Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Ron Paul related news

53 posts in this topic

Posted

Best thing happend
troops-for-ron-paul_s640x427.jpg?73b8e21685896c3f2859310aaa5adb253919b641WASHINGTON DC, February 17, 2012 – Adam Kokesh is a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and along with Nathan Cox, co-founded Veterans for Ron Paul. He and Mr. Cox are organizing a march on the White House next week with the theme “Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops”.

Catching up with Adam and he was gracious enough to answer questions about the march, Ron Paul's foreign policy, and Veterans for Ron Paul.

Adam's remarks have been shortened to fit this article.

Conor Murphy (CM): Now you're a member of another group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. What inspired you and Nathan Cox to start Veterans for Ron Paul?

Adam Kokesh (AK): The message of Ron Paul, it's as simple as that. We want a Commander-in-chief who will be decisive, put America's security first, and only send troops into harms way with a clear mission. Ron Paul is the only candidate with a pragmatic and principled foreign policy.

CM: Ron Paul has been generating a large amount of support from the military. Do you think this is a widely known fact, or is this one of the issues you're trying to bring to light with the march?

AK: It's exactly what we're trying to bring to light with the march. This is exactly why the theme of our march is “Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops”.

I think it's sad that if any other candidate had this much support of the troops, we'd be talking about this race as if it was over. It's not over because it's a message that some have failed to understand despite its clarity.

It's upseting when you hear debates about whether we should have 100,000 troops or 130,000 troops in Afghanistan instead of whether or not we should be policing the world or basing our foreign policy on the golden rule of treating others the way you want to be treated.

CM: Karen Kwiatkowski, a congressional candidate from Virginia's 6th district, is going to be attending the march. Are there other special guests or speakers that you would like to announce at this time?

AK: I'm very excited to have Karen Kwiatkowski's support. I'm not announcing any other special guests until Friday. There are twenty speaking spots that will be made available to the winners of our video contest.

The prospective speaker must make a video about why they wish to speak and the top twenty videos decided by page views will win spots. I'm sure Karen will be one of those twenty, and I can't wait to hear her speak.

There are also several active duty troops who, due to their position in the military, cannot RSVP on Facebook to the actual event but who have told me personally that they will be there.

CM: Some people may remember that you ran for Congress in New Mexico about two years ago. Do you have any plans on running again in the near future?

AK: No immediate plans.

CM: Are there any candidates running for lower offices that have the same platform as Dr. Paul and who might get your endorsement.

AK: I will be working closely with several candidates who will be running on liberty platforms. I don't want to mention any names for fear of missing people. There are so many liberty-oriented candidates running this year, that I wouldn't want to leave anyone out.

CM: Back in 2008 Barack Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. How would you grade his success, or lack of success in his first term?

AK: I do think Barack Obama ran as an anti-war candidate. The difference between Ron Paul and Barack Obama was that Ron Paul wasn't just kind of against this particular war. He was basing his foreign policy on the non-aggression principle and the golden rule. His stand was completely principled, unlike Obama's.

Now in terms of how I would grade his success; if your standard is what he campaigned on, then he's done just the opposite. He increased troops in Afghanistan and we went into Libya.

Barack Obama has done nothing to change the way we make foreign policy decisions.

CM: Although not as hard as four years ago, it's still pretty tough to be an anti-war conservative these days. Why do you think that is?

AK: I think it's getting easier and easier to be anti-war and conservative these days. It's detrimental to free-trade, and it requires vast amounts of government spending. People are beginning to realize that a big government foreign policy is not conservative.

The issue of sanctions is also something that conservatives are beginning to wake up to as well. Sanctions have always been an old weapon that stronger nations have used against weaker nations in order to get what they want.

But people are starting to realize that sanctions are contrary to the ideals of the free-market. So I think being able to be a principled anti-war conservative is getting even easier.

CM: I already know that you're a vocal critic of the USA Patriot Act. But I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on the National Defense Authorization Act.

AK: The scary part about the National Defense Authorization Act isn't just that it allows the military to arrest US citizens without a trial or due process, it's that it gives government employees a cover for their actions.

The government has always had the power to do this, but now they're protected by law. The Obama administration does not care about the rule of law any more than the Bush administration did.

However, I don't think there's anything ground breaking about what they did other than the fact that they think they can get away with it. I mean, people aren't going to immediately start vanishing or being black bagged by the government, but it's taking us one step further and now the federal government has given itself unchecked authority.

CM: Almost four years ago at Ron Paul's March on Washington, you gave a very stirring speech. Can we expect a similar speech next Monday?

AK: No, I will not be speaking. I really want this event to be defined by those who are most effected by these issues and who are the most passionate. I might speak for a few minutes at the reception, but I want it to be the vets and active duty troops who have the most invested to speak at the rally.

CM: Can you tell our readers one more time where and when the march is taking place?

AK: It will take place on Monday, February 20th, which is President's Day. We'll gather at the base of the Washington Monument at noon. We'll march up to the White House at 1400 hours or 2 P.M. and then we'll march back.

We are then going to have a reception afterward with some of the top libertarian musicians to provide entertainment. Aimee Allen is going to be there. We've got Aimee Allen, Jordan Page, Golden State, Rebel Inc., and Michale Graves from the Misfits.

The reception starts at 7 P.M. with doors opening at 6.

CM:Adam, thanks so much for time, and good luck with the march.

AK: No problem. You're welcome.

Source : washingtontimes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A lot of people have been going around to several forums I visit saying that americans should vote Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Does he show that much promise in restoring the states back to their former glory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A lot of people have been going around to several forums I visit saying that americans should vote Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Does he show that much promise in restoring the states back to their former glory?

It shows how far behind he is in the polls and how much he needs the extra campaigning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A lot of people have been going around to several forums I visit saying that americans should vote Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Does he show that much promise in restoring the states back to their former glory?

I think out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul sounds the most promising. That isn't saying much. But I think the reason why he's the choice of so many from many different backgrounds is because he is (in my opinion) more moderate than far right "conservative." At the same time, some of his ideas are pretty radical (eliminating IRS?), so that's why he hasn't been as popular as some of the other candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A lot of people have been going around to several forums I visit saying that americans should vote Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Does he show that much promise in restoring the states back to their former glory?

Ehh he's all flash to me...

Not sure how cool congress will feel about getting rid of income tax, department of educations, depart of health and human services, etc... He wants to reduce government spending but yet request expensive earmarks.

... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul <-- read if you want but he'll never make it to republican nominee let alone presidential canidate. His views are so unrealistic.

and those 'a lot of people' are his followers who have no clue (on the basics) what the government does for them, how the economy works, and have their heads in the clouds.

No I don't believe he has any promise of restoring the states back to it's former glory. He's planning on cutting out a lot of government spending and programs, which in turn will make unemployment soar (if you don't see it people are needed to run those programs and no programs equals no jobs) and put our economy back in the crapper like 2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Why do most people that oppose Ron Paul say his policies are unrealistic? Why do we just accept that it can't be done his way because it isn't being done right now or is unorthodox? Do you think founding this country was not unorthodox? Do you think it was "the established" lifestyle when the pilgrims dared to dream and fled their home country to pursue religious freedom? Why do so many Americans who would support Ron Paul believe that he can't win?

Americans are dying in other countries. The deficit is going up and is to an unimaginable high. Our freedoms are getting taken away chip by chip. The leaders we've elected in hopes to champion our freedom are feeding us lies and undermining our intelligence by putting bills in place to take away more of our liberty and naming the bills things like "The Patriot Act." The flaw with these leaders is that they believe "We the People" are not intelligent enough to be free. Rick Santorum's own nephew exposed his uncle for his fear that the public is incapable of making its own decisions. This seems the general tone of most politicians.

Ron Paul is not one of these. For all of his time as a politician, he's been saying the same things. He's been voting against all the little cuts from freedom, the increases to taxes, and the ridiculous spending. No other presidential contender can claim this.

His policies are considered unrealistic because it isn't the "Established" way things are done. Is the "Established" way working? Why is it so unrealistic to simply bring all the troops home? "The Establishment" as it is called needs the public to continue believing that they can't affect the world around them. They ignore Ron Paul, they scoff at him, and they simply say he won't win. Why? They don't want him to. Ron Paul would be a road block in their path to power. When I mention Ron Paul, most people laugh and say "he won't win." No, they don't say they disagree with him. They just say he won't win. I hear this again and again. Why? We are lead to believe he can't. "The Establishment" can't allow someone who will limit their power to become president.

If the established power says that one way is just the way things are, we are just supposed to accept that and move on. We've been looking the other way while we are slowly losing our Liberty. Are we not thinking beings that question the world around us? Why don't we question "The Establishment?" Did not our founders question the established control by the English rather than just accept what is just is? Are we okay voting for the lesser of two evils? Yet we still have to vote for Evil. Why then won't we stand up and fight for our freedom with Ron Paul as our Champion? He's been fighting for us all along.

Let Your Life Be a Friction to Stop the Machine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

A lot of people have been going around to several forums I visit saying that americans should vote Ron Paul.

I don't get it. Does he show that much promise in restoring the states back to their former glory?

They buy into his crap. They don't actually look at his record. Do these vets know Ron Paul voted to invade Afghanistan to go after BinLadin? He helped. Only one person  in Congress voted against the Afghanistan invasion and that's Rep Barbara Lee. They also have some weird delusions about Austrian economics and it would work even though it's never worked anywhere else. Ron Paul is nothing more than a fake and a hypocrite. Anyone who takes him seriously is duped and I feel sorry for.  Oh and also fyi check out the people who support him and who he has affilated with over the yrs. Sorry but I like living in the 21st century not the 1880s. I know my history. We've been there, done that.  For people who haven't go pick up "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Read about what life was like for the first settlers and colonists. I don't want that crap. No thank you. Say no to Ron Paul if you like the 21st century. Oh and Ron Paul's policies only work for rich white men. If you're a woman or a minority in some way good luck to you in Ron Paul's world. I love his crap about being so pro-civil liberties but he's against the Civil Rights Act. *Facepalm*

<br style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; ">I think out of all the Republican candidates, Ron Paul sounds the most promising. That isn't saying much. But I think the reason why he's the choice of so many from many different backgrounds is because he is (in my opinion) more moderate than far right "conservative." At the same time, some of his ideas are pretty radical (eliminating IRS?), so that's why he hasn't been as popular as some of the other candidates. 

LOL Ron Paul is supposedly a libertarian. Libertarians are MORE to the right than conservatives. So no he is NOT a moderate. A moderate isn't against the Civil Rights Act. A moderate isn't for invading a woman's privacy. A moderate likes clean air, water, and food. He's insane and that's being polite. 

Ron Paul is not one of these. For all of his time as a politician, he's been saying the same things. He's been voting against all the little cuts from freedom, the increases to taxes, and the ridiculous spending. No other presidential contender can claim this.

What a crock. Ron Paul is one of the biggest pork spenders in Congress. He rants and raves about it all the time but when it comes to HIS district don't try to get him away from his pork. And freedom? What about for me as a woman? Go look at his record. He time and time again has supported federal legislation for "pro-life" crap. Invading MY freedom and privacy as a woman. My fourth amendment right he slowly is taking away. So yes, he likes freedom for men. A woman? Forget about it.

Oh and also he's not for LGBT freedoms. The "state's right" crap is that. Crap. It's a pathetic cop-out to not stand up for other people's rights. We have a federal government and the fed govt to ensure that every American has his/her rights to the Constitution. He doesn't support LGBT people having that. If you're in more conservative areas too bad for you in Ron Paul's world.

His policies are considered unrealistic because it isn't the "Established" way things are done. Is the "Established" way working? Why is it so unrealistic to simply bring all the troops home? "The Establishment" as it is called needs the public to continue believing that they can't affect the world around them. They ignore Ron Paul, they scoff at him, and they simply say he won't win. Why? They don't want him to. Ron Paul would be a road block in their path to power. When I mention Ron Paul, most people laugh and say "he won't win." No, they don't say they disagree with him. They just say he won't win. I hear this again and again. Why? We are lead to believe he can't. "The Establishment" can't allow someone who will limit their power to become president.

No. Not because of the "established." HE IS the established. He is the establishments best friend. You clearly don't know that Ron Paul is for NO regulations whatsoever on any corporations. In Ron Paul's world corporations would get to do whatever they want. Want to not have health insurance or retirement plans? Want to pay workers pennies? Fine. Do it. Want to have slave labor? Fine, do it. Ron Paul would let you because in Ron Paul's world corporations trump people's rights. Look at his and Rand's reason's for being against the Civil Rights Act. It's because they want business to be able to kick out whoever they want based on gender, religion, sexuality, race.

And again Austrian economics do NOT work and has been proven to not work. Only not to Paultards who still believe in that crap.  And yes I laugh cause Ron Paul and his supporters are hilarious to me.

If the established power says that one way is just the way things are, we are just supposed to accept that and move on. We've been looking the other way while we are slowly losing our Liberty. Are we not thinking beings that question the world around us? Why don't we question "The Establishment?" Did not our founders question the established control by the English rather than just accept what is just is? Are we okay voting for the lesser of two evils? Yet we still have to vote for Evil. Why then won't we stand up and fight for our freedom with Ron Paul as our Champion? He's been fighting for us all along. 

Ah yes. It must be because "the establishment" is keeping the white man down. Not because people don't believe in his crap, right? 

And what liberty does Ron Paul stand up for? Not gay rights. Not female rights. Not rights of minorities. He voted to support the invasion of another country. And who is to say who is the lesser of two evils and that people believe that? 

Ron Paul only fights for rich white men. To say other wise is lying if you honestly looked at his Congressional record over the years. Anyone can do it. I did and have been following him since I've been in politics since 2004. Not because I'm a supporter but to keep up with my information. So when Paultards tell me to "wake up and research" I can slap it in their faces that I have. They're the ones who need to research and get away from Alex Jones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where do you get your info? Do you have a source link to back it up? I don't think you know at all about Ron Paul message. He is always against war., he is not the status quo. That is why the media (aka msm) does not like him at all, but every time he talks in the debate they have no say of anything to Ron Paul. Cause they know he's right. They're scared of Ron Paul as well in his views.

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the  often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He  explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals  of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul:
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly  join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this  country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of  the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of  H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations  or enhance freedom. Instead,
the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The  Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented  power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service  practices of every business in the country. The result was a
massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.
  The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the  rights of private property owners to use their property as they please  and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all  parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose  actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to  maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based  on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate  interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the  interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states,  not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business  that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil  Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced  individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of  promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats  and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism.  Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer  was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the  racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial  composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential  employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial  quota.
Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society.
Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of  course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past  forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public  attitudes and private efforts.
Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In  conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in  promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil  Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law  unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty.  Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined  efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife.  Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

Freedom should not depend on how politically correct someone is. If someone wants to just hire one race of people for their business, it’s still THEIR business, so they should be able to do as they wish. Don’t you think it’s better off anyway? Wouldn’t the people that are mandated to be hired inevitably be treated worse since they’re not wanted? Just because you disagree with someone or their views, doesn’t mean you should force their behavior to be in line with yours. That’s not freedom.

I don’t agree with racism, but if someone is racist it should be their choice. You must understand this.

The LAST thing this country needs is. Tough laws!

Security does NOT equal freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

neutral observation: stormfront supports ron paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Where do you get your info? Do you have a source link to back it up? I don't think you know at all about Ron Paul message. He is always against war., he is not the status quo. That is why the media (aka msm) does not like him at all, but every time he talks in the debate they have no say of anything to Ron Paul. Cause they know he's right. They're scared of Ron Paul as well in his views.

It's called his voting record. Anyone can look it up and see it for themselves. No, he has NOT been against war. He is against the federal government (well except for my vagina and LGBT and minorities rights). Big difference. Ron Paul voted to support the invasion of Afghanistan. If you look at the roll call vote in Congress at the time the vote for the invasion he did not vote against it. Only Rep Barbara Lee in the House voted against it. If Ron Paul had his way mercenary groups like Blackwater, or whatever they're calling themselves now days, would be doing the job. He wants as little federal government as possible except when it comes to my uterus or denying civil liberties to LGBT or other minorities. 

They aren't scared of him. Laughing at him possibly but scared of him please. How can you be scared of someone who will give you everything you want? Give me a break. What's next? Are you going to throw around some more pretty slogans like "liberty" or "freedom" or "Ron Paul Revolution" ? 

On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the  often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He  explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals  of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.

Ron Paul has time and time again stated that property is above individual liberties. He has time and time again stated that institutions should be able to kick out whoever they want if they have some reason to not like you. There's other things in the Civil Rights Act too you know. Like oh I don't know the equal employment part of it. The only reason why Ron Paul thinks it didn't achieve goals is because he can't kick out people out of his obgyn office because of their sexuality, race, gender or any other reason including for hiring purposes.  And the act also includes not having segregation for schools. So my classmates who aren't white shouldn't be able to go to the schools they're districted for? Shouldn't be able to go to any university or college they want? That's what Ron Paul wants. Does Ron Paul want all white juries again? The Civil Rights Act helps to prevent that and make sure that people are truly judged by a jury of their peers and not a possibly pre-biased jury if one is involved. 

Freedom should not depend on how politically correct someone is. If someone wants to just hire one race of people for their business, it’s still THEIR business, so they should be able to do as they wish. Don’t you think it’s better off anyway? Wouldn’t the people that are mandated to be hired inevitably be treated worse since they’re not wanted? Just because you disagree with someone or their views, doesn’t mean you should force their behavior to be in line with yours. That’s not freedom.

Ah more slogans and more pretty words. Again, he's only for freedom for rich white people. What about his support time and time again of federal legislation of "pro-life" crap? What about my fourth amendment rights as a woman? Don't I deserve them? And what is it "freedom" for the other person if you're being judged by the color of your skin by someone? Not by your character and who you are as an individual? Your skills as a person? Go read the Civil Rights Act. Protections are in our society for people to be judged on their qualifications not their skin color or their gender or sexuality.  Surely you know how things were here in the south and throughout the country for minorities whether women or people of color. So you're perfectly fine with someone abusing another person just because he doesn't look like you? Wow, that's pretty immature. 

No, it's not freedom. It's called being a jerk. It's called being a horrible human being if you're just judging someone based on color for not liking them or wanting to hire them or wanting to have them in your business. Having another skin color doesn't mean anything. It's skin. Underneath we all have blood. We all have feelings and families and friends and we all have hobbies and enjoy things in life. 

In a society there are standards. There are social contracts. There are values a society upholds. The US has a long long ugly past with racism. Things have improved but there's still it out there. Look at the crap Mr Obama gets on a daily basis for being president and being a person of color. Living in the south I have seen crap too. And no they wouldn't be treated worse because most of the time in business there's rules and regulations that people have to follow. There's Affirmative Action and other laws that help to protect the people in our society who deserve and need it.  I'm pretty confident if it was you being treated like you're garbage because of your skin color you'd be singing a different tune. That's usually how it works. When I see racist white people here in the south (and before you say something and get confused no I'm not calling you racist because I don't know you or your thoughts except what you've shared thus far)  have a time in their life where they THINK they're being discriminated against they're some of the biggest whiners around. They expect the law to protect them, but then turn around and want to take it away from others. If it's going to protect you it's going to protect everyone.

I don’t agree with racism, but if someone is racist it should be their choice. You must understand this.

The LAST thing this country needs is. Tough laws!

Security does NOT equal freedom.

The last thing this country needs is someone to take us back to the 1950's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You, like many others will stop at nothing to smear a good person who wants what is best for this country. You either benefit from this system or you are the system.

Distorting facts, like you do, to smear a good person is exactly what got us into wars, racial tension and bankruptcy. You must get a gov’t paycheck, otherwise, why would you defend such tyranny?

I have video to proof of this.

Watch this when you have time.

16,022 Ron Paul Votes Stolen by Voting Machines

Blowback in 1979 from a 1953 coup?

You Want To Know Why We're In Afghanistan?

Financial Services Hearing Highlights Feb 29 2012 Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke

Ron Paul's Tough Questions for Hillary Clinton

Deception

"The American Empire Must Be Stopped" Scott Horton speaks at Nullify Now Los Angeles

Tucker Carlson " I Think Iran Deserves To Be Annihilated"

Obama- It's time for the killing of Syrian citizens to end (February 25, 2012)

Hillary Clinton: US Losing Information War to Alternative Media

Sadly the media choose the elections no matter how people support. This is why is so corrupt.

some picture and comparison.

Honest_Ron_Paul.jpg

National Comparison Sheet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^The media chooses the elections? Did you forget the media supported Hilary Clinton? What happened to her? Is she president? Oh, right... Oops. 

Ah yes. So because I don't worship the ground Ron Paul walks on I must A) Be distorting facts or B ) Be a part of the system.Let me tell you what's wrong with that.

1) It's called his voting record. Anyone can go and look at it. Not some lame richard simmons chart made by some .com website I know nothing about. But you can go to Congress.org (the actual website of Congress not made up by some internet anonymous user) and look at anyone's voting record. You would have been a LITTLE more reliable with your post if you quoted from a known reliable site like oh say ontheissues.org or the site  factcheck.org Someone who is known for really fact checking politicians. I've been involved in activism and politics for eight yrs now and have never heard of that site before. I'm sure by now I would have if it was reliable. 

2) I'm a Commie. So nice try there sweets.  Which means I'm much much much much more to the left than Ron Paul who is a very far right winger. If you tell me he's not  right winger you'll lose any credibility you might have had. I can't tell you how many times I've had Paul supporters say he's not right wing. *facepalm* Libertarianism is on the right wing while Communism is left wing. 

And what in the world do those video's have to do with proof? You can't out-proof your own voting record. 

You're obviously a biased supporter. If you're just going to throw around some more cute slogans and not have a serious discussion about Ron Paul don't bother with me and responding, k? I'm done with dealing with Ron Paul supporters. What's next? Are you going to tell me I'm "asleep" because I don't think just like you? Or are you going to throw around some sexist slurs against me as a woman because I don't worship the ground Ron Paul walks on? 

Oh and please get over this "good man" crap. He's anything but. He's a racist homophobic woman hater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^Not just the media but a media is part of it. The part that has the helm in America is controlling (federal reserve, big banks, big corporations, media, and politicians),

I'm no biased in any mean. I care about everyone including myself.  This is much way more of an issue then your rights and others as well.

Tell me, since when you have your rights anyway? Do you have to believe in words that protects you, but then you wouldn't you have your way with it?

okay since you believe ontheissues site. let see.

Right to privacy is explicit, but not for contraception

Q: [to Paul] Sen. Santorum believes that the Supreme Court was wrong  when it decided that a right to privacy was embedded in the  Constitution. And following from that, he believes that states have the  right to ban contraception, although he's not recommending that states do that. SANTORUM: The Supreme Court created through a penumbra of rights a new right to privacy that was not in the Constitution.

PAUL:  No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our  privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why  the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th  Amendment. As far as selling contraceptives, the Interstate Commerce  Clause protects this; it was originally written not to impede trade between the states, but it was written to  facilitate trade between the states. So if it's not illegal to import  birth control pills from one state to the next, it would be legal to  sell birth control pills in that state.

Source: WMUR 2012 GOP New Hampshire debate , Jan 7, 2012   

More laws don't solve problems on abortion

Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and  that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you  support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the  morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in  our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And  there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain  day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a  person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're  going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you  going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing  with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve  the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually  solve this problem, not the law.

Source: 2011 GOP Google debate in Orlando FL , Sep 22, 2011   

Efforts to fund abortion ranks among stupidest policies

One thing I believe for certain is that the federal government should  never tax pro-life citizens to pay for abortions. The constant effort by  the pro-choice crowd to fund abortion must rank among the stupidest  policies ever, even from their viewpoint. All they accomplish is to give valiant motivation for all pro-life  forces as well as the antitax supporters of abortion to fight against  them. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 6 , Apr 19, 2011   

Deregulate the adoption market

Deregulating the adoption market would also make a margin of difference  in reducing abortion. This would make it easier for nonprofit groups to  arrange for adoptive parents and for them to compensate the mother enough to absorb the expenses and opportunity  costs associated with carrying the child to term. Small changes could  make a large difference here. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 8 , Apr 19, 2011   

Abortion laws should be a state-level choice

It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a  human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion,  murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil  laws were deliberately left to the states.I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain  violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of  the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion  in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow  state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It  will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The  pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of  admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban  abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of  abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.

Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 2&6-7 , Apr 19, 2011

  

Abortion causes inconsistent moral basis for value of life

In the 1960s when abortion was still illegal, I witnessed, as an OB/GYN  resident, the abortion of a fetus that weighed approximately 2 pounds.  It was placed in a bucket, crying and struggling to breathe, and the  medical personnel pretended not to notice. Soon the crying stopped. This harrowing event forced me to think more  seriously about this important issue. That same day in the OB suite, an  early delivery occurred and the infant boy was only slightly larger than  the one that was just aborted. But in this room everybody did everything conceivable to save this child's  life. My conclusion that day was that we were overstepping the bounds of  morality by picking and choosing who should live and who should die.  There was no consistent moral basis to the value of life under these circumstances. Some people believe that being  pro-choice is being on the side of freedom. I've never understood how  killing a human being, albeit a small one in a special place, is  portrayed as a precious right. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 1 , Apr 19, 2011   

Day-after pill allows individual moral choice

My argument is that the abortion problem is more of a social and moral  issue than it is a legal one. If we are ever to have fewer abortions,  society must change. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn't be allowed to  write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day  after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a  special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such  circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her  moral choice. Source: Liberty Defined, by Rep. Ron Paul, p. 5 , Apr 19, 2011   

Abortion is murder

A popular academic argument for abortion demands that we think of the  child in the womb as a parasite.but the same argument justifies  infanticide, since it applies just as well to an infant outside the  womb.newborns require even more attention & care. People ask an expectant mother how her baby is doing. They do not ask  how her fetus is doing, or her blob of tissue, or her parasite. But that  is what her baby becomes as soon as the child is declared to be  unwanted.

Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 59-60 , Apr 1, 2008   

Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue,  according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme  Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of  the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of  jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases. Source: The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Ron Paul, p. 60 , Apr 1, 2008   

Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement

On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil  liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk  about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect  liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well.I have a Bill in congress I certainly would  promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We  establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone  says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific  statement that I’m making!“

I know we’re all interested in a  better court system and amending the constitution to protect life. But  sometimes I think that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker, and  my bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of  abortion, if a state law says no abortion, it doesn’t go to the supreme  court to be ruled out of order

Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 7, 2008   

Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty

Liberty is the most important thing, because if we have our liberties,  we have our freedoms, we can have our lives. But it’s academic to talk  about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all  life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have  a bill in Congress which I would certainly promote and push as  President. But it’s been ignored by the right-to-life community. My bill  is called the Sanctity of Life bill. What it would do is it would establish the principle that life begins at  conception. That’s not a political statement, but a scientific statement  that I’m making. We’re all interested in a better court system, and  amending the Constitution to protect life--but sometimes that is dismissing the way we can handle this much quicker. My  bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of  abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the  Supreme Court to be ruled out of order. Source: Speeches to 2008 Conservative Political Action Conference , Feb 7, 2008   

Get the federal government out of abortion decision

Q: If abortion becomes illegal and a woman obtains an abortion anyway,  what should she be charged with? What about the doctor who performs the  abortion?A: The first thing we have to do is get the federal  government out of it. We don’t need a federal abortion police. That’s the last thing that we need. There has to be a  criminal penalty for the person that’s committing that crime. And I  think that is the abortionist. As for the punishment, I don’t think that  should be up to the president to decide.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida , Nov 28, 2007   

Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception

Q: What will you do to restore legal protection to the unborn?A: As  an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can  assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the  unborn, no matter what I do, so there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights,  and if there’s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is  no doubt about it.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007   

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench

Q: Will you nominate only judges who are demonstrably faithful to the  judicial role of following only the text of the Constitution, and who  not only refuse to legislate from the bench, but are committed to  reversing prior court decision where activist judges strayed from the judicial role and legislated from the bench?

  • HUCKABEE: Yes.
  • TANCREDO: Yes.
  • COX: Yes.
  • BROWNBACK: Yes.
  • PAUL: Yes.
  • HUNTER: Yes.
  • KEYES: Yes.
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007   


Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos
Q: Our children were adopted as embryos. They were snowflake babies,  which means that for the first part of their lives, they were frozen  embryos. Can you look at them now and honestly tell me that it would be OK with you if someone used them in medical experiments and snuffed out  their little lives? Is that your position?
  • HUCKABEE: No.
  • TANCREDO: No.
  • COX: No.
  • BROWNBACK: No.
  • PAUL: No.
  • HUNTER: No.
  • KEYES: No.

Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007   

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion

Q: The Mexico City Policy states that as a condition for a foreign  organization to receive federal funds, they will neither “perform nor  actively promote abortion.” Would you work to apply this Mexico City  policy to organizations within the US? HUCKABEE: Are we being asked to apply a Mexican law to the US?

Q:  It’s the principle of not giving our tax dollars to organizations within  our country that actively promote or provide abortions. It’s an  American law.

BROWNBACK: This is Ronald Reagan’ policy that we wouldn’t use federal funds to support organizations that promote abortions overseas.

HUNTER: It’s actually a UN policy.

KEYES: Actually, it was a policy of the Mexico City Population Conference. I was the deputy chairman. I actually negotiated the language into the final resolution at that conference.

Q: I want to know, will you defund Planned Parenthood?

  • HUCKABEE: Yes.
  • TANCREDO: Yes.
  • COX: Yes.
  • BROWNBACK: Yes.
  • PAUL: Yes.
  • HUNTER: Yes.
  • KEYES: Yes.

Source: [Xref Keyes] 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate , Sep 17, 2007   

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized

Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?A:  Programs like this are not authorized under the Constitution. The trouble with issues like this is, in Washington we either prohibit  it or subsidize it. And the market should deal with it, and the states  should deal with it.

Source: 2007 GOP primary debate, at Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC , May 3, 2007

RON PAUL BRINGS SEXY BACK

Today at The Daily Caller I make the point, albeit in an entertaining way, that only Ron Paul actually delivers what every Tea Partier and conservative Republican claims to want most:

No single leader or individual group controls the Tea Party but most Tea Partiers would agree that balancing the budget and reducing the debt is their top priority. The question today is, ‘For which presidential candidate is this a top priority?’

 A recent study indicates there is only one. After examining each candidate’s economic proposals, last week the independent Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget reported that Newt Gingrich’s plan would add $7 trillion to the national debt, Santorum’s would add $4.5 trillion and Romney’s would add $250 billion.

But Ron Paul would actually cut our debt to the tune of $2.2 trillion.

But many conservative Republicans say they aren’t necessarily comfortable with Paul on every issue. This doesn’t change the fact that Paul is the only one who’s right on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue. It doesn’t change the fact that Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all fail miserably on what has always been the Tea Party’s primary issue.

The entire purpose of our Constitution was to limit the federal government, including its power to spend recklessly. Paul’s purist constitutional approach is nothing less than hitting the reset button on the republic of the Founders. As the Daily Caller’s Max Borders has observed:

One of the cleverest things Justin Timberlake ever did was bring sexy back. After all, sexy never really went away. But once the song came out, it didn’t matter. People welcomed sexy back with open arms. Now there’s nothing particularly sexy about the Ron Paul campaign…

But just as Justin Timberlake brought sexy back, Ron Paul is bringing the Constitution back even though it never went away…

What If "They" Are Lying to Us about Ron Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^I don't even know what you're talking about. And you're not biased? Ah yes that's why you accused me of being part of "the system" or whatever crap that was. So please. You're not fooling me. I'm done arguing with someone who has no interest in having an actual conversation. You're just here to post talking points. Nothing more and nothing less. If I wanted that I'd go on Youtube or RonPaulisthebest.com . Bye bye. 

Oh and I love how you  Paul supporters claim he's for freedom and liberty and all those pretty words without looking at his actual voting record. I want NOTHING to do with someone who will defund an organization that *gasps* helps poor people. Oh and psst men use Planned Parenthood as well for getting their respective health checkups and tests. So he's also wanting to hurt poor men. And thank you for proving my point though. That he only likes freedom and liberty for rich white men. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Source

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, stood by his libertarian beliefs on Sunday, saying that victims of the violent storms and tornadoes that have battered a band of states in the South and Midwest in recent days should not be given emergency financial aid from the federal government.

"There is no such thing as federal money," Paul said, on CNN’s State of the Union. "Federal money is just what they steal from the states and steal from you and me."

"The people who live in tornado alley, just as I live in hurricane alley, they should have insurance," Paul said.

Paul said there was a role for the National Guard to restore order and provide care and shelter in major emergencies, but that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) led to nothing but "frustration and anger."

"To say that any accident that happens in the country, send in FEMA, send in the money, the government has all this money—it is totally out of control and it's not efficient," Paul said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One of the many reasons I think libertarians are batmini cooper insane. Dozens of people are dead and entire towns were destroyed and he's saying these people don't deserve help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

One of the many reasons I think libertarians are batmini cooper insane. Dozens of people are dead and entire towns were destroyed and he's saying these people don't deserve help.

No, I'm sure he's just saying they don't deserve "federal financial aid", whatever that means.

I obviously have no idea what that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It means We should not pay taxes then. What are we paying for anyway? To bail out  corporations and pay dozens of stupid politicians who do nothing. Oh  and wars!

No federal aid for the citizens of this great country who lost their  homes, yet plenty of federal aid in billions for foreign countries and  profitable corporations who create "jobs".

We the people are suppose to be the govt,of the people by the people for the people.

Why the hell are we bailing out banks/lenders and sending federal aid to  other countries?  Shouldnt we be helping out our people rather than big  corporations and foreign countries?

Instead of sending billions and billions of dollars overseas that we  just give to other countries for aid every year how about we cut that  all out and all the other money we waist on dumb stuff and we stick it  in to our own country when we need it like in this case.....

While we are at it lets also stop spending trillions of dollars to bomb third world countries that hate us.

I would much rather see my tax dollars go to folks like these people who  lost everything to the tornados rather than the Gov giving it to the  banks and big corporations in gov bailouts !!!

Wars do not stimulate economies, they stimulate accumulation of wealth in fewer hands at the expense of liberty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No, I'm sure he's just saying they don't deserve "federal financial aid", whatever that means.

I obviously have no idea what that is.

Aid = help

Another reason why I would never ever vote for these ^&8*!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

^obahma dosen't give aid. he only help other countries. People can't help either cause they need there own money and the taxes is down on the drain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0