Ron Paul Files To Run For President!!!!!

[THEBIRD]

Finally, a REAL conservative decides to run for president in 2008!!

Can we get behind this guy? Rumor is on some internet forums that the Libertarian Party might endorse him....maybe the Constitution Party as well.

Maybe we can build some steam behind this.:claps:

*********************
Associated Press
Texas Congressman Seeks Presidency
By JOE STINEBAKER 01.11.07, 6:28 PM ET


Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid - this time as a Republican.
Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.
Kent Snyder, the chairman of Paul's exploratory committee and a former staffer on Paul's Libertarian campaign, said the congressman knows he's a long shot.

"There's no question that it's an uphill battle, and that Dr. Paul is an underdog," Snyder said. "But we think it's well worth doing and we'll let the voters decide."


http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/01/11/ap3322954.html

[EveningStar]

Get real. He has exactly two chances of winning: slim and none. And slim just died on the operating table.

[UnkHiram]

Hell Slim didnt make it to the operating table. He Overdosed on the damn drugs that libertarians want to legalize.

[THEBIRD]

Get real. He has exactly two chances of winning: slim and none. And slim just died on the operating table.

Not with that attitude he doesn't.:limp:

[Pennville_Bill]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v481/Pennville_Bill/Other%20Stuff/Smilies/2.gif

[DesertFox]

Not with that attitude he doesn't.Realistically, there are two attitudes to take toward this: "Yeah, right" and "zzzzzzzzz," and 'Yeah, right" left town.

[John Galt]

Ron Paul is the kind of fiscal conservative I can vote for, he's not a big government RINO like McCain, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

[Lubbock]

From South Texas, huh? I'm in the dark as to who he is.

When I saw "Ron Paul," the picture that popped into my head was of that transvestite black guy, Roux [?] Paul.

Not him, huh?

[Lazarus]

I dont know this guy... Dont know anything about him or his policies...

[RED]

Ron Paul is the kind of fiscal conservative I can vote for, he's not a big government RINO like McCain, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

Yeah ... we conservatives really have slim pickens. Hell, we nominated Bush instead of a conservative. Gingrich is the only conservative mentioned above. No matter what McCain says in the upcoming campaign, we've seen him suck up to the left and MSM repeatedly, and Romney, not sure he's telling the truth about his alleged conservatism. A Massachusetts conservative? Sounds like an oxymoron.

[Lazarus]

...and Romney, not sure he's telling the truth about his alleged conservatism. A Massachusetts conservative? Sounds like an oxymoron.Yeah I just cant get comfy with that image either... The only Massachusetts Conservative Im aware of is Doc... I'll support Doc for President...

[DesertFox]

:yeahthat:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

This 'Ron Paul'?

http://www.ronpaul.net/assets/images/ronpaulphoto.jpg

Who Is Ron Paul? (http://www.house.gov/paul/bio.shtml)

[Lazarus]

Well we'll see how far this man's campaign goes...

[DesertFox]

Paul has indeed been a stout Constitutionalist. He has also supported some loony stuff.

[Seabee]

So, if the "True Libertarians" support him I am sure he is a supporter of outsourcing, eh??? I llike alot of the Libertarian stand points but when it gets down to their Free Market Anarchy crap I have many issues with their standpoints. But, conservative Republicans could take a page from their playbook and get back to smaller government and fiscal responsibility. It was these 2 issues that really had alot to do with the "Country Club Republicans" losing the Congress to the "Dimwitted" ones.

[Maggie_T]

Get real. He has exactly two chances of winning: slim and none. And slim just died on the operating table.

:lol: ES, that was funny. :lol:

Wasn't Ron Paul touted as libertarian? I don't trust libertarians. While they're (somewhat) fiscally conservative, they are way too lax on social issues.

[DesertFox]

Yeah, there is a libertarian left and a libertarian right. They're all over the map and you can't tell just from the word "libertarian" what they hell they DO stand for.

[The Barbarian]

I would vote for him. I don't agree with him on everything, but he's dedicated to Constitutional government. No chance of him getting nominated by either major party, since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are interested in bringing back the Constitution.

But if people can get desperate enough to vote for Democrats, they can get angry enough to vote for a serious conservative/libertarian.

And at least you won't have to settle for the lesser of two evils.

And yeah, the "social issues" mean that government doesn't get to tell you what to teach your kid, or what religions are approved, and a lot of other things that the Founders thought were a matter of personal choice.

So if you're not into strict Constitutional government, or you think you have the right to tell other people how to live their lives, then Libertarian isn't for you.

(Edit)
And libertarian/fascist is an entirely different axis from conservative/liberal. There are conservatives and liberals who espouse freedom, and conservatives and liberals who worship the state.

[Maggie_T]

Paul has indeed been a stout Constitutionalist. He has also supported some loony stuff.



There. I knew he was a libertarian.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

. . . since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are interested in bringing back the Constitution.

Say what?

[DesertFox]

I agree with Barbarian on this one. Neither major Party seems to care about the Constitution.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I agree with Barbarian on this one. Neither major Party seems to care about the Constitution.

Perhaps the Republican "leadership", okay, I'll give you that, but I don't agree that ALL Republicans feel that way re: the Constitution. I sure don't, and I am a registered Republican. I'll apologize though, I guess I took it as a slam where none exists. I'm sorry.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Get real. He has exactly two chances of winning: slim and none. And slim just died on the operating table.
Agreed, 100%.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul was my representative in Congress in the 1970s and he certainly did some loony stuff along with a little good stuff. He was gerrymandered out of office after the 1980 Census by the Democrat Legislature. He then ran for president against Reagan as a Libertarian. He ran for and won his current seat in Congress from a different district following the 1990 Census.

By far my greatest objection to Ron Paul is that he has aligned himself with the left-wing loonies who want to surrender to the terrorists in the War on Terror. Here is a quote from Ron Paul following the president's speech as published in yesterday's Houston Chronicle:

I do not favor committing more troops to this ill-considered adventure in Iraq. I think we should bring the troops home as soon as we can. I'd back a plan to withhold spending associated with a troop increase. That would be a good way to keep (an increase) from happening.
Note Ron Paul's use of the word "adventure" to describe the Iraq campaign of the War on Terror. For God sakes, Ron, this is a WAR, a war that we must win.

There is no way that I could vote for Ron Paul.

[Seabee]

Ron Paul is the kind of fiscal conservative I can vote for, he's not a big government RINO like McCain, Romney, Gingrich, etc.

Romney and McCain I will give you, but Gingrich??? Need I remind you it was Gingrich who led the Republican Congress with the "Contract with America" that created the projected budget surplus by forcing Clintoon to nip and tuck his out control spending habits. Clintoon is often given credit for this by revisionist liberal historians, but anyone with half a brain and a Civics 101 class under their belt knows that Congress is final approval on any fiscal dealings. Hence why a President has to submit a budget package to "Con"-gress for approval.

[Lubbock]

"adventure" was the word that jumped out of the quote at me.

No way could or would I ever vote for a nutcase who described WAR as an "adventure."

Even if he's not a gay black transvestite, he still sounds like a nut.

[John Galt]

Yeah ... we conservatives really have slim pickens. Hell, we nominated Bush instead of a conservative. Gingrich is the only conservative mentioned above......

I gotta disagree, Gingrich *sounds* like a conservative but he acted like a big government RINO when he was house majority leader in 94.

[DesertFox]

What John Galt said.





But who is John Galt?

[Suzie]

But Paul takes it to the point of no government or law in many places where it becomes dangerous for society. Especially when it's for those among us who don't always have protection. Child sexual predators is one instance I can think of. Children do not have full rights under the law in many instances, but they don't always have a family to make sure they aren't abused either. Many times the families are the abusers.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-470

[Joe Btsflk]

Last summer I put a bumper sticker on my car:

:claps:
Ron Paul 2008
Tom Tancredo
:patriot:

Sent a copy to both of them and suggested that they run. I hope that late next year that bumper sticker is all over the place.

I haven't voted for a Dumbocrat nor a repugnant since Ronald Reagan and only a couple before that. (I've voted third party.) Ron Paul voted against the resolution to use force against Iraq and has been a strong opponent of the war in Iraq ever since. He is a man of principle and about the only one I know of in the US Congress. A man of principle in the US Congress has been an extreme oddity for nearly a hundred years. Unlike about all of the others, he takes seriously the oath of office that they all take. He votes against anything that he believes violates the Constitution. Sometimes that doesn't sit well with his constituents. Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate the "Minimum Wage" that employers must pay employees? I can't stand all of the hypocrits who take an oath and within a week violate it.

[RED]

What John Galt said.





But who is John Galt?

I wouldn't fight you guys on Gingrich. Like I said ... slim pickens.

Only thing I can remember in reference to Paul is, I heard him or read him once, and all I can remember is I didn't like what he was saying. If he is a kook of some kind, we'll know soon enough if he runs.

[Maggie_T]

I can't stand all of the hypocrits who take an oath and within a week violate it.<!-- / message -->


*S N O R T* Stay away from politics, then.

Sooner or later, politicians behave like all the others. Even the best of them.

The days of Ronald Reagan are far in the past, my friend.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ron Paul voted against the resolution to use force against Iraq and has been a strong opponent of the war in Iraq ever since. He is a man of principle and about the only one I know of in the US Congress. A man of principle in the US Congress has been an extreme oddity for nearly a hundred years. Unlike about all of the others, he takes seriously the oath of office that they all take. He votes against anything that he believes violates the Constitution.
By voting against the resolution to use force against Iraq, he violated his oath of office, the main part of which is to uphold the Constitution. The most important constitutional duty of a president as Commander-in-Chief is to protect the American people from attack. The War on Terror, including the Iraq operation, is completely within the president's constitutional duties and Ron Paul's vote against it violates his oath of office. Consequently, no one can honestly claim that he is a man of principle or that he upholds the Constitution.

[Joe Btsflk]

Naturalized Texan:

I suggest that you look up the word War in the dictionary and explain to me how "Terror" can be something that you can wage war against???

[Suzie]

Doesn't matter. Your country elected a man (twice, again even after the war had started) to be in charge of the military. His job is to give them the missions he feels are needed.

[Taylor]

I would never vote Liberaltarian or Constitution party because they're isolationist and I don't see much difference between the so called "conservative" third parties and the Democrats after reading about these third parties. Paul is like every of Liberaltarian. He's pro-liberal establishment, pro-illegal drugs, pro-illegal immigration and pro-isolationism.

[Seabee]

Libertarians need to clamp down on their political ideologies. They have some really strong arguements on government size, fiscal responsibility (i.e. Balanced Budget Amendment), corporate welfare, and what to do about "some" government infringement on individual rights.

Where they are extremely weak is their crazed stances on Free Market, drug usage, illegal immigration, national defense, etc. Also, the flaw in their "liberty with responsiblity" can be seen in their approaches to drug usage and illegal immigration especially. I have never met any "responsible" drug users. Secondly, with illegal immigration they feel immigrants of all kinds should have the right to political and economic sanctuary. Well, when illegals and other immigrants worry about my political and economic sanctuary I will give two s&%ts about theirs.

I dont think I would be frightened if a Libertarian were our President, but that is a highly doubtful scenario.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Naturalized Texan:

I suggest that you look up the word War in the dictionary and explain to me how "Terror" can be something that you can wage war against???
In today's world of global terror that threatens the lives of everyone in the world, in general, and everyone in America, in particular, any dictionary definition of the word "war" is obsolete and meaningless. When we were attacked on 9/11 the terrorists declared war against us, so we had no choice but to defend ourselves, hence the War on Terror.

Besides, Congress declared war on terrorism on September 14, 2001, a declaration which states in part, that "the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States."

Since Iraq, under Saddam, harbored, trained, financed, and armed terrorists, including al Qaeda, the Iraq campaign of the War on Terror was clearly authorized by Congress in its declaration.

[Seabee]

Joe Btsflk

If you want to argue semantics, fine will break it down Barney style.
War on Terror, War=A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious, on=used to indicate the object of an action directed, tending, or moving against it: an attack on the fortress. Oh yeah and ts a preposition. Terror=Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes.

That is as Barney as I can get for yah. Want anymore subscribe to HUKED ON FONIX, iat wurked fah meeee.

[EveningStar]

Last summer I put a bumper sticker on my car:

:claps:
Ron Paul 2008
Tom Tancredo
:patriot:


Guffaw.

[EveningStar]

:lol: ES, that was funny. :lol:



Thanks. I stole it. :D

[Longhorn_Platinum]

EveningStar:
Get real. He has exactly two chances of winning: slim and none. And slim just died on the operating table.

:sulk: Ya know, I've really gotten a snootful of some of the nattering nabobs at this BB. First we hear all the whining & handwringing about who the Republicans will be able to nominate in 2008. McCain & Giuliani are unacceptable, so everyone yearns for somebody else to come on the scene, with all the right values, & still have the ability to beat Hillary. But as soon as somebody suggests a name, we hear, "Oh, not him. He has no chance to win." Newt Gingrich has no chance. Ron Paul has no chance. Haley Barbour has no chance. Mark Sanford has no chance. Bill Owens has no chance. Well, then I have a newsflash for you, EveningStar. Forget it. Just forget it. Nobody has a chance to beat Hillary. We should all just concede the White House to the demonic rats, because anyone we nominate, besides the Select Few that have already been nominated by the liberal media, has a snowball's chance in Hell.

:sulk: If that's what you truly believe, then stick to threads about movies & gardening tips, & allow those of us who still believe that we have a shot at getting a real conservative into the White House come January 2009 to live in our own little Lalaland, & discuss who we'd like to see get that chance.

[RED]

I agree! You go, friend. After all, there's no law against wishful thinking. :thumb:

[Seabee]

Longhorn,

I am going to the gardening tips and learn how to grow a money tree. Cause if the "DIMWITTED ONES" get the White House and Congress i'm going to need it.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Forget it, they'll just levy a tax on money trees.

[Seabee]

Think they will try and tax the dog for his house too or just bulldoze it?

[Little Bit Farm]

By voting against the resolution to use force against Iraq, he violated his oath of office, the main part of which is to uphold the Constitution. The most important constitutional duty of a president as Commander-in-Chief is to protect the American people from attack. The War on Terror, including the Iraq operation, is completely within the president's constitutional duties and Ron Paul's vote against it violates his oath of office. Consequently, no one can honestly claim that he is a man of principle or that he upholds the Constitution.

Oh Come ON!!!! Tex, he upheld his oath of office! You may not have agreed with his opinion on the war, but the Constitution authorizes Congress to VOTE on an act of war. IN FACT, Congress is the ONLY body of the three branches of government that CAN authorize an act of war according to the Constitution. The man voted his conscience and as such I respect him! Personally, not only will I vote for him but I will put my feet to the pavement and personally knock on doors to see him elected!!! He is one of the few Congressman I respect. Somebody give me a list of the looney things he has voted for and I will give you a list of the times he has voted in favor of upholding the Constitution. Unfortunately many here, like our current esteemed President, think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"! That is what has gotten not only this country into the mess it is in, but also the Republican Party out of power!!!! The Republican Party paid lip service to the Constitution until elected, and then abandoned those who voted for them!!! We put them in, and we have taken them down! If the Republican Party wants back into power they better find some other road than the Tax and Spend, entitlement growing, liberty invading road that they have been on for the last six years!!! Because some of us, are not going to give them a pass because they are anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and pro-war!!!! Some of us, can think beyond the immediate to the future of a Democrat or WORSE in power with the same power that has been heaped upon the Bush whitehouse!!! Some of us want our children to be FREE, and our grandchildren to be FREE. Some of us would like to live our lives in such a way that we do not have to ask the federal government or ANY government to wipe our behind!!! If the Republican Party will not trim the government back to constitutional limits for us, then we will find someone who will. Ron Paul is the first candidate in years that promises to take the Republican Party and this nation in the right direction, the opposite of the one we have been heading in for the last 70+ years. Gosh, I can think of nothing more beautiful than the thought of Ron Paul with veto power, except maybe Ron Paul with line item veto power!!! When I read the e-mail informing me of his candidacy I literally jumped out of my chair for joy. I have been waiting for this a LONG LONG TIME! Maybe for the first time in a long time we will get to see the whether the 200+ year old Constitution still has some weight with the American people.

Little Bit Farm

[IloveJackBauer]

Why would anyone ever vote for Ron Paul?
1) he would pull out of the middle east, islamo-fascists would win and we would be attacked again
2) he would abolish the patriot acts
3) he would abolish the income tax
4) he would abolish the federal reserve and give congress power to print money
5) he would prosecute the rockefellers for the "conspiracy theories" that he believes about them
6) he would take us out of the North American free-trade-agreement union community, hurting wal-marts monopoly
7) he would increase the value of the dollar worldwide
8) he would remove the taxed troll roads and allow us to drive on them without paying a toll tax
9) he would make the definition of torture more strict making our military unable to get information from terrorists and child terrorists
WHY would anyone ever vote for him? He is a conspiracy theory loon and nothing more. All of his plans suck anyway. Thread over.

[IloveJackBauer]

weird. for some reason dblpost. my browser like gave me a re press screen or something.

[DesertFox]

Unfortunately many here ... think the Constitution is "just a piece of paper"Name one of this "many." Just one.

[Naturalized-Texan]

IloveJackBauer: Items 3 and 7 sound good. The rest don't make sense and some of them even sound like Teddy Kennedy positions (1, 2, 6, & 9). But Ron Paul is loony enough to even push for the nonsense items. That disqualifies him for any consideration for president.

[Seabee]

Well if Ron Paul actually won a bid AND miraculously became the Republican canidate, it would be the first time a gynecologist was up for the presidency........ can you imagine the bumper stickers?

[EveningStar]

I don't know about the others, but Paul, Gingrich, and Tancredo can't win.

:sulk: Ya know, I've really gotten a snootful of some of the nattering nabobs at this BB. First we hear all the whining & handwringing about who the Republicans will be able to nominate in 2008. McCain & Giuliani are unacceptable, so everyone yearns for somebody else to come on the scene, with all the right values, & still have the ability to beat Hillary. But as soon as somebody suggests a name, we hear, "Oh, not him. He has no chance to win." Newt Gingrich has no chance. Ron Paul has no chance. Haley Barbour has no chance. Mark Sanford has no chance. Bill Owens has no chance. Well, then I have a newsflash for you, EveningStar. Forget it. Just forget it. Nobody has a chance to beat Hillary. We should all just concede the White House to the demonic rats, because anyone we nominate, besides the Select Few that have already been nominated by the liberal media, has a snowball's chance in Hell.

:sulk: If that's what you truly believe, then stick to threads about movies & gardening tips, & allow those of us who still believe that we have a shot at getting a real conservative into the White House come January 2009 to live in our own little Lalaland, & discuss who we'd like to see get that chance.

[Seabee]

EVENING, do not take this the wrong way, but you truly do not know who is a viable and candidate and who isnt. I do not either, we have our suspicions, but that is all they are right now. Someone may come on strong or hire the right P.R. people and all of a suden they are a legitimate candidate. Longhorn makes a good point, if we sit here bitching on a blog and wringing our hands the "DIMWITTED ONES" will take the "CON"-gress and the Presidency.

Now in defense of this Blog, a free exchange of opinions on a potential candidate can help in the decision making process. You might know something about a candidate, that is either good or bad, that I did not know. I can research that information find out for myself and make an informed choice.

[Lubbock]

What Seabee said.

Right off the top of my head, I can name one that no one would have considered a "viable candidate" two years out: Jimmah Catah. Look how that deal turned out.

[Seabee]

Amen.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: Little Bit Farm, the Republicans aren't "pro-war". I don't think anyone is. But, they do believe that it's sometimes necessary to defend freedom.

[Little Bit Farm]

:unsmile: Little Bit Farm, the Republicans aren't "pro-war". I don't think anyone is. But, they do believe that it's sometimes necessary to defend freedom.

I sure wish they would defend my freedom in the Congress. I didn't mean the "pro-war" to be an insult. What I meant is that the war, against terror, or Afganistan, or Iraq, is not the only issue of freedom.

[UnkHiram]

Just a few thoughts. Ron Paul is a lunatic libertarian, he has absolutely no chance of winning the Republican Nomination much less the Presidency. That does not mean that some other conservative cant win ---- it means SIMPLY ENOUGH that Ron Paul has no chance to win.

Hillary is very beatable, but we need to nominate someone that has at the very least a passing familiarity with Reality. Libertarians need not apply

[Seabee]

1) he would pull out of the middle east, islamo-fascists would win and we would be attacked again
2) he would abolish the patriot acts
3) he would abolish the income tax
4) he would abolish the federal reserve and give congress power to print money
5) he would prosecute the rockefellers for the "conspiracy theories" that he believes about them
6) he would take us out of the North American free-trade-agreement union community, hurting wal-marts monopoly
7) he would increase the value of the dollar worldwide
8) he would remove the taxed troll roads and allow us to drive on them without paying a toll tax
9) he would make the definition of torture more strict making our military unable to get information from terrorists and child terrorists

Reality check: Lets try a limited experiment that has not been done by many Americans in a long while. Let's introduce some common sense into the equation.
Posts with common sense in them.

1) He would pull out of the Middle East, the Islamo Facists would win and there woudl be
alot of dead Americans (Common Sense: Bad Idea, kill the bastards first. Then problem has
no man power)
2)Get rid of the Patriot Act (Common Sense: Bad idea, Patriot Act has allowed law
enfrcement and intelligence agencies to capture home grown terrorists. Thereby saving lives, maybe we ought to keep it
3)Abolish the Income Tax (Common Sense: not a totally bad idea, but dont we need a plan for some revenue before we go shooting ourselves in the foot?????
4)Abolish the Federal Reserve and give Congress the ability to print money Common Sense:The idiot of the year award goes to #4, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVERLOVIN MIND?!?!?!?!?! The Fed is bad enough and you want to give CONGRESS the right to print money?????? These are the same boobs who cant balance a budget and we are always bitching about their spending and you want to give them the right to print money??? WOW!!!
5)Common Sense doesnt give a rat's arse about the Rockerfellas'
6)Take us out of the North American Trade Agreement Common Sense: Another idea not totally bad, but what options are you going to give to corporate America other than sink or swim its FREE MARKET ANARCHY. You better survive.Solutions need to be plausable and just pulling out of NAFTA isnt the whole answer.
7)He would increase the value of the dollar. Common Sense: How do you propose he does that???Just run around the U.N. screaming, " The dollar is worth more the dollar is worth more!!!" Again, what is the plan.
8)He would remove tax trolled roads. Common Sense:Well if tax trolled roads are providing money for highways and are being spent on education or other worthwhile projects let it be. Now if there is continued mismanagement of fundage, revamp the management until you get it right.
9)He would strictly define what torture is. Common Sense: Your enemey wants to murder you and your children, torutre his ass until he tells you where he hid the sugar from his sister back in 85' if it helps you protect your children.

This introduction of Common Sense was brought to you by the Naval Construction Force Think Tank, a division of the Pentagon Company. Our motto is "We never met a terrorist we didnt like to kill."

[UnkHiram]

SeaBee

It is against the rules of Internet BBing to introduce Commen Sense into any discussion about Libertarians. Go sit in the corner and wack yourself with a wet noodle one thousand times.

[Seabee]

<------Whacking...1, 2, 3, ......

[Little Bit Farm]

Why would anyone ever vote for Ron Paul?
1) he would pull out of the middle east, islamo-fascists would win and we would be attacked again
We are eventually going to be attacked again whether we remain a presence in the middle east or not.
2) he would abolish the patriot acts
Thank goodness.
3) he would abolish the income tax
Even better.
4) he would abolish the federal reserve and give congress power to print money
Should have never been established in the first place. Here it is in his own words:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul53.html
5) he would prosecute the rockefellers for the "conspiracy theories" that he believes about them
I'd like to see supporting documentation of this. I googled "Ron Paul" and "Rockefeller", and couldn't come up with a thing.
6) he would take us out of the North American free-trade-agreement union community, hurting wal-marts monopoly
That sounds like an excellent idea to me.
7) he would increase the value of the dollar worldwide
Heaven forbid the dollar should actually be worth something.
8) he would remove the taxed troll roads and allow us to drive on them without paying a toll tax
If the road is paid for, then there needs be no tax on them.
9) he would make the definition of torture more strict making our military unable to get information from terrorists and child terrorists
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm
http://rwor.org/a/032/anti-torture-law-legalizes-torture.htm
WHY would anyone ever vote for him? He is a conspiracy theory loon and nothing more. All of his plans suck anyway. Thread over.


Little Bit Farm

[Little Bit Farm]

Name one of this "many." Just one.

I intentionally did not name any particular person. I could say that some of those that I think seem to espouse that very thing are posting on this thread. I am shocked at how the republican defeat in congress has reduced this board to such a lack of divergent opinion. I'm amazed in fact. I haven't posted here for awhile. Please keep in mind I am not simply trying to be insulting here. If I wanted to be insulting I would start naming names. Very interesting.

Little Bit Farm

[Riverboat]

Why would anyone ever vote for Ron Paul?

3) he would abolish the income tax; 4) he would abolish the federal reserve and give congress power to print money; 5) he would prosecute the rockefellers for the "conspiracy theories" that he believes about them. . . . I was about to rebut one or two of the points, then I kept reading your post which appears to be a cut-and-paste job from a web site even nuttier than the candidate you purport to be criticizing. Or is all that actually satire? Sometimes it's hard to tell.

Abolishing the income tax would be reason enough to vote FOR a candidate of any office.

He would give congress power to print money? You're out of your depth, buddy. You obviously haven't read a single word he wrote on phony money. Go here for some background reading: http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html

I've had the pleasure of being represented by this solon first in Houston, and then as a resident of Victoria. I admit to being puzzled by some of his views, but no more so than any other representative. In fact, as a rule, I generally see the sense of his votes for or against any given issue.

I think I have expressed my ambivalence regarding our involvement in Iraq, notwithstanding my primal desire to kick Moozie ass and kick it good. Ron Paul has made it no secret that he opposes our involvement, but he would exercise the Constitutional power of the purse. If the House of Representatives yanks funding, that is entirely within the law. Would it be prudent? Maybe not. But I can guarantee you one thing: If Ron Paul's earlier prescriptions had been followed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We would have deployed troops to secure our borders, and opened federal land for oil exploration.

A long shot? I'd have better luck shooting a bottle rocket to the moon. But I'll support Ron Paul 100%.

While I'm at it, would you ask Tom DeLay how all that gerrymandering panned out? I've been busy and haven't kept up with politics like I should. Last I heard, Ron Paul has been soundly defeating all comers, and DeLay had to step down and was replaced by a DEMOCRAT.

[RED]

Like I said earlier in this post, we're lookin at some slim pickens. Like Ron Paul; don't like Ron Paul ... he's an unknown and a libertarian with no chance of getting out of the traps. Here's a review of some of the other Republican candidates sooned to be tarred and feathered by the MSM who's only motive is to make this country great, and keep it safe. :rolleyes:

Ranking The Most Desired 2008 Republican Candidates
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
January 12, 2007
(Blog)

Here's my current list (Note that I do say "current" and that this list can and probably will change over time) of most desired Republican contenders. This list is based on a mixture of conservatism and electability because if you have the most conservative candidate and he can't get elected, he does you no good and if you have the most electable candidate, but he's not conservative, he does you no good.

Duncan Hunter: Hunter is a movement conservative, tough on illegal immigration, the candidate with the best credentials in the war on terrorism, and in my opinion, he would be the most electable candidate the GOP could run because his position on trade would probably allow him to put states like Michigan and Pennsylvania genuinely into play. The real question is: can he buff his name recognition up to the point where people will start taking his candidacy seriously? He has a long way to go on that front at the moment.

Newt Gingrich: Judging by his poll numbers not just in the blogosphere, but of the general public, Newt has a shot to win the nomination and out of the whole field, he would probably be the guy I'd most like to see in the White House. However, Newt has a lot of baggage and I'm still getting the sense that he doesn't intend to run.

Mitt Romney: * I don't trust the guy and think his Mormonism could be a big hurdle to getting elected, but if Newt doesn't run and Hunter doesn't catch on, he may be the only guy who can stop Rudy and McCain.

Rudy Guiliani :** The only way I would support Rudy's candidacy would be if he turned out to be the only guy who could stop McCain.

Tom Tancredo: Tanc is one of my favorite conservatives, sets the standard on illegal immigration, is fiscally conservative, and is tough on the war on terror. However, the leadership he has shown on illegal immigration which has helped him build a following has probably also made him too polarizing to win the Presidency.

Sam Brownback: Brownback is generally conservative, but he's not particularly charismatic, is a squish on illegal immigration, comes across as soft on the war on terror, and seems to have terrible political instincts.

Jim Gilmore: The fact that Gilmore is this high says more about the quality of the field than the quality of Gilmore as a candidate. As of yet, he hasn't shown that he can get any traction or bring anything to the table.

Tommy Thompson: The fact that he used to be governor of Wisconsin makes him more electorally appealing than Huckabee or Pataki, but as of yet, he hasn't given people any reason to support him.

Mike Huckabee: He's socially conservative and seems personable enough, but he is not fiscally conservative, he's an amnesty advocate, and he doesn't come across as tough on the war on terror.

George Pataki: A middle-of-road governor from a liberal state that he couldn't deliver in an election. Pataki brings very little to the table.

John Cox: He may be an accomplished guy, but he has never held elected office before or done anything that shows he's qualified to be President. Combine that with the fact that he has zero traction and zero prospect of gaining any and it would be tempting to leave him off the list all together. But, since I'd still prefer him to McCain or Hagel, he stays on.

John McCain: This guy is an egomaniac who has built an entire career out of kicking conservatives in the teeth in order to get adulation from the mainstream media.

Chuck Hagel: Even Hillary is to his right in the war on terror.

Ron Paul: Paul is a soft on terror Libertarian who has run for the Presidency before on the Libertarian Party ticket. He would have about as much of a chance of getting elected as Al Sharpton.

rightwingnews.com (http://www.rightwingnews.com/)
[/quote]

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Riverboat:
Last I heard, Ron Paul has been soundly defeating all comers, and DeLay had to step down and was replaced by a DEMOCRAT.

:rolleyes: Get real, Riverboat. You know all too well that that was a result of demonic rat hypocrisy. They blocked the Republicans from replacing his name on the ballot, while in other places, demonic rats who bowed out of a race were easily replaced. And you blame that on DeLay?

[IloveJackBauer]

1) he would pull out of the middle east, islamo-fascists would win and we would be attacked again
2) he would abolish the patriot acts
3) he would abolish the income tax
4) he would abolish the federal reserve and give congress power to print money
5) he would prosecute the rockefellers for the "conspiracy theories" that he believes about them
6) he would take us out of the North American free-trade-agreement union community, hurting wal-marts monopoly
7) he would increase the value of the dollar worldwide
8) he would remove the taxed troll roads and allow us to drive on them without paying a toll tax
9) he would make the definition of torture more strict making our military unable to get information from terrorists and child terrorists

Reality check: Lets try a limited experiment that has not been done by many Americans in a long while. Let's introduce some common sense into the equation.
Posts with common sense in them.

1) He would pull out of the Middle East, the Islamo Facists would win and there woudl be
alot of dead Americans (Common Sense: Bad Idea, kill the bastards first. Then problem has
no man power)
2)Get rid of the Patriot Act (Common Sense: Bad idea, Patriot Act has allowed law
enfrcement and intelligence agencies to capture home grown terrorists. Thereby saving lives, maybe we ought to keep it
3)Abolish the Income Tax (Common Sense: not a totally bad idea, but dont we need a plan for some revenue before we go shooting ourselves in the foot?????
4)Abolish the Federal Reserve and give Congress the ability to print money Common Sense:The idiot of the year award goes to #4, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR EVERLOVIN MIND?!?!?!?!?! The Fed is bad enough and you want to give CONGRESS the right to print money?????? These are the same boobs who cant balance a budget and we are always bitching about their spending and you want to give them the right to print money??? WOW!!!
5)Common Sense doesnt give a rat's arse about the Rockerfellas'
6)Take us out of the North American Trade Agreement Common Sense: Another idea not totally bad, but what options are you going to give to corporate America other than sink or swim its FREE MARKET ANARCHY. You better survive.Solutions need to be plausable and just pulling out of NAFTA isnt the whole answer.
7)He would increase the value of the dollar. Common Sense: How do you propose he does that???Just run around the U.N. screaming, " The dollar is worth more the dollar is worth more!!!" Again, what is the plan.
8)He would remove tax trolled roads. Common Sense:Well if tax trolled roads are providing money for highways and are being spent on education or other worthwhile projects let it be. Now if there is continued mismanagement of fundage, revamp the management until you get it right.
9)He would strictly define what torture is. Common Sense: Your enemey wants to murder you and your children, torutre his ass until he tells you where he hid the sugar from his sister back in 85' if it helps you protect your children.

This introduction of Common Sense was brought to you by the Naval Construction Force Think Tank, a division of the Pentagon Company. Our motto is "We never met a terrorist we didnt like to kill."


Dude? What in the world?


I do not support those 9 suggestions, I was saying that RON PAUL SUPPORTS THOSE 9 ACTIONS, and that is why I am against ron paul.


Let me say it again, I do not support those 9 actions. I was saying that Ron Paul will do all of those 9 things if he becomes president, and thats why he wont win.


I was about to rebut one or two of the points, then I kept reading your post which appears to be a cut-and-paste job from a web site even nuttier than the candidate you purport to be criticizing. Or is all that actually satire? Sometimes it's hard to tell.


It is what Ron Paul would try to do if he became president, and that is why I am against Ron Paul.

Those 9 actions are what Ron Paul would do if he were to become president, and all I was trying to say is that I am against him doing those things, so I would not vote for Ron Paul.


He would give congress power to print money? You're out of your depth, buddy. You obviously haven't read a single word he wrote on phony money. Go here for some background reading: http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html

I read this one conspiracy loonatic webside and it said, "the federal reserve is bad, the founding fathers wanted congress to print money!" and I know that Ron Paul is against the federal reserve, so I simply assumed he would give congress the right to print money (because who else is there?)

However, maybe Ron Paul wouldn't give congress the right to print money. Who knows? All I know is he is against the Federal Reserve, and he would probably abolish it.

[Seabee]

Wasnt shooting at you man, firing across Ron Paul's bow.

[Riverboat]

we're lookin at some slim pickens. Like Ron Paul; don't like Ron Paul ... he's an unknown and a libertarian with no chance of getting out of the traps.Ron Paul has been in Congress since I was in college thirty years ago. He took a sabbatical to run for the U.S. Senate, and then for president as a Libertarian. He returned to Congress in '96. He has issued hundreds of speeches and essays on all the hot topics. Ron Paul may be a lot of things, but unknown is not one of them. PROLIFE he is. That means a lot in virtue of the fact he is a practicing obstetrician.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Longhorn, it just seems ironic that after so much effort to get more Republicans in the House, that his own seat was snatched by a Democrat. It's no secret I lose no love for him, and the reason why is no secret, either.

One more time, I believe that if the United States had followed Ron Paul's prescription for border defense we wouldn't be having this discussion regarding his opposition to the war in Iraq.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Longhorn, it just seems ironic that after so much effort to get more Republicans in the House, that his own seat was snatched by a Democrat. It's no secret I lose no love for him, and the reason why is no secret, either.
If either Tom DeLay's or Shelly Sekula-Gibbs's name had been on the ballot, either of them would have easily defeated Lampson, the Democrat. As it was, Sekula-Gibbs was forced to wage a write-in campaign because Ronnie Earle was able to trump up false charges against DeLay to get him indicted after he finally found a grand jury partisan enough to indict him after 5 tries. As a write-in candidate, Sekula-Gibbs had no chance of winning the election. The only surprise was that she got close.

Lampson will not be reelected in this heavily Republican district.

FYI, years ago, Dr. Shelly Sekula was my wife's dermatologist.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Naturalized-Texan:
Lampson will not be reelected in this heavily Republican district.

:thumb:

[Riverboat]

:thumb::thumb: :thumb:

[Lazarus]

SeaBee

It is against the rules of Internet BBing to introduce Commen Sense into any discussion about Libertarians. Go sit in the corner and wack yourself with a wet noodle one thousand times.Unk you are too harsh...:rotflmbo:

[TheIrishman]

I thought the constitution gave congress the sole right to print the money.

The Federal Reserve is Bankers. And you know damn well bankers do NOT have our interest at heart.

[Rhino]

Paper money isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Only coins are.

An original draft of the Constitution expressly permitted the government not only to borrow money, as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 notes, but also to "emit bills." In Madison's Notes from August 16, 1787, the subject of paper money was debated at some length. Gouverneur Morris warned that if paper money was allowed, "The Monied interest will oppose the plan of Government." John Mercer thought it unwise to "deny [the Government] discretion on this point." But others thought paper money was a deal-killer. George Read likened the words, if included, to the "mark of the Beast," and John Langdon said he'd rather reject the entire plan than include the words. On a 9-2 vote, the words were struck. So how is it possible for us to pay for anything with paper money today? Shouldn't all currency be coins with inherent value, like silver and gold?

Gold and silver are not panaceas. Gold and silver coins have issues of their own, and the evils of paper money were outweighed by the evils of manipulation of purity and weights, not to mention convenience. By the Civil War, "greenbacks" were issued by the government and used in all manner of commerce. Not everyone liked this, and legal conflict ensued. The Supreme Court eventually had to rule on the question. In Knox v Lee, 79 U.S. 457 (1871), the Court ruled that paper money was not unconstitutional: "The Constitution nowhere declares that nothing shall be money unless made of metal." The Court argued that the Congress can manipulate the value of precious metals to the point where it can be rendered as inherently worthless as paper (the Congress could enact a law that says that 10-dollar silver coins weigh 400 grains in one year and 500 grains the next, effectively devaluing the silver). The Court even noted the arguments of the Framers against "emitting bills," but wrote that the Framers, one, could not anticipate all governmental needs, and, two, they allowed the Congress to do what was necessary and proper to carry out its powers. In this case, that includes printing paper money.

So, said the Court, even though paper money is not expressly permitted by the Constitution, it is also not expressly forbidden, and in spite of the extra-constitutional opinions of some of the Framers, the ability to print paper money is a necessary and proper power of the federal government.http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

[DesertFox]

I've really gotten a snootful of some of the nattering nabobs at this BB But that flattened snoot of yours just doesn't hold a lot.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

DesertFox:
But that flattened snoot of yours just doesn't hold a lot.

:moo: Okay, so I'm not a snotty person.

[RED]

Ron Paul has been in Congress since I was in college thirty years ago. He took a sabbatical to run for the U.S. Senate, and then for president as a Libertarian. He returned to Congress in '96. He has issued hundreds of speeches and essays on all the hot topics. Ron Paul may be a lot of things, but unknown is not one of them. PROLIFE he is. That means a lot in virtue of the fact he is a practicing obstetrician.

(http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html)
.

Well, I've heard of him, but that's about it. Betcha I'm in the minute minority as far as that goes, and betcha he don't get to first base. :smirky:

[TheIrishman]

But the government is not printing the money, bankers are, and charging the government interest on the fiat money!

[Naturalized-Texan]

There's nothing wrong with printing money as long as the money supply doesn't increase to the point of causing inflation. Today, the increase in the money supply is pretty much in equilibrium with the demands of our growing economy, hence the low inflation we are experiencing despite the high price of oil and gasoline.

In 2002 we were in a period of deflation during which the money supply wasn't keeping up with the demands of the economy, hence the stagnant economy in that period.