Ron Paul...for PRESIDENT in '08!!!!

[Bullet1987]

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/01/11/antiwar-republican-congressman-ron-paul-is-running-for-president/">Antiwar GOP Rep. Ron Paul Running For President!!!

I have to say, Ron Paul may be uber-contreversial (which is why he has no chance in hell of even sniffing the nomination)...but I can't wait to see him dig into the likes of McCain and all the other Republicans when the time comes. His campaign (however short it will be) will be entertaining to say the least. And just the idea of an anti-war Republican!!! That should drive the media crazy trying to pigeonhole him since they can't call him far-left (he's a Libertarian) like they do all other anti-war people. Ron Paul is my favorite Republican poltician bar none...he's true to the American people, and I wish him the best!!

[demnan]

1. No Republicans for me

not now . . . not ever

[Lone_Star_Dem]

5. I agree

However, the thing with Ron Paul is he has the potential to bring much suffering to the other repugs during the debates. It could be fun to watch.

[Zorra]

30. Yep. Never trust a republican. n/t

[Deep13]

2. "Favorite Republican" is like saying that...

...lymphoma is your favorite disease.

[Bullet1987]

4. I don't think you guys get it...

...When this guy talks about the Iraq war, he sounds like many liberal Democrats.

[Deep13]

7. Libertarians are isolationists.

They don't want us out because it is the right thing to do or because it is humanitarian. They want us out because they think American should wall itself off from the world. The also think schools, fire departments, and other local services should be privatized and that all government assistance for anyone should end.

[Clevenger]

15. To be fair: Libertarians are anti-imperialists. They oppose the Iraq War because...

...they don't believe America should be an empire. You can call that "isolationist" if you like, but I don't see it that way.

I occasionally visit a good libertarian website, and I assure you that they are quite aware of the tragic human cost of the Iraq War, and are just as repulsed by the vile Bush as anyone in these forums.

I don't think libertarians want to end all government assistance, but they would indeed end corporate welfare, and would be more strict about welfare abuses of any kind.

[ProudDad]

24. They also want an end to most of our values

Yes, they WOULD end all government assistance;

They are "free market" fundamentalists --

"The Principle: A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner.
Consumers of services should not have their choices arbitrarily limited by law.

Solutions: Libertarian policies will seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals.

Transitional Actions: All rate regulation in utilities should transition to free market pricing.
End the Postal Service's monopoly and allow for the free competition in all aspects of mail delivery.
State and local monopoly services should be opened to free-market competition.
Local and state governments can auction assets such as utility systems and landfills to private industry, thereby immediately reducing the tax burden on their citizens."

YEAH, RIGHT! Privatize everything....

------------------------------------------------------

Yes they would end all government assistance to the people:

"Current problems in such areas as energy, pollution, health care delivery, decaying cities, and poverty are not solved, but are primarily caused, by government. The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is in reality a growing and parasitic burden on all productive people, and injures, rather than benefits, the poor themselves."

YEAH, RIGHT! We the People (our view of 'government') can't do anything right -- that was ronny ray-guns bullshit line!!!

-------------------------------------

I just can't forget hearing one libertarian's view of protecting people against pollution on the radio. He said, "If some factory is polluting the water upstream you have the right to sue them." YEAH, RIGHT! And pay for your one lawyer (if you can afford one) to fight their team of lawyers. Yeah, that'll work...

-------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong, when it comes to the phony "war on drugs", victim-less crime, foreign affairs (except their xenophobic immigration policies), corporate welfare, monopolies and subsidies they make FINE allies!

I just WOULD NOT want to live in a world driven by their total package.

------------------------------------------------------

on edit: ooops, here's the link: http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#govdebt

[rox63]

3. He's good on a few things, but a total RW nut on other things

No thanks... :puke:

[CBHagman]

27. He has a regressive stance on social issues.

A year ago or thereabouts The Washington Post did a profile of Ron Paul. One of the things that came out was that Paul buys into the sort of Archie Bunker-style myth of a purely self-reliant, boot-strapper society of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In other words, he believes people got on well without social welfare progams of any sort.

Not true. Anyone with even a casual understanding of history knows that social welfare programs in, for example, Britain and the United States go back a very long way indeed. It's also true that the social ills of the 19th and early 20th century have long been chronicled and don't represent the imaginary golden past Ron Paul and those of his ilk aspire to. Workhouses; debtors' prison; capital punishment or deportation for nonviolent crime; child prostitution, labor, and homelessness; crowded tenements; gang violence; graft; robber barons; strike breakers -- these are just some of features of that supposedly better time.

While writing this I broke down and did a Post search, then a Google search on that profile of Ron Paul. Here it is, for those of you wishing to get a better grasp of what his actual policies are.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html

Republican Ron Paul missed out on the 19th century, but he admires it from afar. He speaks lovingly of the good old days before things like Social Security and Medicaid existed, before the federal government outlawed drugs like heroin.

(SNIP)

He also wants America to withdraw from the United Nations and NATO. He is against the government's "delusional, feel-good" policies of giving aid to needy countries in places like Africa; instead, private citizens and private groups should give charity if they want to. He has written that Americans "don't need to be forced to pay for foreign welfare at the barrel of a government gun."

(SNIP)

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? . . . Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation."

("Where to begin with this one?" asks Michael Katz, a historian of poverty at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied charity case records from the early 20th century. "The stories just break your heart, the kind of suffering that people endured. . . . Stories of families that had literally no cash and had to kind of beg to get the most minimal forms of food, who lived in tiny, little rooms that were ill-heated and ill-ventilated, who were sick all the time, who had meager clothing . . .")

I might add that people are still bankrupted by medical bills, still wind up on the streets, still die due to lack of proper medical care -- and this is in the United States.

In short, it appears that Paul would have opposed some of the finest and most humane programs the United States has ever created, such as the Marshall Plan. Do not make this man out to be more than he proves to be.

[meegbear]

6. Our first cross-dressing President!

Turn! Work it girl!

[Bullet1987]

8. To Rox63...

Read this...http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm">Neo-CONNED!

This is when, even thought I'm a liberal Democrat, I became a fan of his. One of the best pieces he's ever written. You can also catch it on Youtube.

[Mz Pip]

9. I welcome him into the mix!

He's more of a RW libertarian than a modern day Repug. He'll mix it up and keep it interesting.

Wonder if Pat Robertson will run again...

Mz Pip
:dem:

[DuaneBidoux]

10. May he reek havoc on the Republican primaries!!!

[Bullet1987]

12. No...

Libertarians a isolationists...They don't want us out because it is the right thing to do or because it is humanitarian. They want us out because they think American should wall itself off from the world. The also think schools, fire departments, and other local services should be privatized and that all government assistance for anyone should end.

No, not Ron Paul. After you read 'Neo-Conned' you'll know exactly what I mean. The guy is the real deal!!

[DuaneBidoux]

29. I do understand all those things: that was my point

If he runs he can only do harm to the unity of the Republicans currently and make it harder to get a Republican candidate that can be elected.

[Clevenger]

11. Ron Paul is good on some issues, but very bad on reproductive rights...

I've met him, and know him to be a decent and intelligent man, but his voting record on abortion rights is terrible.

[silverback]

32. Not so bad...

Unlike many libertarians, Paul is strongly pro-life. However, Paul believes that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that abortion is "not a constitutional issue" and should be a decision left to the legislatures of the states. <22> He has also introduced H.R. 1658 and H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding <23>.

[Hepburn]

13. NO FREAKING WAY!!

Ron Paul is virtually opposed to any type of Choice ~~ from what I have read, he is one of the strongest opponents of Pro-Choice around. Over my dead body would I vote for this man!

[ProudDad]

25. My GOD --

an anti-choice Libertarian. How weird is that...

[jobycom]

14. He's a racist jackass. He accidentally agrees with us on the war, but nothing else.

This is a bit dated, but to give you an idea:

First of all, Paul, a doctor, doesn't seem to have much interest in his patients since he has been one of the most ferocious fighters in the battle against HMO reform and Clinton's Bill Of Patient's Rights. He's also voted against allocating more money for research into breast cancer and many infant diseases, all while giving his famous rallying cry for why he votes against many things... "If it's not in the Constitution, I don't vote for it!"

Secondly, Paul has for several years, voted to cut funding for FEMA.

snip

Paul's Newsletter, Freedom Watch, is also on a list published by the Canadian-based Heritage Front listing "racialists" that included Paul's political newsletter with the American Nazi Party, the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and various Aryan groups. Here are a few choice quotes from Paul's writings.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e., support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

"Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism."

Inexplicably, Paul was also voted against awarding Rosa Parks (the African American woman who helped start the civil rights revolution for refusing to go to the back of a bus) a Congressional Gold Medal.

http://rush_awards.tripod.com/ronpaul.html

--------------------

He also voted against aid for Katrina victims.

About the only thing he does think the government should get involved in is banning all abortions, which pretty much goes against his pretended Libertarian values.

The press won't cover him enough for his campaign to matter. He won't wind up in debates, he won't get many donations, and the small following he will gain will make Bush's folk look intelligent. I hate it when DUers praise this man. Okay, he is against the war, and I'll take his vote. But my respect for him ends there. I don't even respect the reasons he's against the war.

[madrchsod]

16. he certainly is the darling of the ayran nation websites

they love his anti-government and anti jew tirades. i noticed that their are some that think this guy is ok. glad you pointed this out.

[LeftishBrit]

17. Wow! I don't really know anything about him, but he sounds NUTS!

[jobycom]

19. That's being too kind to him.

I was in his district for a while. He's a bad person. And he's nuts.

[silverback]

33. He's no racist....

Those quotes aren't accurate.

If you're going to make a claim like that you really should have the decency to document it, but you can't, because he's never said those things.

As for Katrina victims, he's voted against many things with broad support from the right, and from the left, on constitutional grounds.

Don't expect to see any supporters here, but I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't slander an honorable man, he gets enough of that from the neocons.

[jobycom]

34. I did document my sources. You should have the decency to

provide evidence that my sources (complete with link) are wrong, before slandering me.

Until you do, I'm right, you're wrong.

[jobycom]

35. Just for the heck of it, here's more documentantation

http://www.burntorangereport.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=7658E74E28620990C531961214168E93?diaryId=1936

With the prominence that the Klansman Duke gives Dr. Ron Paul, I'm curious how on earth the two could ever form a bond when Paul has made such statements such as these:

* "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." – Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96

* "Given the inefficiencies of what the DC laughably calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or criminal." – Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96

* "Opinion polls consistently show that only five percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." –
Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96

Here's his comments on Barbara Jordan:
"When is someone going to say publicly what everyone knows privately?
Namely, that University of Texas affirmative action professor Barbara
Jordon (sic) is a fraud? She is the archetypical half-educated
victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism," Paul
wrote in the August 15, 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, --
The Houston Chronicle, 10/20/96

-----------------------

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Ron Paul is batshit crazy.

Maybe a different batshit crazy than Bush and company, but still a very, VERY bad form of batshit crazy.

[silverlib]

20. Thank you - well put - n/t needed

[Stevepol]

21. Can't help admiring the guy though. At least it seems he's thinking for himself.

When you've got supposedly intelligent people supporting a war that was on the face of it the most outrageous and irresponsible policy in US history and maybe in world history, clearly both immoral and illegal (not to mention highly counterproductive) you have to respect anybody who comes out against it for whatever reason. At least he's got reasons, however wrong-headed.

[Bullet1987]

22. Wow...

...I didn't know Paul was that racist!!!

[Bullet1987]

23. To Jobycom...

...Just for referance. Care to share a link to support your claims against Ron Paul?

[McCamy Taylor]

26. Ron Paul has evolved. He used to be uber Reich Wing. Then headed Libertarian.

He is a "character". He ought to add color to the Republican field by bad mouthing the other candidates since he is a real maverick, not a faux maverick like McCain, Spectre and those guys.

I hope he gets lots of attention. He is the kind of guy who might run a third party campaign if he got enough followers.

[Bjorn Against]

28. I support his run but I would NEVER consider voting for him

Ron Paul has taken some very good stances, as well as some incredibly nutty stances. You will find yourself nodding in agreement with him from time to time, but then you will hear him move on to other issues and you will quickly realize this guy does not even come close to representing you.

He will however make the Republican primary debates worth watching because he will destroy John McCain and kill his "maverick" status as it will quickly become clear that Paul is much more of a maverick than McCain. He will also make the other Republican candidates look really ridiculous with their talk about freedom while they support the Patriot Act, and their supposedly "pro-life" stance while they support a brutal war. He will help to expose hypocrisy, and that is why it is good he is in the race.

We don't want him in the White House, but his run for the White House could be very beneficial to us.

[Dutch]

31. Yuck. No thanks. n/t

[Bucky]

36. I've seen Paul on stage. He isn't good at spontaneous give & take. McCain will destroy him on stage.

Of course McCain's handlers will make sure a fringe guy like Paul never gets on stage with McCain. The media will shut him out solider than it does Norm Chomsky. Paul's jousting will be strictly for the windmills.