• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

The official Ron Paul thread

Migrated topic.
I'm with obliguhl on this. A lot of us aren't in the US; but more to the point this is not the right venue for political campaigns, just as it is not the place to preach religion. If the topic comes up fine, but it does not need to turn into spam, otherwise it should be treated as such, which is not in anyone's interest.
 
done.

ive moved this to the tavern since the sub forum is society and culture and this thread now goes beyond entheogenic freedom. this is now the official Ron Paul thread.

have at it.
 
To non-americans, the popularity of a guy like ron paul on substance-related fora such as this is often a bit of a mystery.
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
People who're supporting him must be realy frustrated with main stream politic's if they don't even care about the lack of realism of this presidential candidate.
 
polytrip said:
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

don't confuse conservativism with neo-conservativism, the latter is what you described.Perry fits that bill. Paul's politics are more libertarian than anything else; fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal..which is arguably the most sensible stance.
 
Didn't he also want to close-down the federal reserve bank and have america leaving the U.N., IMF and other international organisations, or am i confusing him with another candidate?
 
benzyme said:
don't confuse conservativism with neo-conservativism, the latter is what you described.Perry fits that bill. Paul's politics are more libertarian than anything else; fiscally-conservative, socially-liberal..which is arguably the most sensible stance.
Click to expand...
Ron Paul is definitely not a liberal with respect to social issues. Take a look at some of the excerpts from this site:

--- Ron Paul on the Issues ---


· Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008 )
· Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008 )
· Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008 )
· Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
· Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
· 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)
· 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)
· Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)
· Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
· No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)
· Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
· Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
· 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)
· Rated 38% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (Dec 2006)
· Rated 39% by NAACP, indicating a mixed record on affirmative-action. (Dec 2006)
· Voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. (Jul 2009)
· Voted NO on more funding for nanotechnology R&D and commercialization. (Jul 2009)
· Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)
· Opposes “hate crimes” legislation. (Sep 2007)
· Close Dept. of Education, but don’t dismantle public schools. (Dec 2007)
· Encourage homeschooling & private school via tax writeoff. (Dec 2007)
· Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)
· Voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. (Jun 2009)
· Voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, with PAYGO offsets. (Sep 2008 )
· Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (May 2008 )
· Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008 )
· Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
· 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)
· Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence. (Dec 2006)
· Bar greenhouse gases from Clean Air Act rules. (Jan 2009)
· Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Nov 2010)
· No EPA regulation of greenhouse gases. (Jan 2011)
· Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
· Rated 76% by the Christian Coalition: a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003)
· Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)
· Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)
· Voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Apr 2009)
· Voted NO on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (Jan 2009)
· Voted NO on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008 )
· Voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. (Mar 2008 )
· 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)
· Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
· Rated 83% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
 
polytrip said:
To non-americans, the popularity of a guy like ron paul on substance-related fora such as this is often a bit of a mystery.
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
People who're supporting him must be realy frustrated with main stream politic's if they don't even care about the lack of realism of this presidential candidate.
Click to expand...


I think its Americas foreign policy that has turned it into the most hated nation on earth, meddling in the affairs of others and starting preemptive wars is a way better way of isolating yourself than minding your own business and talking to nations on a diplomatic level imo
 
RayOfLight said:
polytrip said:
To non-americans, the popularity of a guy like ron paul on substance-related fora such as this is often a bit of a mystery.
He seems very conservative to me, like he wants to turn back the clock at least a century and isolate america from the rest of the world.
People who're supporting him must be realy frustrated with main stream politic's if they don't even care about the lack of realism of this presidential candidate.
Click to expand...


I think its Americas foreign policy that has turned it into the most hated nation on earth, meddling in the affairs of others and starting preemptive wars is a way better way of isolating yourself than minding your own business and talking to nations on a diplomatic level imo
Click to expand...

Love us, hate us, it really doesn't matter to our elite...they've got what they've got and they're not going anywhere. Our corporate interests are globalized and protected...the money's rolling in just fine (seriously, despite all the talks of debt in the news, America's elite have so much on hand capital they don't what to do with it...read any business journal OR look at the investments in US bonds following the DOWNGRADING of America's status...it's absurd). What do they care how the rest of the world views us? See, from an American standpoint, we are not meddling, we are controlling/protecting our interests/destiny, the global population and resources are but externalities.

Don't believe me? Watch this 5 minute interview with Susan Rice (American ambassador to the UN)...see how often she refers to the purpose of the UN as to protect/further American interests, not international interests, not international relations, American (read: American corporate/financial) interests. The tagline even reads:
In this unedited, extended interview, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice explains the role of the U.N. in protecting American interests.
Click to expand...

Interview

It's not hidden, we do what we want because we can...Paul isn't going to stop this, he's owned just as much as any other politician. If you think otherwise you're just deluding yourself and ignoring the facts.
 
I like ya Ray so please don't take this the wrong way... Just thought it was appropriate.

fanatic - a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
 
gibran2 said:
· Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) [from Ron Paul on the Issues]
Click to expand...

I wish I had the time and motivation to go through each and every one of these factoids, but I will settle on this one in particular. I found it rather hard to believe that Dr. Paul would oppose such a thing and there surely must be some legitimate reason for him to do so. Turns out this is referencing House Amendment 356 to HR bill 2587. The amendment was to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." (On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R … -- House Vote #346 -- Jul 29, 1999)

This is not an opposition to civil liberties, but rather a demonstration of his consistent principles as a fiscal conservative. You will find many examples of this in Paul's voting record. He simply opposes government funding for most things. ontheissues.org obviously needs to get its poorly cited and unrepresentative facts straight.
 
blue_velvet said:
gibran2 said:
· Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) [from Ron Paul on the Issues]
Click to expand...

I wish I had the time and motivation to go through each and every one of these factoids, but I will settle on this one in particular. I found it rather hard to believe that Dr. Paul would oppose such a thing and there surely must be some legitimate reason for him to do so. Turns out this is referencing House Amendment 356 to HR bill 2587. The amendment was to "prohibit any funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage." (On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 5 to H R … -- House Vote #346 -- Jul 29, 1999)

This is not an opposition to civil liberties, but rather a demonstration of his consistent principles as a fiscal conservative. You will find many examples of this in Paul's voting record. He simply opposes government funding for most things. ontheissues.org obviously needs to get its poorly cited and unrepresentative facts straight.
Click to expand...

Presumably, if a bill is introduced to “prohibit funding for the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage”, then the government already provides funding of some sort for “the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are related by blood or marriage”?

If that’s the case, then does he oppose such existing funding? And if so, why hasn’t he sponsored legislation against it?
 
Melodic Catastrophe said:
I like ya Ray so please don't take this the wrong way... Just thought it was appropriate.

fanatic - a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject"--Winston Churchill
Click to expand...


Hmm... I don't think my enthusiasm is irrational as Paul has a voting record that shows hes a man of principal, a champion of the constitution and liberty witch is what made america great in the first place..

I am also willing to change my mind on the issue but so far haven't been convinced to do so.

As far as the subject goes it still looks like people are interested in the discussion so it persists.


I'm sure it seems like I fell in the Ron Paul kool aid vat as pointed out by another member but to me this all makes perfect sense and I've thought a lot about it.

There is just a difference here between how I see the world and how some other members see the world witch is fine by me as I wouldn't want to be anyone else :)
 
RayOfLight said:
I'm sure it seems like I fell in the Ron Paul kool aid vat as pointed out by another member but to me this all makes perfect sense and I've thought a lot about it.

There is just a difference here between how I see the world and how some other members see the world witch is fine by me as I wouldn't want to be anyone else :)
Click to expand...

You seem to like RP almost as much as I like GVG.
 
I like you too Ray, I just think you are being a bit of a propagandist. This was going in in the last election as well, BOTH for Ron Paul and for Obama. I like reading the positives and negatives on ANYONE I am considering casting a vote for or encouraging other to do so. Obama had some negatives, but all things considered he was the lesser of all evils. He has done some good things in office and has been prohibited from doing a lot of other good things. He has also made many mistakes and done many wrong things while in office. Unless someone better comes along I think I'll vote Obama again.

My suggestion to you and others considering a vote or a vote of confidence and support for Ron Paul is to look seriously at his or other candidates negative side as much or more than their positive side. Obama was considered a Saint and Prophet by many people who could not also see his negative aspects. No one is perfect. Look closely at the negatives and consider if they are acceptable or not.

Here is an interesting list I saw recently of reasons why NOT to vote for Ron Paul. Not my writing, but interesting info and perspective.

Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. See bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.

Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. See Bills: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” See Bills: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. See bill: H.R.05484

Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please see bills: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that did not happen he has fought to at least have the US withdraw from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.” Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see bills: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to G.L.B.T. citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955. A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals! His “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 that advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations.

Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion. He stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.”

Though he talks a good talk at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative, bigoted views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
 
Back
Top Bottom