Ron Paul's Straight Talk

[bigred1says]

I know that some here do not like Dr Pauls Iraq position, but the man is right on many issues that really matter to the country. I think that he is one of the only true conservatives in DC and we need more like him.
This is from his weekly newsletter...
http://www.house.gov/paul/images/banner_column.jpg (http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml)</BASEFONT><BASEFONT face="MS Sans Serif, Geneva, Verdana"> </BASEFONT>
<BASEFONT face="MS Sans Serif, Geneva, Verdana"></BASEFONT>
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst100707.htm


Keeping Promises to Seniors
With our country's finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending. The predictable answer to the government's voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in <?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = ST1 /><ST1:COUNTRY-REGION w:st="on"><ST1:PLACE w:st="on">Iraq</ST1:PLACE> </ST1:COUNTRY-REGION>. Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon. We must keep these promises.
An analysis of the Social Security "Trust Fund" shows we are not doing a credible job of keeping these promises. Official reports show the trust fund having assets of $2.1 trillion. In reality, those dollars are just IOUs the government is writing to itself when it borrows from the fund to spend on unrelated programs. There are no real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund. This is similar to taking money out of your savings account, spending it, then replacing it with an IOU to yourself, and calling that IOU an asset.

Trimmed by DesertFox to meet board posting requirements.

[Maggie_T]

Sorry, bigred. It's not only his position in Iraq that I don't like about this old fool, but yes it is the most important.

Not much use being (perceivedly) right on some issues when he is wrong on the most important one.

[Suzie]

He thinks the United States is the cause of radical islam and their attacks on us. This man is too dangerous to be in Washington PERIOD, much less as president.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's too bad that he has aligned himself with traitors like George Soros, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al. in supporting our surrender to the terrorists in World War IV. His treasonous position on World War IV completely disqualifies him from any consideration as someone who can be trusted with the future of our nation.

[garlicguy]

It's too bad that he has aligned himself with traitors like George Soros, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, et al. in supporting our surrender to the terrorists in World War IV. His treasonous position on World War IV completely disqualifies him from any consideration as someone who can be trusted with the future of our nation.

Since he opposes undeclared warring and constitutionally prohibited activities you necessarily align him with the Left?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't show much regard for Freedom. This guy Paul is the champion of freedom (research and read; please don't fall for the Democrat and NeoCon soundbites). This is FREE CONSERVATIVES.Com isn't it? :rolleyes:

[Maggie_T]

He thinks the United States is the cause of radical islam and their attacks on us. This man is too dangerous to be in Washington PERIOD, much less as president.


Exactly.


Since he opposes undeclared warring and constitutionally prohibited activities you necessarily align him with the Left?--garlicguy


Ok, I'll play.


Let's see, guy. Suppose (that's all we can do for the moment) that we are attacked again (God forbid!). Suppose another 3,000 Americans die. Suppose we know for certain who/what country did it.

Now. Suppose CONgress is still in the hands of commies. Enter Ron Paul - that champion for the Constitution - and asks Nancy Pelosi et al for permission to go to war with the country that killed another 3,000 Americans (let's say Iran, for the sake of argument).

Unless you've been in outer space lately, guy, you know that Nancy Pelosi et al are rabidly anti-war, anti-American, as well as multiculturalists who believe that Big Bad America is to be blamed for the perceived oppression of poor guys like Ahmadinejan. So of course, they will say NO! to the idea of going to war with Iran. They'll say what they always say: that America had it coming, that Islam is a religion of peace, that going to war with Iran will make Islamists hate us more, etc. No, they'll say, instead of going to war, we'll talk to Iran. We'll talk and talk and talk and talk. And when we get tired of talking, we'll ask the UN to pick up where we left off. But NO war. War kills people. War is bad.

What would you want the exalted President Ron Paul to do? Go to the American people and say "Sorry, folks. As per the Constitution, I went to CONgress for permission to go to war with Iran, but they said "No war." Would you be satisfied with that?

Let's consider the unlikely case that Paul would develop a pair and tell Nancy Pelosi et al to (bleep) themselves and went to war regardless. What good would going through the motions be if perhaps more Americans died while Paul and CONgress sat on their butts waiting for the UN to produce a miracle?

You tell me.

[Jack_Savage]

He is a traitor to this country and a bandit for intentionally trying to con the people to think is is patritoic. Anyone who supports him is guilty of the same.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Since he opposes undeclared warring and constitutionally prohibited activities you necessarily align him with the Left?:
A Congressional declaration of war WAS enacted by Congress on September 14, 2001, and Ron Paul voted for it. There was only one dissenting vote - some Commie from San Francisco.

That declaration of war stated, 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."

Saddam's Iraqi intelligence clearly helped plan the 9/11 attacks in meetings with al Qaeda in Manila and Saddam helped train al Qaeda and other terrorists at Salman Pak and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq. Consequently, despite his feeble and treasonous denials and his treasonous votes to surrender to the terrorists, Ron Paul authorized the Iraq campaign of World War IV.

[d'urville]

Since he opposes undeclared warring and constitutionally prohibited activities you necessarily align him with the Left?

I'm sorry, but that doesn't show much regard for Freedom. This guy Paul is the champion of freedom (research and read; please don't fall for the Democrat and NeoCon soundbites). This is FREE CONSERVATIVES.Com isn't it? :rolleyes:

Did you really just say the word "neocon"? Truth Outer?

Doesn't matter which way, the Left has aligned with Ron Paul, fact. First, there was this wtf??? article written by a far-left ACLU member that someone got printed on NRO:

LINK (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGVhODdiZjY5NDljNDA5NWUwYTY1NmJmZDBiOWQzM2I=)

Then there's this:

The umbrella group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, whose members include such progressive groups as the Service Employees Union International and MoveOn.org Political Action, issued a laudatory shout out today to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate:he umbrella group Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, whose members include such progressive groups as the Service Employees Union International and MoveOn.org Political Action, issued a laudatory shout out today to Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, the libertarian Republican presidential candidate:

LINK (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/ron_paul_draws_more_praise_fro.html)

Ron Paul is neither a conservative NOR a Republican.

[Lazarus]

Garlic, last night Mr Paul demonstrated his utter ignorance of the law, specifically in relation to the President's authority to commit troops to a combat theatre... Which is why the entire rest of the field stood in opposition to him on the question - indeed some of them had a look on their faces that said, "Psst! Somebody tell him..."

BY LAW the President does not have to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war in order to commit combat troops into action - He has the executive privilage to commit troops for a limited period of time WITHOUT Congress's specific approval... (I forget the exact period - maybe some of our scholars can help me out)...

Example: Reagan did not ask for Congressional approval when he directed the Navy to send Khadaffi an airmail package vis a Carrier-based F-16...

Example: Carter did not ask for Congressional approval when he committed the ill-fated rescue attempt on the US Embassy staff in Iran...

Example: Reagan did not ask for Congressional approval when he committed a rather large rapid reaction force into Grenada ostensibly to rescue stranded US citizens, but in fact used the occasion to boot the Cubans and their lackies out of Grenada...

The President as the Commander-in-Chief of the US Millitary has certain powers to commit combat troops on his own judgement for a limited time period... That is why we have a chief executive who is the Commander-In-Chief... AFTER that time period, Congress must be consulted for continuing action...

And as Tex correctly points out, DOCTOR Paul voted to authorize the President to conduct the extended action in Iraq... DOCTOR Paul is a liar if he claims that the war is illegal and unauthorized... And if DOCTOR Paul now believes, along with the MAJORITY party in the House and Senate, that the war should end immediately, he and his allies on the Left have the LEGAL authority and privilage of ending this war by witholding funding...

DOCTOR Paul needs to start speaking the truth, and start walking the walk if he thinks he has the righteous high ground...

I have no animosity toward you, Garlic... No ill-feelings were intended toward you in this post... But I highly advise you to take another look at this man you seem to be favorably impressed with... His claims in regard to the war in Iraq false... His economic policies are gravely flawed... Indeed his judgement is questionable to the point where his constituency should consider retiring him...

I know you are a true conservative, Garlic... I suggest You would be better served by one of the other Pub candidates...

So sayeth Laz...

[Naturalized-Texan]

Did you really just say the word "neocon"?
"Neocon" as it is used by paleocons is merely an anti-Semitic code word for Jews.

Doesn't matter which way, the Left has aligned with Ron Paul, fact.
It's a sure bet that the major financial support for Ron Paul's candidacy comes from George Soros's groups like MoveOn.org and DailyKos and the DNC.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Laz: Another example: BJ Clinton didn't ask for Congressional approval to bomb Serbia and Kosovo.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Given all the evidence that the CIA and every other intelligence agency in the world had against Saddam, if President Bush hadn't taken action against Iraq, he would have been guilty of dereliction of his responsibility to "preserve, protect, and defend" this country "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and he should have been impeached.

[DesertFox]

Ron Paul's a space cadet. Vote NO on Paul for prez.

[Maggie_T]

What N-T, Laz, and Fox said.

[Jack_Savage]

Is it ok to break Ron Paul lawn-signs?

[Maggie_T]

If you can find any ...

[Longhorn_Platinum]

:unsmile: NO. Well, okay, if you're a democrat.

[Maggie_T]

Relax, Moo. As I said, find one first. I don't think anyone has the time to track down the 3 or 4 Paul signs scattered all over the country. :evilgrin:

Ron Paul is demunist lite. And where national security is concerned, I don't trust him anymore than I trust Nancy Pelosi. I have the uncomfortable impression that all his wild-eyed rants about being "Constitutional" are simply a mask that hides his total and complete irresolution when it comes to confronting the enemy. Like weasely demunists, Paul DOES NOT want to deal with the enemy.

If he were president and America was attacked again, Paul will cower in corner, bleat about the Constitution, and stall interminably. The most he'll do is hide behind Momma UN's skirt and hope he can buy himself some time while she passes resolution after resolution after resolution, till Kingdom come.

Ron Paul is a fraud. And just like fraudulent demunists, he'll get us all killed in the end.

[DeclinetoState]

http://www.schema-root.org/region/americas/north_america/usa/government/politicians/ron_paul/ron_paul.gif http://www.wikinfo.org/upload/e/ef/Dennis_Kucinich.jpg

Flaming anti-war libertarian Ron Paul (L) and flaming anti-war liberal Dennis Kucinich (R).

[Suzie]

Is it ok to break Ron Paul lawn-signs?

Only if you can stop the spaceship that distributes the things at the same time.

[The_Elucidator]

Is it ok to break Ron Paul lawn-signs?

Well good friend, think about just what kind of person would have that kind of sign in their yard/underground bunker... :smirky:

[Air Force Guy]

Well good friend, think about just what kind of person would have that kind of sign in their yard/underground bunker... :smirky:
An isolationist nut who thinks nobody will bother you if you just stay out of THEIR yard. The Ron Paul supporter would have a mental breakdown trying to figure out why you broke his sign since "he never occupied your lands."

[Maggie_T]

:rotflmbo: :rotflmbo: :rotflmbo:

Good one, AFG.

[Plain Old Dave]

An isolationist nut who thinks nobody will bother you if you just stay out of THEIR yard. The Ron Paul supporter would have a mental breakdown trying to figure out why you broke his sign since "he never occupied your lands."


I'm reminded of an "isolationist nut" named George Washington who enjoined us to stay out of entangling foreign alliances....

[Maggie_T]

... maybe that's why he formed an alliance with France, which happened to win us the battle at Yorktown and win the Revolution War. :whistle:

[Timberwolf]

Garlic, last night Mr Paul demonstrated his utter ignorance of the law, specifically in relation to the President's authority to commit troops to a combat theatre... Which is why the entire rest of the field stood in opposition to him on the question - indeed some of them had a look on their faces that said, "Psst! Somebody tell him..."
I stand corrected...I thought, and not too long ago (ask Tex), that Paul was a constitutional scholar and was merely being naive in his words and actions. Naw, he's gone completely 'round the bend.

BY LAW the President does not have to ask Congress for a formal declaration of war in order to commit combat troops into action - He has the executive privilage to commit troops for a limited period of time WITHOUT Congress's specific approval... (I forget the exact period - maybe some of our scholars can help me out)...
I believe it's 2 years...after that he MUST get approval from Congress.

Example: Reagan did not ask for Congressional approval when he directed the Navy to send Khadaffi an airmail package vis a Carrier-based F-16...
...or when he hit Tehran with a couple cruise missiles.

Example: Carter did not ask for Congressional approval when he committed the ill-fated rescue attempt on the US Embassy staff in Iran...
Goes to show even a broken clock is right twice a day...

Example: Reagan did not ask for Congressional approval when he committed a rather large rapid reaction force into Grenada ostensibly to rescue stranded US citizens, but in fact used the occasion to boot the Cubans and their lackies out of Grenada...
Yeah, and Clinton didn't ask for approval to bomb the holy living s**t outta the Chinese embassy in Bosnia, either. :D

The President as the Commander-in-Chief of the US Millitary has certain powers to commit combat troops on his own judgement for a limited time period... That is why we have a chief executive who is the Commander-In-Chief... AFTER that time period, Congress must be consulted for continuing action...

And as Tex correctly points out, DOCTOR Paul voted to authorize the President to conduct the extended action in Iraq... DOCTOR Paul is a liar if he claims that the war is illegal and unauthorized... And if DOCTOR Paul now believes, along with the MAJORITY party in the House and Senate, that the war should end immediately, he and his allies on the Left have the LEGAL authority and privilage of ending this war by witholding funding...
...if they only had the cajones to do so...a demunist would never again be elected to office...well, not in anything approaching a majority, anyway.

DOCTOR Paul needs to start speaking the truth, and start walking the walk if he thinks he has the righteous high ground...
My first suggestion to him would be to re-read the Constitution...he seems to have forgotten a thingy or two.

I have no animosity toward you, Garlic... No ill-feelings were intended toward you in this post... But I highly advise you to take another look at this man you seem to be favorably impressed with... His claims in regard to the war in Iraq false... His economic policies are gravely flawed... Indeed his judgement is questionable to the point where his constituency should consider retiring him...
The only thing I'll say in Paul's defense is that he did make a speech offering his reservations in voting for the war...but, he voted FOR the war. Now, he's put himself in a very tight sweater...and it don't look good on him.

I know you are a true conservative, Garlic... I suggest You would be better served by one of the other Pub candidates...

So sayeth Laz...
Like Fred, or Duncan, or Mike or Tom. :biggrin:

[garlicguy]

Hmmmm.....http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/160/political-power-and-the-rule-of-law/

[Naturalized-Texan]

This morning I heard a report on a local Houston conservative talk show that Ron Paul is plummeting in the polls in his Congressional district as his constituents are appalled at the nutty positions he is taking in his presidential campaign. It appears likely that he won't even be reelected to Congress.

[Plain Old Dave]

Wouldn't hold my breath.... Jimmy Duncan's (R-TN) almost an ideological clone of Dr. Paul and a close election here means Jimmy Duncan got less than 60% of the vote.

[The_Elucidator]

This morning I heard a report on a local Houston conservative talk show that Ron Paul is plummeting in the polls in his Congressional district as his constituents are appalled at the nutty positions he is taking in his presidential campaign. It appears likely that he won't even be reelected to Congress.


I can't find any links to how he matches up against Eric Dondero in the 14th District... Do you have any possible links to how he is doing in his own district?

[Seabee]

I'm reminded of an "isolationist nut" named George Washington who enjoined us to stay out of entangling foreign alliances....

Uuuh, yeah and at the time we were, by today's comaprisons, a third world democracy with a fledgling economy and a military that could barley defend the country. Washingoton knew this country's place in the pecking order and he was not about to jepordize our newly found freedom with the invite of another war. So, comparing Washington's reasons for semi-solationism to Paul's is ridiculous.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I can't find any links to how he matches up against Eric Dondero in the 14th District... Do you have any possible links to how he is doing in his own district?
The only thing I know is what I heard on the radio this morning.

[Lazarus]

Hmmmm.....http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/160/political-power-and-the-rule-of-law/Can you give us the Readers Digest version, Garlic? What's your point?

[Riverboat]

I can't find any links to how he matches up against Eric Dondero in the 14th District... Do you have any possible links to how he is doing in his own district?

"I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008." - Sounds a little kooky to me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

"I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008." - Sounds a little kooky to me.
He was Ron Paul's campaign manager in 1996 (http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/former-ron-paul-campaign-manager.html) and former Former Senior Aide. Here's why he is running against Ron Paul:

Wed, 16 May 2007 at 11:08 AM

Eric Dondero, a former Ron Paul staffer, is declaring against (http://www.redstate.com/blogs/ericdondero/2007/may/16/i_am_declaring_for_congress_against_ron_paul_in_te xas_cd_14) his former boss after last night's debate embarrassment, where Mr. Paul appeared to blame 9/11 on U.S. foreign policy.

Dondero is also a libertarian.

[Venus de Smilo]

This morning I heard a report on a local Houston conservative talk show that Ron Paul is plummeting in the polls in his Congressional district as his constituents are appalled at the nutty positions he is taking in his presidential campaign. It appears likely that he won't even be reelected to Congress.

Yep, leave it to a 'pub to lose his seat in the House because he made an ass of himself while running for prez. Only a 'pub could pull that one off.

[Riverboat]

Dondero is also a libertarian.Good luck with that campaign.

How many declared Libertarians are there in the House at present?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Good luck with that campaign.

How many declared Libertarians are there in the House at present?
Note I didn't say he is a Libertarian. I said he is a libertarian. There's a difference.

[Riverboat]

Ah. Like Republican and republican. Also Democrat and democrat, surely.

If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting that Libertarians should not define what libertarian values are. Along those lines, George W. Bush should not define what Republican values are, either.

[Venus de Smilo]

... maybe that's why he formed an alliance with France, which happened to win us the battle at Yorktown and win the Revolution War. :whistle:

OUCH! :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Ah. Like Republican and republican. Also Democrat and democrat, surely.

If I'm reading this right, you're suggesting that Libertarians should not define what libertarian values are. Along those lines, George W. Bush should not define what Republican values are, either.
President Bush is a helluva lot closer to defining Republican values than the RINOs that he has to deal with in Congress. My reading on Dondero is that he is a libertarian on the order of Barry Goldwater in 1964 when I campaigned for him. Actually, I'm a libertarian on the order of the Barry Goldwater of 1964. BTW, I still have Barry Goldwater's autograph I got when I met him on a plane in 1963.

[Riverboat]

Maybe so. Maybe so. I still say that if we had followed the doctor's recommendations years ago - seal the borders, no foreigners taking advantage of our education, end federal welfare, no more birthright citizenship - we wouldn't be having this argument. I'm pretty sure our hero Goldwater would agree.

[Lubbock]

Maybe so. Maybe so. I still say that if we had followed the doctor's recommendations years ago - seal the borders, no foreigners taking advantage of our education, end federal welfare, no more birthright citizenship - we wouldn't be having this argument. I'm pretty sure our hero Goldwater would agree.

A dear, dear friend, now long departed, used to say, "When you look back, you're just looking up a dead cat's ass. You better get your eye looking down the road before you run off a cliff."

That applies at this moment in time.

Looking back at history in order to keep from making the same mistakes is fine for a while.

[Jack_Savage]

A dear, dear friend, now long departed, used to say, "When you look back, you're just looking up a dead cat's ass. You better get your eye looking down the road before you run off a cliff."

That applies at this moment in time.

Looking back at history in order to keep from making the same mistakes is fine for a while.
thats an important point you speak, would serve some who post on this forum to remember across the whole cloth they sprawl on.

[Riverboat]

Huh?

[Naturalized-Texan]

Maybe so. Maybe so. I still say that if we had followed the doctor's recommendations years ago - seal the borders, no foreigners taking advantage of our education, end federal welfare, no more birthright citizenship - we wouldn't be having this argument. I'm pretty sure our hero Goldwater would agree.
However, there is no way that Barry Goldwater would have voted for or advocated surrendering to the terrorists as Ron Paul has. Goldwater respected the Constitution too much to have attempted to tie the hands of the Commander-in-Chief in a time of war the way Ron Paul does.

[DesertFox]

Ron Paul's a jackass.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Maggie_T:
Relax, Moo. As I said, find one first. I don't think anyone has the time to track down the 3 or 4 Paul signs scattered all over the country.


:unsmile: They're all over Austin & San Antonio.

[Longhorn_Platinum]

Riverboat:
Ah. Like Republican and republican. Also Democrat and democrat, surely.



:question: Should I start capitalizing "democrat"? Because there's really nothing democratic about them.

[The_Elucidator]

:question: Should I start capitalizing "democrat"? Because there's really nothing democratic about them.

Not any more Moo...When Zell Miller left the Senate the Democrat that my Grandfather and my Father knew became extinct!!! Now they are harder to find than those damn Fairy Shrimp that keep us from building new refineries! :smirky: