Ron Paul Thread

[bbarrick8383]

Paul has never had a chance. Could he have pulled off a primary or caucus victory by some fluke? Maybe. But the guy has never been a serious candidate. He is talking about serious issues, but be honest, a 77 year old congressman from Texas who ran on the Libertarian ticket before? Please.

Ishii

By some fluke huh…

The republican party is Dr. Paul’s gift that keeps on giving. I hope his son can take over and continue his work. Every election he becomes more and more serious, the more people realize they are being run roughshod by the Republican and Democrat party, the more they will look for an alternative. If your tired of it, the best solution is a constitutional conservative/libertarian road.

Age is a pathetic excuse, any President at any age could be taken out of office. There are mechanics in place if such a case were to arise.

Libertarianism, classical conservatism, our countries past…and if people decide to wake up, our countries future.

Dr. Paul’s main goal in office has been education over legislation. He knew going into office his attempts to pass legislation would be shot down. You can’t hold your oath to the constitution and pass legislation in today’s government.

 

[rlg94086]

Is this how it works? I provide my opinion and you provide empty rhetoric?

“Most people don’t pay any attention to the national debt, a real security issue, unlike a nuke that nobody has any proof of in Iran”

“YOU JUST THINK YOUR SMARTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE YOU RON PAUL SUPPORTER YOU!!!”



Wasn’t long ago conservatives were bashing Obama supporters for being ignorant of the issues.

Then they complain about the debt, and the wars, the big spending, the healthcare.

It’s funny how you trust government so much when it comes to dropping bombs, but don’t dare touch your healthcare, right?

I believe in consistency, I don’t trust them with preemptive strikes or preemptive care.

I think many Paul supporters themselves are a little over the top.

I think many who oppose Paul are to stubborn to step back and question their own views.

It wasn’t that long ago I would sit here and agree with almost everything the rest of the conservatives said. Then I felt like a hypocrite, how can I be against big government but support the Republican nominee whose all about big government. Mitt, Newt, Santorum have all had their hand in big money, big government and big corruption.

Then I saw, this one person. People said, “He’s never gotten anything done in Congress”. Wait…why not? “Because he’s a bad leader” Really? Let’s look deeper into it…no lobbyist connections, no big oil connections, he refused the government pension, he doesn’t vote yes on anything that violates the constitution, something conservatives say they champion, he proposed legislation to reduce his own pay…wow, if you take away the name it sounds like the perfect conservative candidate.

Put in the name and all of the sudden conservatives slam on the breaks. “We don’t like his foreign policy”, well you better start to like it because your broke. “We need to bomb those terrorists in other countries”, good you only create more while your at it.

“He want’s to legalize drugs”, no he want’s states to take control over the issue. “He’s not as pro-life”, uh…he’s an OB/GYN whose proposed a sanctity of life act three times and delivered over 4,000 children.

C’mon, you guys know there will never be a perfect candidate, but if you truly support limited government, balanced budgets, yaddy yaddy ya and all the rest…

Can you really support a typical Republican politician whose is or has been beholden to big money, big government and big lobby? And keep a straight face and demonize Ron Paul?

If you can, conservatism has lost all respect from me.

Nice rant. I give it a good 4.5 stars.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Nice rant. I give it a good 4.5 stars.

I wouldn’t expect anything more.

 

[ishii]

By some fluke huh…

The republican party is Dr. Paul’s gift that keeps on giving. I hope his son can take over and continue his work. Every election he becomes more and more serious, the more people realize they are being run roughshod by the Republican and Democrat party, the more they will look for an alternative. If your tired of it, the best solution is a constitutional conservative/libertarian road.

Age is a pathetic excuse, any President at any age could be taken out of office. There are mechanics in place if such a case were to arise.

Libertarianism, classical conservatism, our countries past…and if people decide to wake up, our countries future.

Dr. Paul’s main goal in office has been education over legislation. He knew going into office his attempts to pass legislation would be shot down. You can’t hold your oath to the constitution and pass legislation in today’s government.

Political reality, bbarrick. I call it as I see it. And I don’t see Paul ever becoming president - so sorry to dash your hopes.

Getting back to political reality and the choices we have between a GOP nominee and a president whose policies differ greatly. Obama wants socialized medicine. The GOP nominee wants to repeal Obamacare. Obama wants gay marriage. The GOP nominee would fight against that. Obama wants to prevent an oil pipeline, the GOP nominee would advocate for the pipeline. Obama is weak on foreign policy, the GOP nominee would keep our defenses strong. Obama wants outright amnesty. The GOP nominee would be stricter on immigration.

Obama will fight to keep abortion legal.

Unless we stop him.

Ron Paul can’t stop him.

The GOP nominee can.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Political reality, bbarrick. I call it as I see it. And I don’t see Paul ever becoming president - so sorry to dash your hopes.

Getting back to political reality and the choices we have between a GOP nominee and a president whose policies differ greatly. Obama wants socialized medicine. The GOP nominee wants to repeal Obamacare. Obama wants gay marriage. The GOP nominee would fight against that. Obama wants to prevent an oil pipeline, the GOP nominee would advocate for the pipeline. Obama is weak on foreign policy, the GOP nominee would keep our defenses strong. Obama wants outright amnesty. The GOP nominee would be stricter on immigration.

Obama will fight to keep abortion legal.

Unless we stop him.

Ron Paul can’t stop him.

The GOP nominee can.

Ishii

This GOP nominee fella sounds like a great guy, too bad he’s not running.

Go to youtube and search for a video called Ron Paul vs. Goldman Sachs.

You have way more faith in a government whose given you no reason to have faith in it than I ever will.

 

[bbarrick8383]

youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg&feature=player_embedded

Thought some of you may enjoy this. Not a campaign video or anything.

 

[ishii]

 This GOP nominee fella sounds like a great guy, too bad he's not running.

Either Romney, Santorum or Gingrich would fit that description I made. And I’m sure that whichever nominee came out of a brokered convention would too.

You have way more faith in a government whose given you no reason to have faith in it than I ever will.

No, I don’t have faith in government, I look at what Obama is for and what the GOP guys are for and vote accordingly. There are real differences that matter, contrary to the Paul supporters. I don’t have faith in government, but I know a real choice when I see one.

Ishii

 

[bbarrick8383]

Either Romney, Santorum or Gingrich would fit that description I made. And I’m sure that whichever nominee came out of a brokered convention would too.

Romneys going to fold as soon as he gets into office, he will close the doors to the discussion and give up. He has no spine. What’s a debate between Romney vs. Obama going to look like? Did you watch that video I recommended?

Newt, who knows. Based on the Newt since the conversion I might take a chance. I’m worried that the real mudslinging is going to come out if he’s the nominee. I’m sure Obama’s got the crew just waiting to rip his jugular out.

Santorum, sorry but Paul’s got a better chance of beating Obama than he does. Sorry to dash your hopes but he’s a moron.

No, I don’t have faith in government, I look at what Obama is for and what the GOP guys are for and vote accordingly. There are real differences that matter, contrary to the Paul supporters. I don’t have faith in government, but I know a real choice when I see one.

Ishii

When it comes to foreign policy, you have way more faith than I do.

Debt: 15.2 Trillion
GDP: 15.1 Trillion
Unfunded Liabilities: 117 Trillion

Your choice isn’t to fix the biggest problem we have as a country, your choice is to figure out which candidate isn’t going to kick the can quite as far down the road as the other.

My choice is to throw the damn can in the trash.

 

[bbarrick8383]

BTW Ishii, you have more faith that a government will force morality through law upon the 50 states than I ever will also. I don’t see it happening, your lucky they haven’t made gay marriage legal in your state as well. To give up control and the ability to legislate your moral beliefs is to give in to the fact that it has a very good chance of backfiring and you will instead get a legislation of immoral beliefs.

I’ll trust my state and it’s people to impose the laws that we feel are comfortable for us.

Until then I will have to sit back and watch you and the liberals duke it out until the courts are brought in and they force me to live with gay marriage because conservatives weren’t smart enough to keep the issue away from government in the first place.

 

[exnihilo]

Once again, this analysis is absolutely wrong… The “eight Republican appointees” that Sobran speaks of, how many were nominated by Republican presidents (Nixon and Ford) before abortion became a national issue and certainly before the pro-life movement was organized to the point that it could pressure the president to try to nominate constructionist supreme court justices who might overturn Roe V Wade. Nixon was pro-choice even.

The facts are not wrong. You might draw different conclusions. That being the case there is no ‘absolutely’ wrong about what I said.

So before abortion was made legal Republicans had no idea it was immoral? Before abortion was made legal, by a Republican court, the kind of Republican judicial nominee was the kind who could find a right to kill babies in the womb? Thanks for pointing out Nixon was pro choice. He also reneged on the promise to foreigners to redeem dollars for gold (FDR imposed that wealth theft upon US citizens only) and instituted wage and price controls. So upon examining history we find that Republicans were neither conservative nor moral in the past. So why would anyone believe that Republicans are conservative and moral and pursue strategies to govern the country through that political party when they have no history of being so?

Are you not aware that Bush 1 had to deal with a senate that was dominated by pro-abortion liberal Democrats like Kennedy, Biden and Patrick Leahy? (who were also catholic) ??? Considering that political reality its a wonder Bush was able to get even one good justice on the bench in Clarence Thomas. Here is another reason: a GOP controlled senate.

So does the president determine the nominees or the Senate? If it is the Senate as you claim than what does it matter who the president is. Isn’t a Republican Senate all that is required? Of course if you have people like Santorum’s pal pro abortion Arlen Specter getting elected a Republican Senate is of no consequence.

The Republicans didn’t “control the courts”. That is a false statement. You had different justices who were nominated in different era’s in entirely different circumstances. I realize this doesn’t fit your view, but facts are facts. Based on your thinking, I might say, “we should vote Democrat because sometimes Democrats nominate anti-abortion justices - Byron White was nominated by JFK”

Facts are facts? Are you arguing against the fact that the majority of the SCOTUS has been since the time abortion was made legal a majority of Republican nominees?

Thanks for bringing up Byron White. This is the court that created a right to abortion.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, Nixon, R
Harry Blackmun, Nixon, R
William J. Brennan, Jr., Eisenhower, R
Lewis F. Powell, Nixon, R
Potter Stewart, Eisenhower, R
William O. Douglas, FDR, D
Thurgood Marshall, LBJ, D

William Rehnquist, Nixon, R
Byron White, Kennedy, D

5 Republicans and 2 Democracts voted for this. 1 Republican and 1 Democrat voted against. I dont see any indication the Republican Party is against abortion in this. And I see a strong indication that Democrats could be against abortion. What exactly is your claim that Republicans are particularly against abortion other than their rhetoric, which has accomplished nothing. If you ask me it is crazy to put your trust in ending an evil in the hands of the party that gave it to you. Three of the guys who voted for this were Nixon appointees. How do you go from Republican Nixon nominating three pro abortion justices to ten years later claiming that man’s party is the key to ending abortion?

Well, like I said, we can’t really do much until we overturn Roe V Wade. We have four solid votes right now. One more would do it. But apparently you want to quit because you’re frustrated with the big bad Republicans! This election will decide much. If you give up now its like quitting a marathon a mile or two before the finish.

By the way if your goal is to get justices in the mold of Scalia and Thomas keep in mind they believe exactly what Dr. Paul believes and gets ridiculed and rejected by anti-abortion campaigners. They believe there is no federal right to abortion but that states can, but not must, make it illegal.

Thomas said in one dissent:

‘Although a State may permit abortion, nothing in the Constitution dictates that a State must do so.’

Scalia in that same case said:

‘the Court should return this matter to the people – where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it – and let them decide, state by state, whether this practice should be allowed.’

Yes, I am sure that Bill Bennet is secretly pro-life because it helps him fund his gambling habit. LOL. That just about sums up your analysis doesn’t it.

No that doesn’t sum up my analysis and is nothing resembling it. I merely pointed out the weak morality of some in the pro life movement. Is it not human nature that people will do anything to feed their addiction? Bill Bennet wants to lock up drug addicts who he claims will commit crimes to get their fix. He knows human nature. So why cant we apply his wisdom to his behavior? I’m not saying with assurance why this man does anything. But since he has pretty weak morals in one area it can certainly extend to another area. With the Republicans excited at the prospects of Newt the idea that the GOP is the moral party is losing whatever credibility it had.

 

[exnihilo]

Fine, support Paul. I just hope that when the eventual GOP nominee is decided, you will discern your moral duty in light of political reality, rather than the historical fantasy masquerading as political analysis you’ve displayed here. You might want to bone up on some political history before posting next time.

Paul would probably nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who narrowly define federal powers according to the constitution. So we would get justices who would have the view you are looking for to overturn abortion. So he clearly is an excellent choice to end the scourge of abortion.

By the way you are getting pretty insulting. I actually have extensively studied politics. One thing I know for certain is that in single member plurality systems, like the US, both parties move to the middle. So the party is less important than what the average American believes. Of course you have rare exceptions like Dr. Paul who you can count to stand on principle. The other candidates have no firm foundation and so will change to get votes. Dr. Paul if elected would nominate strict constructionists who would return abortion to the states just as the other strict constructionists on the court would do.

 

[scipio337]

Paul would probably nominate justices like Scalia and Thomas who narrowly define federal powers according to the constitution. So we would get justices who would have the view you are looking for to overturn abortion. So he clearly is an excellent choice to end the scourge of abortion.

Like Scalia and Thomas? Have you read what Lew Rockwell and other Paulites have written about Scalia and Thomas?

I’m not sure Paul’s appoach of letting “the states decide” would end abortion. In that case, it would probably stay legal, (and become an enshrined birthright at the state level) for much of the country.

In this respect, Ron agrees with the Roe decision, that the federal protection of “life” does not extend to the unborn.

In my book, human rights trump states rights.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Like Scalia and Thomas? Have you read what Lew Rockwell and other Paulites have written about Scalia and Thomas?

I’m not sure Paul’s appoach of letting “the states decide” would end abortion. In that case, it would probably stay legal, (and become an enshrined birthright at the state level) for much of the country.

In this respect, Ron agrees with the Roe decision, that the federal protection of “life” does not extend to the unborn.

In my book, human rights trump states rights.

Keep your head stuck in your book. Your going places with that mentality.

 

[scipio337]

Keep your head stuck in your book. Your going places with that mentality.

So I’m incorrect that Paul’s approach gives validity to Roe’s central argument? If not, why does he oppose the protection of life at a federal level?



Letting “the states decide” about slavery might have ended slavery, too…
sometime around 1978 or so.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So I’m incorrect that Paul’s approach gives validity to Roe’s central argument? If not, why does he oppose the protection of life at a federal level?

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[1] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.

Yeah, pretty much. As Dr Paul said, how can we protect liberty if we can not protect life.

Letting “the states decide” about slavery might have ended slavery, too…
sometime around 1978 or so.

The northern states were abolishing slavery way before te Feds stepped in to help by slaughtering over half a million people to finish it off. What sort of pro life stance advocates that sort of means as a justification to the end?

 

[exnihilo]

Like Scalia and Thomas? Have you read what Lew Rockwell and other Paulites have written about Scalia and Thomas?

Possibly. What specifically are you referring to?

I’m not sure Paul’s appoach of letting “the states decide” would end abortion. In that case, it would probably stay legal, (and become an enshrined birthright at the state level) for much of the country.

It most certainly would not. First off there will always be illegal abortions. Secondly many states would allow it. But this is the only thing that could result from a Supreme Court decision. The court will not suddenly find that abortion is fundamentally illegal under the constitution nor will it make up penalties for it.

This gets a bit frustrating. I’m supposed to support the Republican party to get SC justices like Scalia and Thomas but then when Ron Paul expresses the same opinion regarding abortion as them he is wrong and weak on abortion.

In this respect, Ron agrees with the Roe decision, that the federal protection of “life” does not extend to the unborn.

In my book, human rights trump states rights.

Dr. Paul voted for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. This is probably the only compromise of his general principles regarding separation of powers. Yet this is not enough to make him strong on abortion?

I agree that abortion is murder. But like Dr. Paul keeps saying the federal government is not the chief prosecutor of murder. Its legislative authority over murder is limited to federal property and federal officials. The federal government could ban abortion in the same way but this would not extend to all areas of the state. The fundamental question is do we value federalism or do we want a unitary government? If a unitary government for the US why not a world government? Why dont the Republican candidates proposed to invade and conquer pro abortion countries to force them to stop abortion if they think it is so important an issue?

 

[scipio337]

Yeah, pretty much. As Dr Paul said, how can we protect liberty if we can not protect life.

Ah, but you missed the second part of that wikipedia article:

The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that **each state **has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.

So, again, each state has the authority to protect the unborn life, but not the obligation. In other words, if California wants abortion, California keeps abortion.

At the same time, Ron Paul believes that the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion.

ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

But that’s okay to Paul fans.
bbarrick:

The northern states were abolishing slavery way before te Feds stepped in to help by slaughtering over half a million people to finish it off. What sort of pro life stance advocates that sort of means as a justification to the end?

Seriously? 7 states seceded before Lincoln even took office. If you missed it, the sucessionist fired the first shots at Fort Sumter.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ah, but you missed the second part of that wikipedia article:

So, again, each state has the authority to protect the unborn life, but not the obligation. In other words, if California wants abortion, California keeps abortion.

ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

But that’s okay to Paul fans.

Seriously? 7 states seceded before Lincoln even took office. If you missed it, the sucessionist fired the first shots at Fort Sumter.

Dude read the paragraph I gave you again along with the one you posted.

California can not legalize murder.

I’m not sure what thy our point is on the second half.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thank you for participating. Feel free to discuss the Florida primary here: Florida Primary