Why You Should Like Ron Paul!

and because it will inevitably get asked, he has %5-6 in the polls. Doesn't sound great but with the 4.2 million he pulled in recently, it shoud be rising very quickly.
 
I hate people like you. It's comments like these that ruin democracy. If the media tells you something you believe it. From having %2 in October to %6 in November, I would say he is gaining ground quickly. I see no reason that he can't get elected after raising more money then any other candidate this year in one day (November 5th). Don't be so ignorant.
 
Meh, you are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. Do your homework. Here are just a few of the articles I will be posting, alot more to come. Honestly guys, Ron Paul has started a Revolution in this country. Get on board now. This campaign is the most exciting thing I have ever taken part of. Ron Paul is polling very high in New Hampshire right now, and they are the first to vote, so he has a real good chance of getting the GOP Nominee

Here is an Recent MTV Article about Paul

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1574216/20071113/id_0.jhtml

Recent Article about Paul in the Rolling Stone

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17323345/ron_paul_a_republican_takes_the_lead_against_the_war

Zogby Poll Owner predicts Paul may get at least up to 20% of the vote in New Hampshire (First state to vote for President in the Primaries)

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmVkNGYwYzA1ZmJhMDBjOTAxN2IyZjc2YzEwOGUxZjk=

Ron Paul recieves the most donations from Active Militarty (Troops want to come home)

http://onpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/
 
i'm going to role play here once in awhile to get my questions asked.

"what is senator paul going to do about all these damned mexicans sneaking into out great nation and stealing our jobs???"
 
sure, here is what he has said:

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. 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. This is my six point plan:

  • Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it

    takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated

    immigration reform proposals.
  • Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders

    and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This

    is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists

    had expired visas.
  • No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are

    in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking

    our laws.
  • No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants

    who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers

    should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools,

    roads, and social services.
  • End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born

    here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
  • Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair.

    But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants

    into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity.

    Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods

 
VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL VOTE FOR RON PAUL
 
even tho some of what ron paul is doing is sweet, i dont think ill vote for himly solely based on the fact that i dont like you.

as much as i like to be informed, i hate when people are borderline hysteric and feel like telling me why i should vote for someone and why everyone else is wrong etc etc, let me make my own informed decision u cock bag. u sound like this pretentious princeton kid i used to know. makes me sick.
 
If he is saying whatever he feels, isn't that supporting the very idea of democracy, and freedom of speech?
 
huh? look back over this thread. All I have done is answer people's questions and told El Gato that I hate the way he looks at a presidential candidates chances because this can ruin democracy (and he did not even mind)

Im not sure why your panties are in such a knot because I didn't try to tell you "why everyone else is wrong" or not "let you make your own informed decision". I am trying to do the opposite by answering questions about a Candidate that I support. Is that so wrong?

 
^ People call his claims nutty without proof. If you look, you will find that the EU was created very similarly

the the NAU (SPP--see spp.gov.)

The UN is, of course, also on record as

wanting to ban firearms. Ron Pauls claims?--not so crazy in my opinion.
 
It is fucking stupid when a libertarian runs as a republican people get all excited, but if he ran as just a libertarian, with the same ideas, no one  would give a shit.  
 
^

I agree, it is sad. It's sad that people don't pay attention to

libertarians, they only look at the two primary parties. That is one

example of how democracy in the America is screwed up. While Ron Paul

is no ordinary Libertarian, he has some different views and far more

experience than anyone could hope for, it is sad.

But, Ron Paul only was officially part of the libertarian party for one

year and has been Republican for the last 5. Still I see what you are

saying, but this is a fault of our country not caring about any party

but the two primary ones.
 
Care to explain why? Basically Ron Pauls immigration policy is to actually ENFORCE the rules that are already in place with a few minor changes. How is that a bad policy?

Here is a letter from Ron Paul regarding the proposed National ID Act.



A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform


by

Rep. Ron Paul,

MD


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD




Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.

window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}

if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;





Watch

Ron Paul deliver this speech to the House of Representatives

on video.


Before

the US House of Representatives, February 9, 2005


Mr.

Speaker:

I

rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill

purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the

United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree

that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very

little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities.

It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill

is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border

control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is

uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

What

is wrong with this bill?

The

REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states

include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s

licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to

impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary

of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees

fit.

Supporters

claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However,

any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out

of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have

any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not

be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In

essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to

exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

Republican

Party talking points on this bill, which claim that this is not

a national ID card, nevertheless endorse the idea that “the

federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth

certificates and sources of identification such as driver’s

licenses.” So they admit that they want a national ID but at

the same time pretend that this is not a national ID.

This

bill establishes a massive, centrally-coordinated database of highly

personal information about American citizens: at a minimum their

name, date of birth, place of residence, Social Security number,

and physical and possibly other characteristics. What is even more

disturbing is that, by mandating that states participate in the

“Drivers License Agreement,” this bill creates a massive

database of sensitive information on American citizens that will

be shared with Canada and Mexico!

This

bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally

guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad

new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and

anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever

is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including

such information in the database as information about a person’s

exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance

on a registry of firearms owners.

This

legislation gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security

to expand required information on driver’s licenses, potentially

including such biometric information as retina scans, finger prints,

DNA information, and even Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

radio tracking technology. Including such technology as RFID would

mean that the federal government, as well as the governments of

Canada and Mexico, would know where Americans are at all times of

the day and night.

There

are no limits on what happens to the database of sensitive information

on Americans once it leaves the United States for Canada and Mexico

– or perhaps other countries. Who is to stop a corrupt foreign government

official from selling or giving this information to human traffickers

or even terrorists? Will this uncertainty make us feel safer?

What

will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented,

every time we are required to show our driver’s license we

will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will

be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric

information, information which is connected to a national and international

database.

H.R.

418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security

posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead,

H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally

are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although

Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the

administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional

210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding

our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their

freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would

enter our country illegally?

H.R.

418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It

punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418

offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking

a gigantic step toward making America a police state.

I

urge my colleagues to vote “NO” on the REAL ID Act of

2005.

February

12, 2005


Dr. Ron

Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Here is Ron Paul himself explaining the immigration policies he would support

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwZsBiZYocg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G3

Here is Ron Paul at the Republican debate at the historically black Morgan State University Debate (if he is racist, why would he go to this? If you watch, the BLACK moderator treated Paul with utmost respect, some of the other GOP frontrunners, did NOT show up) Here is his answer on Illegal immigration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWmHJmVuASg



 
sounds like all the paul supporters on this site: suspicious and paranoid of government conspiracies.

i didn't like the way he asked for money, the way he asks for a maximum donation. i don't think i've heard of any other candidate ask for donations like that.
 
Since you are all uppity about Ron Paul's shit please explain to me some of his retarded policies.  Some are good, but dissolving the federal reserve and moving to the gold standard?  Please explain to me in a halfway coherent manner how that isn't stupid.
 
So do the American people not have the right to be suspicious of what their government is up to?

Are the American people not allowed to question the government's actions?

Good lord man, why do you treat the government as if every single thing they do is perfect and they would NEVER infringe on the American people? That is a large crock of shit. For Example, Just today, the FBI and the secret service raided a private gold company and took all of their gold/silver/platinum and computers and records without giving a single reason why. They literally stole all of this from a private business. WTF? It is not a conspiracy. The government just wants control of everything, in my opinion. They are control freaks.

Ron Paul does not accept money from corporations or people that want him to abide by their rules. If he is to win, the people of America MUST give money to him and dig deep into their pockets and make sacrifices if he is to compete with Hilary or Obama who are largely funded by pharmaceutical companies. Ron Paul cannot win this without the help of the American people. Simple as that. The maximum donation is only $2300 dollars, its not like it would be your life savings anyways.
 
Well some of his ideas sound good on paper but they would never work in real life. How is he going to get congress yo pass the tax laws he wants, simple answer they wont. the presedent does not create the tax code so how is going to get rid of the irs.
 
somebody neglects to read my other posts! every time any of you go off on your little "the gov't is out to backstab us and ruin our lives" rants, i always say that it is your right and duty to question and put pressure on the gov't, but don't immediately jump to the conclusion that they're out to get you. i have never stated anything about the gov't being perfect, doing anything perfect, or never doing anything wrong as you say i have. it is far from perfect, obviously has its flaws (especially in recent years) including infringing on our rights. HOWEVER, they're not doing this just to fuck with us and take our liberties away as you try to make it seem. the FBI may have done what you said and not said why, but i guarantee that it's not just to take away liberties, there is a deeper reason. it may not be a good reason, and it may not have been the right thing to do, but my point is that the gov't is not a group of sinister backstabbers. so again, just to make sure i'm clear, it is your right and duty to question the government on what it's doing, but it's another thing to accuse and suspect the government of doing mindless deeds that they hide from us.

and ron paul doesn't take money from pharm companies because he doesn't believe in stem cell research, which is mindless because that is the future of medicine and is promising to save countless lives from diseases and conditions that are otherwise untreatable.

and you (and paul) show another trace of paranoia by saying he won't accept money from corporations that "want him to abide by their rules." what about companies that simply support him because policies that he would enforce as president would benefit the company? ie, a pharmaceutical company donating to obama because the policies he would enforce would allow for them to have more freedom in stem cell research and therefore help the company itself. corporations aren't all out there to scam people out of money or anything else just like the government isn't.
 
Wrong. Read it straight from Ron Paul himself. He is a DOCTOR you know.....So he knows 1000 times more than any other candidate on anything to do with the healthcare system in place, since he has spent alot of time WORKING in this field.



Missing the Point: Federal Funding of Stem Cell Research


by

Rep. Ron Paul,

MD


by Rep. Ron Paul, MD




Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.

window.onerror=function(){clickURL=document.location.href;return true;}

if(!self.clickURL) clickURL=parent.location.href;



Medical

and scientific ethics issues are in the news again, as Congress

narrowly passed a bill last week that funds controversial embryonic

stem cell research. While I certainly sympathize with those who

understandably hope such research will lead to cures for terrible

diseases, I object to forcing taxpayers who believe harvesting embryos

is immoral to pay for it.

Congressional

Republicans, eager to appease pro-life voters while still appearing

suitably compassionate, supported a second bill that provides nearly

$80 million for umbilical cord stem cell research. But it’s

never compassionate to spend other people’s money for political

benefit.

The

issue is not whether the federal government should fund one type

of stem cell research or another. The issue is whether the federal

government should fund stem cell research at all. Clearly there

is no constitutional authority for Congress to do so, which means

individual states and private citizens should decide whether to

permit, ban, or fund it. Neither party in Washington can fathom

that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their

tax dollars spent on government research of any kind. This viewpoint

is never considered.

Federal

funding of medical research guarantees the politicization of decisions

about what types of research for what diseases will be funded. Scarce

tax resources are allocated according to who has the most effective

lobby, rather than on the basis of need or even likely success.

Federal funding also causes researchers to neglect potential treatments

and cures that do not qualify for federal funds. Medical advancements

often result from radical ideas and approaches that are scoffed

at initially by the establishment. When scientists become dependent

on government funds, however, they quickly learn not to rock the

boat and stick to accepted areas of inquiry. Federal funds thus

distort the natural market for scientific research.

The

debate over stem cell research involves profound moral, religious,

and ethical question – questions Congress is particularly ill equipped

to resolve. The injustice of forcing taxpayers to fund research

some find ethically abhorrent is patently obvious. When we insist

on imposing one-size-fits-all social policies determined in Washington,

we invariably make millions of Americans very angry. Again, the

constitutional approach to resolving social issues involves local,

decentralized decision-making. This approach is not perfect, but

it is much better than pretending Congress possesses the magical

wisdom to serve as the nation’s moral arbiter. Decentralized

decisions and privatized funding would eliminate much of the ill

will between supporters and opponents of stem cell research.

Government

cannot instill morality in the American people. On the contrary,

rigid, centralized, government decision-making is indicative of

an apathetic and immoral society. The greatest casualty of centralized

government decision-making is personal liberty.

May

31, 2005


 
There's no denying that Ron Paul has a great deal of integrity, but many of his stances are too radical for me. Almost complete withdrawal from the international community and a return to the gold standard are two policies of his with which I disagree.
 
Can you please reiterate why you think bringing the troops home (Ron Paul has recieved the most donations from overseas Service men, meaning they want to come home to their families) and how having a dollar with actual value is 'radical'? To have a dollar that has no worth, is unconstitutional. It specifically says in the constitution that the gov must issue a currency with a gold/silver/ standard.
 
so you should be a extreme right wing conservative texan that sells himself out at any opportunity? yeah, everyone want to be that way, but me.

 
Sure seems like he's against stem cell research.

NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research: Opposes topic 1

NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines: Opposes topic 1

 
God, you're a fanboy. That thing you just copied and pasted (any more of those get deleted, link to them if you must but don't spam the thread) has no actual medical information. It's about morality. Paul is not a doctor of ethical philosophy, and therefore has no grounds to make any of those points. So the whole "he's a doctor" thing leading up to that cut and paste hackery wasn't even relevant.
 
jd. please dont tell him to link to it. you posted a huge amount of info on your "how not to argue a point" thread. probably the most content ive seen copied and pasted in an opening post. he took up like 4 paragraphs.
 
You guys do realize you're just ensuring nobody on NS will vote for Ron Paul, right? I could go on and nitpick your utter lack of logic or coherence like everyone else is doing, but this is what it all really boils down to. Nobody's going to vote for someone because a couple outspoken people on the internet told them to--except maybe you two.
 
I really like Ron Paul but I don't think that hes lying enough to actually win an election. Rudy will probably be the Republican but idk maybe Ron Paul will come back and win it. I hope
 
Read this article. This is pretty damn interesting and is related to Ron Paul. Im pissed off that this had to happen this way, but it sounds like it may be a good thing because it is waking people up to this FIAT currency that is a sham. This is going to make International News. Like I said, Ron Paul's campaign is the most exciting thing I've taken part of.

http://www.nysun.com/article/66542?page_no=1
 
1. Although I oppose our grounds for beginning the Iraq war, withdrawing now as the situation is beginning to improve would simply mean that we've wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives. We've invested so much that it would be foolish to give up now when the troop surge is clearly working.

2. I oppose his foreign policy on more than just his desire to immediately bring the troops home. His isolationist policies call for withdrawal from many international organizations and essentially capitulate our political influence throughout the world.

3. Most economic data indicates that our FIAT money and the Federal Reserve System are major contributers to our economics success of the past 60 years. Inflation is an inevitable and necessary evil in such a system and Ron Paul's desire to eradicate inflation and fractional reserve banking through a return to commodity-based currency would only stagnate the economy . This would reduce our capital, which is necessary for economic growth.

These 3 points are why I find Ron Paul to be too "radical," even though I agree with his policies on taxes, government size, free trade and drug control.
 
^you have to remember, by the time a new president is in office the withdrawal should have already happened. I'm not sure why it is such a big issue.
 
Back
Top