"He's the only person saying something different," she said. "He's not afraid to attack the status quo." "Latest Ron Paul Articles"... He's too popular to 100% ignore, so some of the press coverage is actually almost decent. ~~~~~~~~~~ People who want to know what Dr. Ron Paul actually says, in his own words, might like this.
Yeah, only 99 or 98 percent ignore I believe I actually quoted his exact words. That he think mall security is our nation's front line defense against terrorists. Awesome. And given that RP thinks killing OBL will end terrorism, he has doubly disqualified himself from serious consideration.
I thought you subscribed to the fact that Paul has a battered wife philosophy, that he wasn't for fighting terrorism but rather acquiescing and capitulating? As usual, you're being very selective in what you choose to pursue as the basis for argument. Paul has said 1) Let's declare war, go fight and win. Then come home. 2) That the use of bounty hunters and mercenaries would allow access to pursue Al Queda in places we cannot tread due to our own entangling alliances. 3) That the greatest threat to American freedom and sovereignty is the erosion of our civil liberties and national defense.
I'm used to seeing people distort Dr.Paul's message, they can't face the truth. lorien1973: How many of these articles have you actually read?? (All the way through; Some are truly great!) People who want to know what Dr. Ron Paul actually says, in his own words, might like this. What were the titles of the ones you took time to read?? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Regarding "defense of liberty": Ron Paul says we should follow the constitution In an early debate he clearly said "declare war (legally) and fight to win" If a lot of people didn't respect his honesty, then he wouldn't be getting so much attention
Thank you. We're cosy pals with the Saudis, who are a monarchy, one that does not allow democratic elections, does not allow representation for the people, and one that divvies up the mass of national oil wealth amongst the aristocracy. But they're our pals. Those Saudis who don't have freedom or rule of law aren't worthy of an Iraq scale incursion, even though they have been the biggest producer of Al Queda agents in the last 10 years. As RP says, let's get out of there, let them sort themselves out and handle our domestic issues like defense, infrastructure, rule of law, sovereignty etc.
Take the red pill. That is his policy at times, isn't it? He even said it in that radio interview. Bring the marines home; it makes it too easy to AQ to kill our guys there. He clearly doesn't understand the scope of the mission, does he? Since he also agrees with the concept that we caused 9/11 through our own actions, he is clearly demonstrating the beaten wife syndrome. No, he's said that bounty hunters would be used to go after bin laden, right? you are actually adding to his quote here to make him appear more mainstream. And this makes it seem that RP believes this to be more of a police action (much like his mall comment) rather than a military one. We've tried the police action methods in the past (the 90's) and look where it got us. I don't think its an overly bad idea, in concert with others, but we do have a bounty of (what?) 50 million on bin laden. Surely some minor AQ guy would cash in here, if he wanted to. Upping it to a billion or more, I don't think would change that it's not going to happen. It's not about money, its ideology. It's not too difficult to grasp that, I don't believe. RP is under the false assumption that killing bin laden ends everything. Others echo this sentiment to bash bush for not pursuing OBL into pakistan. He is not the end all be all of terrorism. Some are good. As i've said many times. RP is terrific on most domestic issues. Minor problems with some stances, but perfectly fine as a whole. His pathetic foreign policy - dismantling the cia, fbi, stop engaging in the world, and relying on mall guards to defend us, is the improper way to proceed. I hate to tell you, but I've read ron paul stuff before you knew who he was (you newcomers are actually irritating in that your support is typically quite phony). I enjoy much of his domestic positions and wish they were more mainstream in the party. Glad you are in agreement with the rest of that post
Spoken like a true loyalist. That's not all he has said, and it seems to resonate with the military because they are big campaign contributors of his. Paul wants to preserve American lives. He wants to increase prosperity at home by reducing the runaway spending of the current and some past administrations. He wants you and I to have more personal wealth, rather than using our taxes and deflating our monetary value to allow soldiers to hand out bundles of money to buy the loyalty of ethnic cleansing tribes in Anbar province to make GWB look good. The 9-11 Commission report backs him up. The CIA backs him up. Numerous experts back him up. Gee, maybe America doesn't have perfect leaders or the perfect policy in place for foreign relations. Think it is possible? On the contrary, Paul voted to go after Al Queda in Afghanistan. He's the one who offered the legislation on Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which I assume you have read in order to back up your claims that I am adding to his position to make him more mainstream. We are in a police action. As Paul has said, we've never lost a declared war. We've only lost the undeclared ones. This is an undeclared war, and numerous times this Administration has hidden behind the fact that it is enforcing UN Resolutions, which would indeed make it a Police Action, and not a war. Re: the Mall security, Paul was speaking specifically to the fact that Americans at home are accomplishing more to defend the citizenry than the soldiers in Iraq. That's not to say that the soldiers (who he has never defamed) aren't doing their job, but that the orders that has them in Iraq, Korea etc is not serving domestic security but rather foreign policy. Btw, Clinton caught and convicted all of the WTC bombers. Has Bush had this much success? I don't even like Clinton and can admit he did a superior job, with less loss of life, money and time. The idea is not to recruit snitches to turn in OBL. You're missing the point. Instead of expending American lives, sapping the National Guard and taxing (one way or another) the crap out of the American economy, offer the opportunity (which he claims Congress was approached on by private companies after 9-11) for corporations and private armies with a financial motive to handle the policing. If we can outsource our foreign policy and sovereignty to the UN, why can't we outsource the War on Terror? Others echo this sentiment because Bush made a pledge to the American people to get this guy after 9-11, as a means of gaining popular support for everything his administration has done in the last 6 years. But in typical Bush fashion, the motivations for our foreign policy change almost as fast as Dick Cheney hops between being a member of the executive branch and the legislative branch to avoid inquiry. We went to enforce UN resolutions. We went to destroy the WMDs. We went to spread democracy. We are fight'in em over there, so we don't have to fight'em over here, and now we are trying to bring stability to the region. All in what, 4 years? Amazing. Again, you are short on Paul's foreign policy. He wants to engage the world in trade and diplomacy. But he does not believe in pre-emptive wars, and he does not believe in sacrificing American lives and money to satisfy the global body of unelected officials known as the UN. Those people represent other countries and interests, and have no right to put demands on the American people nor to dictate any domestic policies upon us. Also, he wants to keep the FBI. I knew your soul was not a bottomless void of moral scarcity. Despite the fact we differ, I still consider you a brother.
Freedom from guilt and lies: Can anyone post a picture of another 2008 candidate with such a 'guilt-free', genuine, & honest smile?? www.ronpaul2008.com
This is kind of misleading, Guerilla. You make the claim a lot, but you should really qualify this with "people who declared their employment" - RP's site forces a user to select their occupation. Other campaign sites do not. For example in July of this year, RP only had $100 of donations where their employment was "unknown" Romney had about $2,000,000 in donations were employment was "unknown" others had very high "unknowns" as well - so qualifying that would make a lot more logical argument - given that you do not know many donators to other campaigns. Also, I am not sure how verifiable "employment" is or how that is examined, so this is a claim I wouldn't make a lot of hay about, either. RP's support among veterans is around 1 or 2% according to every poll I've seen. I'm not claiming perfection, I don't believe I ever have. But face the facts, guerilla. OBL and militant islam wants us all dead because its demanded by their understanding of the religion. They kill buddhists (what did buddhists do to deserve it), they kill other muslims who do not prescribe to their beliefs as well. RP's knowledge of this is naive, and the CIA really doesn't have a lot of credibility either, given that it is consistently wrong in the matter of foreign affairs. I believe you know that the CIA is more run by political ideology (leftist) than it is by reality. I mean law enforcement, not police action. You know this guerilla. Dont' obfuscate. RP thinks we should let law enforcement (mall cops) run this, when its a military situation. Our homeland attacked by a perceivable enemy (particuraly in the case of afghanistan). Wait. So you are (apparently) saying that you are against outsourcing our sovereignty to the UN (which paul would oppose), but you'd support giving our national defense to them? Interesting. Pledges at press conferences must give way to reality. Or do you believe we should launch an invasion of pakistan to get this one guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdx9803IEgE (at about 1:40) This is actually a decent domestic policy interview, but pay attention at 1:40 - he agrees that the FBI/CIA needs to be eliminated. I do not recall anything where he now disagrees with this. As I've said, I'm an economic libertarian. I think it'd be awesome to see Paul in maybe the federal reserve chairman or some domestic position. But his foreign policy is sadly deficient. That's my opposition. I've said it quite a few times. gemini, you are defining the dishonest and unknowledgeable support of Paul that I talk about all the time. Guerilla. Also think about this. The goal in 2008 is to get a republican in the white house (if you are one) - given, we will not control the house or the senate. Having D's in control of all 3 is not a good idea - not for small government and certainly not for this nation's defense. In this campaign, in particular, the party will not get its optimal candidate (damn newt for being unelectable) but having republicans (paul, etal) attack each other is not the way to win. I'd rather win with a candidate who isn't perfect than lose with a perfect candidate. Think about it.
I'm only going by the FEC reports. If they aren't consistent in how they establish the data, I can't do much about that. We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Secular Communism wanted us dead as well. Secular Communism in China has persecuted the Tibetan Buddhists for a long time. I'll agree that Paul's approach doesn't guarantee success or is by any means a silver bullet, but I am conservative by nature. I'd rather a cautioned approach than the YeeHaw willy-nilly running around guns a blaze, bolstered by our own Christian fanaticism and arrogance. If you follow the other side (unsanitized) media from the rest of the world on Iraq, we're clearly not winning. And Bush as recently as 9/13 is talking about a presence in an area we are not winning for the long term (South Korea type presence). I don't want to hand that off to my kids and their children. It's not right. We'll have to differ on this. I've followed him consistently enough to know exactly what he meant, even if it did not come out clearly. I was making a point about the hypocrisy of our decision makers. It was sarcastic. The Constitution is specific about alliances and treaties. It also has the specific L of M & R provision, specifically for dealing with enemies who have no specific state. Unfortunately, pledges at press conferences, Generals with a chest covered in metals, and feel good/fear-mongering puff pieces are driving public opinion. I think we can both agree that if given all of the straight and honest facts, without the rhetoric, people would be more likely to make informed decisions. I could have sworn that I have seen him speak on the FBI, and the national role it plays enforcing the law. I'll check that out shortly. Fair enough. I can appreciate that you agree on some points and disagree on others. I'm not 100% behind all of his initiatives, and recognize that if he was to get into office, he could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. I am. And I agree that having the Dems (or the Republicans) in charge of all three branches is not conducive to a proper democracy. I'll even agree that Paul is not the perfect candidate (as a man) however his policies and positions represent a portion of the population who are not represented by other candidates. And that's necessary in a democracy. Whatever we want to believe about Romney, Giuliani et al, the Republican base has eroded and a party liner has little chance of toppling the Dems. At least with Paul, you have someone who crosses the aisle on the War, which is shaping up to be a major issue (bigger perhaps than healthcare). So while the internal debate may not seem helpful, I think having someone like Paul who has driven new Republican registrations is important. I think that he appeals to some of the Libertarian base is important. It's important if we want to see Republicans having a voice in the 3 branches. He has credibility across the aisle in Congress. As an aside, I think the biggest failing right now is that the GOP is too focused on the war as their primary issue, and not enough on domestic policies. It works to Paul's advantage now, but if another front runner would break with the party line, a more popular candidate, that would serve the party a lot better. Right now, a lot of the candidates are playing to the base, which is great for getting the nomination, but not for a general election.
"More than 1,000 people gathered Saturday at the Union Pacific Depot in Salt Lake City" Great turn out, thanks for sharing.
Paul raised $350,000 or so on his West Coast trip. I think it is great that he is getting so much grassroots support, considering very few Americans know who he actually is.
While I agree that killing OBL wouldn't have solved our problems, I'm sure Americans would gladly pay the $1 billion to know that he's dead. If you took up a collection, you'd only have to average $3.50 per American to raise that kind of money. It sure beats the hundred billion dollar puppet show our military is putting on right now, which is also ineffective in changing radical Islamic ideology (in fact, it's probably antagonizing them).
Good call dave. I don't get how we're supposed to defeat Islamic radicalism without taking out the architect, patriarch and leader of the #1 terrorist organization in the world. This notion that killing Bin Laden won't solve everything is true. But can anyone honestly say that we are safer or closer to our goals if he remains alive and producing his videos?
More grassroots support for Ron Paul This is one of the best homemade Ron Paul videos... It shows how Ron Paul got on the local news, people were "flooding the newsroom with phone calls about the signs all around Jacksonville"
People have forgotten what true grassroots campaigning is. I'm happy to see that the cries about truthers being the only Paul supporters, and in marginal and ineffective numbers at that, by the resident DP loony-toon. Regardless of how Paul fares, it's inspiring to see people getting involved in politics and gaining some measure of faith that democracy still works and we can each make a difference.