Ron Paul Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Roy5 said:
However, I cannot support Ron Paul for presidentr=. I agree with his views on war and how he alone among the candidates is bringing a different view before the American people. They certainly don’t get that from the media. But he is too isolationalist for me. Non-intervention, yes. Isolationalism, no. We should, for example, stick with the UN and work through it as best we can for peace as well as on important humanitarian projects.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure that Dr. Paul is anything more than a non-interventionist. I think he is called an isolationist because that is a pejorative term. If you aren’t intervening you are an isolationist in most people’s mind. I would ask what is the difference in an non-interventionist and an isolationist?

Regarding the UN I would question whether it promotes peace. I consider it a way for the major world powers to give cover to their military ambitions. The Security Council ultimately controls everything. Whenever a resolution is passed condemning Israels brutality to the Palestinians the US and other Security Council members veto it.

I think peace and humanitarian efforts should be made through the church.
Roy5 said:
Code: 
I also disagree with Paul on his extreme libertarianism. For example, he would totally decriminalize addictive drugs, if I understand his position. I cannot agree. He also is too dogmatic when he opposes various governmental efforts to assist the disabled, the extreme poor, and others in society who need help through no fault of their own. We have developed a safety net that needs reform, but it should not be tossed aside.
Click to expand...
The idea regarding drugs is that the laws do not stop drug abuse but do result in the jailing of a huge percentage of our population. The laws have also eroded our liberty. Not everything that is bad should be criminal. Personally I think the biggest problem is pharmaceutical drugs. Most people in old folks homes are narcotic addicts.

In regards to social programs he agrees we cant cut them all at once since people depend on them. He believes in a safety net he just thinks that safety net is the church and private groups (which still exist because the government safety net is insufficient).
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Was that, in 98, when Clinton bombed the empty Iraqi ministry of defense building at night killing an innocent janitor and missing the general staff? Didn’t he also launch cruise missiles against a tent in Afghanistan? [Of course, he alerted Pakistan ahead of time, so they could warn the al Qaeda folks to step away for a few minutes.]
Click to expand...
First you claimed Clinton did nothing. Now you seem to be saying he didn’t kill enough people.
 
Another media rant (I guess the issue that started my media rant):

So recently a video came out attacking Jon Huntsman for adopting Chinese children, being the ambassador to China, etc. It basically questioned his commitment to America. It was made by some independent group that claims that they are Ron Paul supporters in New Hampshire. Well the media has picked up on this video for some reason and it looks as though it is being used as an attack on Paul. I ask why? There are nuts in the supports of any camp, so why only pick out the ones from Ron Paul and not the ones for any other group? It just smelled to me like the noisome odor of shameless and baseless attack.
 
A couple points
Code: 
 Here are four quick points in response to points made in recent postings.
** 1. Private charities could not begin to cover all the programs for needy folks**. Most churches, for example, have a struggle meeting their own limited budgets. Catholic Charities has been receiving millions of tax dollars - most of its funds - from the government to do its work. I’ve always been surprised that this hasn’t been challenged by church-state separationists.

** 2, Ron Paul had consistently opposed foreign intervention by his votes over the years - and was heavily criticized for it.** He courageously - for example - refused to support our huge annual subsidies to Israel and had been among a small group who voted against them. I admire that, but have trouble with other policies he champions.

** 3. There are problems at the UN, but we need such an organization with the hope and prayer that it can help pave the way to peace as well as promote various humanitarian projects**. It does and has done far more than is well publicized. Compared to our trillions for instruments of war, the UN is an inexpensive and good investment. It provides a useful debating forum and should be strengthened.

** 4. The idea that the church be the instrument of peace should be a good one.** However, only roughly 21/2 billion of the 7 billion people on earth are identified Christians, some of them 'let’s bomb ‘em’ advocates. Nevertheless, I would like to see religious leaders of all groups seriously work together toward peace. So much of the bitterness and violence in the world today stems from religious tribalism. Scandalous. Christ must shed many tears over the way we have killed one another when he called upon us to ‘love one another’. If course, we always blame someone else for ‘starting it’.
God bless the our lives, our homes, our nation and our world with peace, faith and especially love.
 
Roy5 said:
A couple points
Code: 
 Here are four quick points in response to points made in recent postings.
** 1. Private charities could not begin to cover all the programs for needy folks**. Most churches, for example, have a struggle meeting their own limited budgets. Catholic Charities has been receiving millions of tax dollars - most of its funds - from the government to do its work. I’ve always been surprised that this hasn’t been challenged by church-state separationists.
Click to expand...
We also have to remember that

1: Without government involvement, the need for charity would decrease because it would no longer be an entitlement as it currently is.
2. There is absolutely no evidence that private charity would not be enough. Remember that without the government welfare rolls, private individuals would have a lot more disposable income to give to charity, and with private organizations we would not have the loss we currently have due to waste and administrative costs.
** 2, Ron Paul had consistently opposed foreign intervention by his votes over the years - and was heavily criticized for it.** He courageously - for example - refused to support our huge annual subsidies to Israel and had been among a small group who voted against them. I admire that, but have trouble with other policies he champions.
Click to expand...
Foreign aid is a big deal that doesn’t get much air time.
** 3. There are problems at the UN, but we need such an organization with the hope and prayer that it can help pave the way to peace as well as promote various humanitarian projects**. It does and has done far more than is well publicized. Compared to our trillions for instruments of war, the UN is an inexpensive and good investment. It provides a useful debating forum and should be strengthened.
Click to expand...
Free trade did more for the cause of peace in the 1800s than the UN could ever hope of doing.
** 4. The idea that the church be the instrument of peace should be a good one.** However, only roughly 21/2 billion of the 7 billion people on earth are identified Christians, some of them 'let’s bomb ‘em’ advocates. Nevertheless, I would like to see religious leaders of all groups seriously work together toward peace. So much of the bitterness and violence in the world today stems from religious tribalism. Scandalous. Christ must shed many tears over the way we have killed one another when he called upon us to ‘love one another’. If course, we always blame someone else for ‘starting it’.
Click to expand...
Code: 
God bless the our lives, our homes, our nation and our world with peace, faith and especially love.
Click to expand...
I hope we all say a prayer untied for peace in this world.
 
bbarrick8383 said:
If you want to know exactly what he would do, just read Ludwig Von Mises, Dr. Paul actually got to hear the guy speak once when he was 90 years old. But he is a firm believer in Mises and his works.

I’ve read Mises as it is so often cited on other forums, but believing it and getting it accomplished are NOT the same thing hence my previous post.

So far from what I’ve gathered, you build up a strong military, a strong free trade network and blow up anyone who tries to interrupt your trade interests.

I think electing Ron Paul would shake things up, of that I have no doubt. I think he could bring many Republicans back to their roots from which they came from and set the party back on it’s tracks that it should have never left to begin with.
Click to expand...
From your keyboard to God’s ear…
 
rlg94086 said:
:rotfl: Sure. Someone else probably queued up the pork coming to his district. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Of course others request the funding when it becomes available. That is how funding works. If the federal government sets aside so much for updating bridge infrastructure, for instance, the road and bridge departments then send in the requests. It is clear your blogger does not even understand the concept of “pork”. It is the attaching of unrelated direct funding of a local project to a bill, not the appropriation locally of something for which a bill intends the money to be spent. The role of the congressman in this is either to vote for or against the bill.
 
pnewton said:
Of course others request the funding when it becomes available. That is how funding works. If the federal government sets aside so much for updating bridge infrastructure, for instance, the road and bridge departments then send in the requests. It is clear your blogger does not even understand the concept of “pork”. It is the attaching of unrelated direct funding of a local project to a bill, not the appropriation locally of something for which a bill intends the money to be spent. The role of the congressman in this is either to vote for or against the bill.
Click to expand...
Precisely, and he still voted against the bills. Honestly I’m surprised this is even raised as an issue against Paul. There are plenty of reasonable criticisms against him and his views, but this definitely isn’t one of them. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
 
Michael_C said:
Why not listen to the good doctor in his own words…

youtube.com/watch?v=7l-NuNGTcoA
Click to expand...
Is reading his words insufficient?

chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-reps-defend-earmarks-for-Houston-projects-1837685.php
Wants money returned
Click to expand...
Paul defended his support of earmarks, which also include numerous water and highway projects in his Gulf Coast district, saying that, although he does not like the current budget process, he wants money returned to his district as funding is doled out nationwide.

“I don’t think they should take our money in the first place,” he said. “But if they take it,** I think we should ask for it back.”**

The way it works in Paul’s office is that local groups and officials from his district make pitches to him for federal funding. The congressman passes along those recommendations to the Appropriations Committee as earmark requests. Paul said he tries to treat everyone equally and rejects few requests. He said it would be unfair “for me to close the door and say this is a bunch of junk.”

But in the end, Paul said, he would likely vote against the spending bills even if they included earmarks he sought.

This month in his weekly column, Paul expressed his philosophy about his opposition to proposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.
Click to expand...
Obviously, he was just doing what all congressmen do…maximize the pork for their district.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Because getting something for nothing is better than getting nothing for nothing, and he still votes against these budgets.
Click to expand...
Right…voting against something that you’ve added pork to is a little disingenuous, but I guess he felt obligated. I could see where his constituents are happy, nonetheless, and he gets to feel good about voting his principles and still bring home the pork. A win-win! 👍👍
 
rlg94086 said:
Right…voting against something that you’ve added pork to is a little disingenuous, but I guess he felt obligated. I could see where his constituents are happy, nonetheless, and he gets to feel good about voting his principles and still bring home the pork. A win-win! 👍👍
Click to expand...
So as a delegate he should be fine with his district getting taxed and seeing that the president gets all of their money?
 
rlg94086 said:
Obviously, he was just doing what all congressmen do…maximize the pork for their district.
Click to expand...
That is not what he said and it is** not** how he voted. What he said supports is that people who pay taxes into the federal government should ask for it back. He did not say that **he **ought to ask for it back for them.
 
pnewton said:
That is not what he said and it is** not** how he voted. What he said supports is that people who pay taxes into the federal government should ask for it back. He did not say that **he **ought to ask for it back for them.
Click to expand...
Just an unwilling conduit of funds to his district. Win-win!!! 👍👍👍
 
rlg94086 said:
Just an unwilling conduit of funds to his district. Win-win!!! 👍👍👍
Click to expand...
The congressman is not the conduit of funds. Most bills have their own methods for dispersing funds via grants. For example, when the federal government wants to establish a debate base for child identification to fight child abduction and slavery, then it will fund local collection facilities for data. The congressman has nothing to do with this. If the FEMA needs to increase infrastructure and equipment, it is local entities that will requisition the items to use, maintain, but make available to FEMA as they need it. Again, the congressman is not a conduit, and wins nothing.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Another media rant (I guess the issue that started my media rant):

So recently a video came out attacking Jon Huntsman for adopting Chinese children, being the ambassador to China, etc. It basically questioned his commitment to America. It was made by some independent group that claims that they are Ron Paul supporters in New Hampshire. Well the media has picked up on this video for some reason and it looks as though it is being used as an attack on Paul. I ask why? There are nuts in the supports of any camp, so why only pick out the ones from Ron Paul and not the ones for any other group? It just smelled to me like the noisome odor of shameless and baseless attack.
Click to expand...
There’s actually a theory on this that it was Huntsman (or his daughters) as a response to the Iowa tweet from Paul’s twitter:
theendrun.com/huntsman-complicit-in-false-flag-style-dirty-trick-against-paul

I’m not sure I believe that it was Huntsman, but there really is no need for him to be making a big deal out of it. If anything, Huntsman wining about it makes it a bigger deal than it is. Normally, a video like that would get no attention ever, now it’s the most discussed video of the day! Someone at the Ron Paul forums said that at one point in the day they brought up the video every 20 minutes. I think he just wants to hurt Ron Paul in NH.

So, if I make a video trashing Paul, Santorum or any other candidate while identifying as a Huntsman supporter, does that mean Huntsman has to go on Fox, CNN and MSNBC and disavow the video.

Just another attempt to trash Dr. Paul and make an artificial Huntsman surge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top