,0000 house, then the city comes in an offers you $40,000, is that right???????

That is what Ron Paul is trying to fight.

[rhett]

William, what is scary is that only a few of the 2nd tier Democrats will take a first strike off the table agaist Iran.

Why would you want to embolden our enemies by taking any of our possible actions "off the table"???

About the only half-arsed workable exit strategy from Iraq would be "nuke Iran, pull out of Iraq." All other scenarios lead to a double-sized Iranian super-state.

[Lyle O Ross]

I would like to know which issues you disagree with.

You are right about one thing, Ron Paul is not you’re a-typical politician. I know that is one reason he has so much backing from the independent and normal 3rd party voters. It is one of the main reasons I am 110% behind him. (Well that and I agree with him on about 90% of the issues)

I don't believe in laissez faire business. Every time we deregulate business, or don't manage what they do, they screw everyone, including themselves. There needs to be government regulation.

I also don't believe in the no IRS position he takes. I do believe in a much reduced IRS and something like a flat tax and I'm guessing the compromise between his position and the rest of Congress would get us there. I do agree with him that the government has been a poor steward of our money. But eliminating business influence on law making will help with that.

[Lyle O Ross]

I have a flyer that I printed out from the www.ronpaul2008.com web site.

Here is what it says about Property Rights and Eminent Domain

For those of you in the Austin area, you might be familiar with the NAFTA Superhighway, they are trying to get a one mile wide right of way from Mexico all the way to Canada. One of the problems is how wide this area they want is. (from what I hear, the width has been lessened) Why do they want it so wide. One reason could be so that they would be able to lease land for retail shops or own all billboards located along the way. This eleminates compitition in a way.

For those of us in the DFW area, we should know about the new Cowboy stadium. The city of Arlington used eminent domain to buy up property for the statium. In most cases, they were paying MUCH less than the property was worth. One of the things that was happeneing, they were offering up to half what the property was worth.

For those of us that pay Property taxes, you pay based on what the county apprasial says your house and properety is worth. Well in Arlington, they were paying as much has 1/2 that amount. So when you have been paying Taxes based on a $80,0000 house, then the city comes in an offers you $40,000, is that right???????

That is what Ron Paul is trying to fight.

I'm much less worried about the NAFTA super highway than China. What does he say there Za?

[Lyle O Ross]

Why would you want to embolden our enemies by taking any of our possible actions "off the table"???

About the only half-arsed workable exit strategy from Iraq would be "nuke Iran, pull out of Iraq." All other scenarios lead to a double-sized Iranian super-state.

Spoken like a true conservative.

On the other hand, do you really think any state, Iran or America for that matter is going to use a nuclear strike to achieve their goals? We'd be pariahs and Iran would become a steaming black hole in the desert. Neither is going to do something that stupid. And before you come back with the Rhetoric that comes out of their leadership as evidence that they are out of control, who called who the evil empire?

What was it Bush said about a crusade?

We are all to willing to spew invective and excuse it while labeling anyone else who does it as awful.

Second point, is the double-Iranian super-state sort of equivalent to the Communist take over that happened after we pulled out of Viet Nam? Oh wait...

Fear, use it, believe in it. Why? Because it works. [img]/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

What the real analysts say, you know, the ones from the CIA, is that our being in Iraq is pushing them more towards Iran than our not being there. At least take the time to read the stuff Za posted about terrorism and the effect our presence in Iraq has on the Middle East before jumping in with the standard conservative dogma. Dogma which has been proven incorrect numerous times.

Last point, the notion that nuclear weapons should be kept on the table, whatever that means in reality, is somewhat less than human IMO. Given that we know what they do, and are in theory a civilized, informed country, why would we ever consider using such a thing? I'd rather have those evil religious fanatics take over and convert us all to Islam... Bwaaa Ha Ha Ha Ha! Yep, I believe that's gonna happen!

[Pizza God]

China first

Title: Your Taxes Subsidize China
Date: 2006-08-14
Speech

Your Taxes Subsidize China

August 14, 2006

Each year the people of the United States write a check to subsidize China, one of the most brutal, anti-American regimes in the world. Lately it has been in vogue for everyone in Washington to eagerly denounce the egregious abuses of the Chinese people at the hands of their communist dictators. Yet no one in our federal government has been willing to take China on in any meaningful way.

Very few people realize that China is one of the biggest beneficiaries of American taxpayer subsidies. Thanks to the largesse of Congress and the President, China enjoys subsidized trade and the flow of US tax dollars into Beijing's coffers.

I offered an amendment before the House of Representatives last month that would have ended the $4 billion subsidy our nation quietly gives China through the US government's Export-Import Bank. The bank underwrites the purchases of goods and services by the Chinese government and others around the world. Unfortunately, only a minority of Democrats or Republicans supported my measure. Apparently, many members of Congress are happy to bash China, but don’t mind lending her U.S. taxpayer money at sweetheart interest rates.

Some of your money went to fund a nuclear power plant in Shanghai owned by the China National Nuclear Corporation, a state-run company. Many US-based multinational corporations benefit directly from Export-Import Bank subsidies to China, including Boeing, Westinghouse, and McDonnell Douglas. So it’s not hard to understand that business trumps the feelgood rhetoric condemning China.

There is no constitutional authority for Congress to make loans to any country, and certainly no basis for giving away the hard-earned cash of Americans to communist leaders who brutalize their women and children with forced abortions, and persecute Christians for their faith.

In reality, there is very little the federal government can do about conditions in China. Under our Constitution, the federal government simply does not have the authority to point a gun at Chinese leaders and force them to respect the principles of liberty. It just doesn't work that way.
I believe that by engaging the Chinese people, opening personal dialogue, and seeking to change their hearts and minds, we soon will see that regime collapse. The laws of economics dictate that a communist system cannot stand for long. But in the same way, I firmly believe there is a higher law which dictates that people exposed to the principles of liberty will not for long allow themselves to remain shackled to an oppressive government. Economic freedom, i.e. capitalism, now has a strong foothold in China. The Chinese people may soon demand political, religious, and personal freedom as well. But in the meantime let’s stop sending tax dollars to support a government we claim to despise.

2006-09-07
in a speach about free trade

Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power and fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it has in Vietnam, China and even the Eastern Bloc nations of the old Soviet empire