Ron Paul

  • News
  • Thread starter falc39
  • Start date
In summary, Congressman Ron Paul has gained attention for his recent fundraising efforts, raising over $6 million in one day. His fundraising stats show a significant increase and some consider it exponential growth. However, not everyone is on board with his ideas and some view him as a "crazy" and a "nut." Despite this, Paul's consistent voting record and dedication to the Constitution have earned him a loyal following. Some of his proposed policies, such as pulling out of foreign aid and isolationism, have been met with criticism and skepticism. Others argue that his adherence to the Constitution is both courageous and possibly a bit "nutty." Overall, Paul's ideas have sparked debate and discussion among voters and his upcoming appearance on Meet the Press may shed
  • #36
mheslep said:
From a http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst102201.htm" [Broken] on Rep. Paul's US HoR website.

ShawnD - I blame myself, really, for giving you any initial creditability.

So you didn't even watch the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
ShawnD said:
Even Reagan was smart enough to bail on the middle east after realizing what a piece of garbage it is.

That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.
 
  • #38
DrClapeyron said:
That's just wrong. Reagan never gave up on the hostages in Iran. In fact, the increase in DoD spending involved increased sales of weapons to the Middle East (Sauds in particular), sent troops to Lebanon, intelligence to Saddam Hussein and support of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan. The cold war was all about the Middle East, of which Reagan is credited for having a huge hand in winning for the Americans.

Reagan is very often quoted on this. Here is what he wrote in his autobiography, word for word:

Perhaps we didn't appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and the complexity of the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the marines' safety that it should have.

In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I believed the last thing that we should do was turn tail and leave. Yet the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics forced us to rethink our policy there. If there would be some rethinking of policy before our men die, we would be a lot better off. If that policy had changed towards more of a neutral position and neutrality, those 241 marines would be alive today.


As much as I hate Reagan, I have to give him credit when he can admit possible mistakes.
 
  • #39
Of course neutrality may have worked in Lebanon. There were half a dozen guerilla groups operating in Lebanon. The US chose a side, was bombed and moved off shore where the guerillas could no longer attack. It wasn't as though Lebanon was crucial to US foreign policy. What exactly is Lebanon's staple export/commodity/product? Location

Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.
 
  • #40
he's never going to win
 
  • #41
DrClapeyron said:
Ron Paul believes the US has no business in the middle east and therefore must leave. Insane, because the entire penninsula is dependant on the US for its protection against people like Saddam, Ahmadinajad and al-Quida.

The Iran-Iraq war went on for 8 years, and the US did nothing to protect either country. The US was helping to fuel the war by selling/giving weapons to Iraq, then it was later discovered in the Iran-Contra scandal that the US was also selling weapons to the Iranians. That's not protection. That's war mongering. If you want to know why Arabs hate the US so much, a review of the 1980's would be a good start.
 
  • #42
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
DrClapeyron said:
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

You're right about defending allies being a top priority, but the blowback theory isn't about defending allies. It's about state sponsored terrorism that some US politicians openly talk about on live TV. Of course they don't call it terrorism; they prefer the term "Nation Building" which roughly translates as the process of replacing a country's government with one that you like more. Such examples include the 1953 coup d'etat in Iran where CIA and British intelligence overthrew a democratically elected government in order to put the Shah back in power. Then in 1979 he was overthrown, Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and American diplomats were taken hostage. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence and it had absolutely nothing to do with government terrorism that happened in 1953. It makes me wonder if Carter or Reagan tried that same "they hate our freedom" line.

The worst part of this is that there is a disconnect between the people and their government. Nobody goes to the polling station with the mentality of "I think I'll vote for terrorism this time", but politicians end up doing that. Then when retaliation happens 5, 10, 20 years later and innocent people like those in the WTC or on the USS Cole are killed, those same politicians throw up their hands and act like they have no idea why this happened. Sure I was yelling at the dog and hitting it with a stick, but why did he bite me??
 
Last edited:
  • #44
DrClapeyron said:
Neither Iran nor Iraq are part of the Arabian peninsula. The US has the moral right to send troops to the middle east to protect its allies.

Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
 
  • #45
Ivan Seeking, I meant that the US is motivated to protect its cash-futures market, to be blunt about the matter.

ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually preferred the Shah.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #46
DrClapeyron said:
ShawnD, recall what happen to Mosadegh after the 1953 election. The ayatollahs absolutely feared him and supported the CIA/British overthrow of Mosadegh. Call it coincidence, but the ayatollahs actually preferred the Shah.

Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).

Ahmad Qavam (also known as Ghavam os-Saltaneh) was appointed as Iran's new prime minister. On the day of his appointment, he announced his intention to resume negotiations with the British to end the oil dispute. This blatant reversal of Mossadegh's plans sparked a massive public outrage. Protesters of all stripes filled the streets, including communists and radical Muslims led by Ayatollah Kashani. Frightened by the unrest, the Shah dismissed Qavam, and re-appointed Mossadegh, granting him the full control of the military he had previously demanded.

Taking advantage of his popularity, Mossadegh convinced the parliament to grant him increased powers and appointed Ayatollah Kashani as house speaker. Kashani's Islamic scholars, as well as the Tudeh Party, proved to be two of Mossadegh's key political allies, although both relationships were often strained. The already precarious alliance between Mossadegh and Kashani was severed in January 1953, when Kashani opposed Mossadegh's demand that his increased powers be extended for a period of one year.

[...]

When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, the overthrow of Mossadegh was used as a rallying point in anti-US protests. [...] Despite his stature as a nationalist, he is shunned because of his secularism and western manners
[...]
Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial, as well as immoral.

In March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."
He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).
 
Last edited:
  • #47
ShawnD said:
the video where he specifically said that it was due to being in the middle east.

No. Paul clearly opposes US foreign involvement, esp. Iraq. He's hardly clear about the causes of the 9/11 attack, he's dancing on the head of a pin.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8"
Host: "Are you suggesting the US caused 9/11?
Paul: "No, ..."

Host: "What did America do to cause the attack on 9/11?"
Paul: "The Americans didn't do anything to cause it..."
In the debate he says generically 'attacked' due to policies, is ambiguous whether or not he's means 9/11 or in Iraq; taken with the rest of the video and his http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2001/tst102201.htm" [Broken]posted on the House site, he's contradictory at best. All the more reason why one has to be careful about what's attributed to him.

As an aside, the fun part is the >12000 Paul You Tube comments! For which, http://xkcd.com/202/" [Broken] is well earned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #48
Youtube comments are hilarious. That's half the reason for going there.

I'm referring to the actual debate itself at roughly 6:00 in the video.

Moderator: You don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks?
Ron: What changed?
Moderator: Noninterventionlist policies
Ron: No, nonintervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the middle east... I think Reagan was right, we don't understand the irrationality of middle eastern politics, so right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what we would do if someone else did it to us.
Moderator: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks, sir?
Ron: I'm saying we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delighted we're over there because Osama Bin Ladin has said "I am glad you're over here on our sand because we can target you so much easier." We've already since that time killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary.

Americans themselves did nothing to cause this, as the guy at 11 minutes is trying to get him say, but the government certainly does deserve some of the blame, and Ron Paul says just that at 6 minutes.
 
  • #49
ShawnD said:
Wiki says ayatollahs supported his ideas and only left him when he asked for an extension of his emergency powers. Article: Mohammed Mossedegh. The backstory for this quote is that he was assigned as prime minister after the parliament elected him as the leader. He was assigned by the shah who is equivalent to something like a king in a monarchy or president in a republic (president and prime minister are not the same thing).




He had support from at least one Ayatollah as well as some other religious scholars because they liked his idea of nationalizing Iran's oil. They stopped supporting him when he asked that his emergency powers be extended by one year. Removing Mossadegh meant that he was no longer in charge (they would like this), but it also meant a reversal of nationalized oil (they would not like this).
Excuse me while I shift the topic to something like ... the title of this thread, R. Paul. On the subject of avoiding foreign wars with admittedly hostile powers, Paul has cited as an example that the US[West] managed to contain the Soviet Union while avoiding a hot war; I suppose that would also go for China under Mao[1]. If I read Paul correctly, he contends the US should do likewise with todays bad actors. Fair enough. It must be seen however that the USSR containment was done by fighting a cold war through some nasty proxies in S. America, Iran as posted here, the M. East, etc., which Paul again criticizes, saying they cause 'blowback' among other things. I'd agree some of these cold war actions were ill advised / foolish in some cases. I'd also say its unavoidable to have blunders like that in a war, cold or hot.

Now, my summary take on Paul is he:
-Opposes direct military action in Iraq, Sudan, etc and points to containment strategies instead (probably while people rot - Sudan),
-Opposes involvement with proxies required to execute containment,
and all the while says he's not an isolationist. I'm still waiting for a Presidential foreign policy plan he supports in one sentence without criticizing it in the next.

[1] Not that I'd grant this is a given 'good' as Uncle Joe killed/imprisoned http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalin#_note-72", but ok, the argument for containment is it's better than blowing up the whole world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Ivan Seeking said:
Don't you mean that we are motivated to protect our oil interests?
Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.

To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy

H.R.6
Title: An Act to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:7:./temp/~c110ErkbdS:: [Broken]

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
Evo said:
Ron Paul is all for protecting oil companies, he voted NO on this bill.



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:7:./temp/~c110ErkbdS:: [Broken]

1/18/07 Vote 40: H R 6: This bill would repeal tax cuts to oil companies and mandate that they pay a fee to remove oil from the Gulf of Mexico. It would also fund renewable energy programs. The act would repeal a tax break that oil and gas firms received in 2004. That break effectively lowered their corporate tax rates. It would also bar oil companies from bidding on new federal leases unless they pay a fee or renegotiate improperly drafted leases from the late ‘90s. Those leases did not require royalty payments on Gulf of Mexico oil production. Oil firms would pay a “conservation fee” for oil taken from the gulf.

Additionally, the bill would set aside an estimated $13 billion to $15 billion in revenues over a five-year period for tax breaks relating to renewable energy sources

The House passed the bill on Jan. 18, 2007, with a vote of 264-163. All House Democrats except one favored the bill. They were joined by 36 Republicans. The Senate must debate the bill.

Just because he didn't support this bill that doesn't mean that he is protecting the oil companies. It might be worth seeing why he didn't support it. What's more, Ron Paul's money is coming from a fantastically successful internet campaign, so we know that he's not in the pockets of oil companies. Hopefully Russert will ask about some of these issues next Sunday on MTP.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #52
  • #53
falc39 said:
Sometimes what you see on the outside isn't what he is thinking. It's easy to make assumptions here.

For instance, when asked why he voted against giving a gold medal to Rosa Parks, he shot back with this brilliant response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so&feature=related

I'd say more Constitutional than brilliant. And I would bet that his opposition to the bill listed above results from similar motivations.

I'd bet he has other finely nuanced ideas, like only Congress has the power to declare war.
 
Last edited:
  • #54
When you make bad decisions based on some concept, no matter how good the concept itself might be, the result is you've made a bad decision.

His "pro big oil" vote I mentioned is not the only one, he also voted against a bill that would prevent price gouging by oil companies and oil cartels.

He consistently votes against resolutions on human rights. He's voted against raising the minimum wage, against relief for student loans, against protection for homeowner's having their homes take under "Eminent domain", I have a long list at home, I can post them tonight.
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Ron Paul on environment and climate change.

Still, his (Ron Paul's) libertarian presidency would, among other things, allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, boost the use of coal, and embrace nuclear power. Moreover, it wouldn't do diddly about global warming, because, Paul reasons, "we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather."

I called Paul up on the campaign trail in Iowa to get the skinny on how the environment figures into his small-government agenda.

What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?
On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property—water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air—that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: If you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?Certainly. Anytime there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?
You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government into review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Would you dissolve the EPA?
It's not high on my agenda. I'm trying to stop the war and bring back a sound economy and solve the financial crises and balance the budget.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?
If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country, because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up—not by the EPA; by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute—and it's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion, and it worked out quite well.

What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?
Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, was taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that for a good number of years legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the Industrial Revolution, when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are—a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another—concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative-energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?
Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment.

If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much—something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly. Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.

But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?
Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What's your take on global warming? Is it a serious problem and one that's human-caused?
I think some of it is related to human activities, but I don't think there's a conclusion yet. There's a lot of evidence on both sides of that argument. If you study the history, we've had a lot of climate changes. We've had hot spells and cold spells. They come and go. If there are weather changes, we're not going to be very good at regulating the weather.

To assume we have to close down everything in this country and in the world because there's a fear that we're going to have this global warming and that we're going to be swallowed up by the oceans, I think that's extreme. I don't buy into that. Yet I think it's a worthy discussion.

So you don't consider climate change a major problem threatening civilization?
No. [Laughs.] I think war and financial crises and big governments marching into our homes and elimination of habeas corpus—those are immediate threats. We're about to lose our whole country and whole republic! If we can be declared an enemy combatant and put away without a trial, then that's going to affect a lot of us a lot sooner than the temperature going up.

What, if anything, do you think the government should do about global warming?They should enforce the principles of private property so that we don't emit poisons and contribute to it.

And, if other countries are doing it, we should do our best to try to talk them out of doing what might be harmful. We can't use our army to go to China and dictate to China about the pollution that they may be contributing. You can only use persuasion.

You have voiced strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Can you see supporting a different kind of international treaty to address global warming?
It would all depend. I think negotiation and talk and persuasion are worthwhile, but treaties that have law-enforcement agencies that force certain countries to do things-I don't think that would work.

continued...
:uhh:

http://outside.away.com/outside/culture/ron-paul-interview.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
I like the outside.away :rofl:
 
  • #57
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/profile.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ [select Dec 23rd in the right column]
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Frankly, I think the guy is about 95% dead-on. If the Republicans want to recapture the now disenfranchised former Reagan supporters like me, then they had better listen to Ron Paul. He is a true conservative because he actually defends the Constitution; which is the ultimate measure of conservatism. What we have seen in Washington for the last 8 years+ has nothing to do with Conservatism. From my point of view it gets closer to fascism - exactly as Paul describes in his interview with Moyer.

If Ron Paul could actually win, I might even support him now; esp if Obama is not the dem candidate. One nice thing about being an Independent in Oregon is that I can vote in either primary. So I'm thinking that I may actually vote for Paul in the primary. What I like about him first and foremost is that he is a defender of liberty; which I see as the ultimate measure of patriotism.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
Ron Paul is a creationist, denies evolution.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Moridin said:
Ron Paul is a creationist, denies evolution.




Being that he is a libertarian, that doesn't have any bearing on his role as President. That's where the liberty bit comes in. If you have the Constitution in force, then you don't have to be afraid of religion in the US.

Now if he were to support teaching creationism in science classes, that would be a different matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Ivan Seeking said:
If Ron Paul could actually win, I might even support him now; esp if Obama is not the dem candidate. One nice thing about being an Independent in Oregon is that I can vote in either primary. So I'm thinking that I may actually vote for Paul in the primary. What I like about him first and foremost is that he is a defender of liberty; which I see as the ultimate measure of patriotism.

Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?
 
  • #61
ShawnD said:
Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?
In my state, you can change party affiliation on the day of the primary and use your vote to support a candidate or suppress a candidate. You cannot head to the primaries and vote in both parties' elections.
 
  • #62
ShawnD said:
Can you vote for Paul as a republican and Obama as a democrat, or are you forced to choose just one party in the primary?

We can vote in either primary, but not both.
 
  • #63
Ron Paul is 72 years of age, has no serious chance of winning the primaries and just banked $19 million in 4 months. Recently he has built a nice stash for his retirement, this guy is quite a sly crook.
 
  • #64
DrClapeyron said:
Ron Paul is 72 years of age, has no serious chance of winning the primaries and just banked $19 million in 4 months. Recently he has built a nice stash for his retirement, this guy is quite a sly crook.

Oh please, that is ludicrous. He had no way to know what a ground swell his candidacy would bring. If he could plan this, then he would have been rich long ago as a political advisor.
 
  • #65
Political advisor to whom, the unaware? I am certain the guys out there with the tin foil hats are applauding his run for presidency, but how can anyone 50+ years of age be taking this man seriously? His appeal is the 14-25 college know it all hippy demographic.
 
  • #66
wow, is anyone watching the abc debate? Ron is completely owning everyone.
 
  • #67
According to whom? I don't see it.
 
  • #68
he started off bad but he ended very strong. don't you notice other candidates trying to steal his platform?
 
  • #69
He's a nut.

Here is his voting record.

Ron Paul voted NOT to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to authorize appropriations
Passed Passed, 408-3,

12/5/07 Vote 1132: H R 2517 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1132/>: Protecting Our Children Comes First Act No

12/5/07 Vote 1131: H R 3791 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1131/>: Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act No

11/15/07 Vote 1109: H RES 825 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1109/>: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No

11/6/07 Vote 1040: H R 1495 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1040/>: Water Resources Development Act No

This was to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

10/2/07 Vote 929: H CON RES 203 </congress/110/house/1/votes/929/>: Condemning the Persecution of Labor Rights Advocates in Iran No

He voted NO to the following:

H. CON. RES. 203
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 3, 2007
Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran.
Whereas Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and is legally bound to respect ILO core principles, including freedom of association;
Whereas Iran, in violation of ILO principles, refuses to recognize independent labor unions;
Whereas, on April 9, 2007, Iranian agents arrested and imprisoned Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez
Bakery Workers Association, a labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas Salehi's life is in grave danger as he sits in the Sanandaj prisons without access to kidney dialysis treatment;
Whereas, on July 10, 2007, plainclothes Iranian agents severely beat and arrested Mansour Osanloo, president of the Syndicate of Bus Drivers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, another labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas this arrest was the third time in less than two years that Syndicate president Osanloo has been arrested by Iranian agents;
Whereas Osanloo now sits in Iran's notorious Evin prison with a chronic heart condition and a serious eye condition that requires immediate surgery;
Whereas Osanloo has no access to medical or legal assistance and no contact with his family; and
Whereas, on August 9, 2007, the International Transport Workers' Federation, together with the International Trade Union Confederation, staged an international `day of action' to free Osanloo and Salehi: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.
Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2007.

He voted NO.

9/4/07 Vote 849: H R 2669 </congress/110/house/1/votes/849/>: College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 No

7/31/07 Vote 764: H R 180 </congress/110/house/1/votes/764/>: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act No

5/24/07 Vote 423: H R 2316 </congress/110/house/1/votes/423/>: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 No

To provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations
Passed, 396-22,
5/23/07 Vote 404: H R 1252 </congress/110/house/1/votes/404/>: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act No
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels
5/22/07 Vote 398: H R 2264 </congress/110/house/1/votes/398/>: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act “Nopec” No
To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

He voted NO.

5/9/07 Vote 312: H RES 383 </congress/110/house/1/votes/312/>: Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1873, to Reauthorize the Programs and Activities of the Small Business Administration Relating to Procurement No

4/25/07 Vote 261: H R 493 </congress/110/house/1/votes/261/>: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act No

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
3/26/07 Vote 188: H R 137 </congress/110/house/1/votes/188/>: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act No

3/21/07 Vote 178: H R 740 </congress/110/house/1/votes/178/>: Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement (Phone) Act of 2007 No

Result: Passed, 413-1

Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007'
/13/07 Vote 141: H RES 222 </congress/110/house/1/votes/141/>: Expressing Support for the Good Friday Agreement As a Blueprint for a Lasting Peace in Northern Ireland No
Result: Passed, 419-1

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, as a blueprint for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland (He's voted against restoring peace in Ireland on several occasions)

3/13/07 Vote 139: H RES 64 </congress/110/house/1/votes/139/>: The Government of Bangladesh Should Immediately Drop All Pending Charges Against Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury Result: Passed, 409-1 (he tends to vote against human rights)
1/10/07 Vote 17: H R 2 </congress/110/house/1/votes/17/>: Fair Minimum Wage Act No

9/26/06 Vote 480: H R 2679 </congress/109/house/2/votes/480/>: Public Expression of Religion Act Yes

9/25/06 Vote 472: H R 5062 </congress/109/house/2/votes/472/>: New Hampshire Wilderness Act No

9/20/06 Vote 460: H RES 976 </congress/109/house/2/votes/460/>: Condemning Human Rights Abuses by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Expressing Solidarity With the Iranian People No

9/19/06 Vote 453: H CON RES 415 </congress/109/house/2/votes/453/>: Condemning the Repression of the Iranian Baha’I Community and Calling for the Emancipation of Iranian Baha’is No

9/14/06 Vote 446: H R 6061 </congress/109/house/2/votes/446/>: Secure Fence Act of 2006 Yes

9/7/06 Vote 433: H R 503 </congress/109/house/2/votes/433/>: Horse Protection Act No
7/19/06 Vote 388: H R 810 </congress/109/house/2/votes/388/>: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act No
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Evo said:
He's a nut.

Here is his voting record.

Ron Paul voted NOT to amend the Missing Children's Assistance Act to authorize appropriations
Passed Passed, 408-3,

12/5/07 Vote 1132: H R 2517 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1132/>: Protecting Our Children Comes First Act No

12/5/07 Vote 1131: H R 3791 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1131/>: Securing Adolescents From Exploitation-Online Act No

11/15/07 Vote 1109: H RES 825 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1109/>: Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3915, Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act No

11/6/07 Vote 1040: H R 1495 </congress/110/house/1/votes/1040/>: Water Resources Development Act No

This was to provide for the conservation and development of water and related resources, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and for other purposes.

10/2/07 Vote 929: H CON RES 203 </congress/110/house/1/votes/929/>: Condemning the Persecution of Labor Rights Advocates in Iran No

He voted NO to the following:

H. CON. RES. 203
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 3, 2007
Received and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
Condemning the persecution of labor rights advocates in Iran.
Whereas Iran is a member of the International Labor Organization (ILO) and is legally bound to respect ILO core principles, including freedom of association;
Whereas Iran, in violation of ILO principles, refuses to recognize independent labor unions;
Whereas, on April 9, 2007, Iranian agents arrested and imprisoned Mahmoud Salehi, founder of the Saghez
Bakery Workers Association, a labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas Salehi's life is in grave danger as he sits in the Sanandaj prisons without access to kidney dialysis treatment;
Whereas, on July 10, 2007, plainclothes Iranian agents severely beat and arrested Mansour Osanloo, president of the Syndicate of Bus Drivers of the Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, another labor union that is independent and therefore not recognized under Iranian law;
Whereas this arrest was the third time in less than two years that Syndicate president Osanloo has been arrested by Iranian agents;
Whereas Osanloo now sits in Iran's notorious Evin prison with a chronic heart condition and a serious eye condition that requires immediate surgery;
Whereas Osanloo has no access to medical or legal assistance and no contact with his family; and
Whereas, on August 9, 2007, the International Transport Workers' Federation, together with the International Trade Union Confederation, staged an international `day of action' to free Osanloo and Salehi: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That Congress--
(1) condemns the Iranian regime for the arrest and imprisonment of Iranian union leaders Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanloo and demands their immediate release;
(2) expresses its solidarity with the workers of Iran and stands with them, and with all Iranians, in their efforts to bring political freedom and individual liberty to Iran; and
(3) calls on the Iranian regime to respect the right of Iranian workers to form independent associations and unions, as required by its membership in the ILO.
Passed the House of Representatives October 2, 2007.

He voted NO.

9/4/07 Vote 849: H R 2669 </congress/110/house/1/votes/849/>: College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 No

7/31/07 Vote 764: H R 180 </congress/110/house/1/votes/764/>: Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act No

5/24/07 Vote 423: H R 2316 </congress/110/house/1/votes/423/>: Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 No

To provide more rigorous requirements with respect to disclosure and enforcement of lobbying laws and regulations
Passed, 396-22,
5/23/07 Vote 404: H R 1252 </congress/110/house/1/votes/404/>: Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act No
To protect consumers from price-gouging of gasoline and other fuels
5/22/07 Vote 398: H R 2264 </congress/110/house/1/votes/398/>: No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act “Nopec” No
To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal.

He voted NO.

5/9/07 Vote 312: H RES 383 </congress/110/house/1/votes/312/>: Providing for the Consideration of H.R. 1873, to Reauthorize the Programs and Activities of the Small Business Administration Relating to Procurement No

4/25/07 Vote 261: H R 493 </congress/110/house/1/votes/261/>: Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act No

To prohibit discrimination on the basis of genetic information with respect to health insurance and employment.
3/26/07 Vote 188: H R 137 </congress/110/house/1/votes/188/>: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act No

3/21/07 Vote 178: H R 740 </congress/110/house/1/votes/178/>: Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement (Phone) Act of 2007 No

Result: Passed, 413-1

Preventing Harassment through Outbound Number Enforcement (PHONE) Act of 2007'
/13/07 Vote 141: H RES 222 </congress/110/house/1/votes/141/>: Expressing Support for the Good Friday Agreement As a Blueprint for a Lasting Peace in Northern Ireland No
Result: Passed, 419-1

Expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Good Friday Agreement, signed on April 10, 1998, as a blueprint for a lasting peace in Northern Ireland (He's voted against restoring peace in Ireland on several occasions)

3/13/07 Vote 139: H RES 64 </congress/110/house/1/votes/139/>: The Government of Bangladesh Should Immediately Drop All Pending Charges Against Bangladeshi Journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury Result: Passed, 409-1 (he tends to vote against human rights)
1/10/07 Vote 17: H R 2 </congress/110/house/1/votes/17/>: Fair Minimum Wage Act No

9/26/06 Vote 480: H R 2679 </congress/109/house/2/votes/480/>: Public Expression of Religion Act Yes

9/25/06 Vote 472: H R 5062 </congress/109/house/2/votes/472/>: New Hampshire Wilderness Act No

9/20/06 Vote 460: H RES 976 </congress/109/house/2/votes/460/>: Condemning Human Rights Abuses by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Expressing Solidarity With the Iranian People No

9/19/06 Vote 453: H CON RES 415 </congress/109/house/2/votes/453/>: Condemning the Repression of the Iranian Baha’I Community and Calling for the Emancipation of Iranian Baha’is No

9/14/06 Vote 446: H R 6061 </congress/109/house/2/votes/446/>: Secure Fence Act of 2006 Yes

9/7/06 Vote 433: H R 503 </congress/109/house/2/votes/433/>: Horse Protection Act No
7/19/06 Vote 388: H R 810 </congress/109/house/2/votes/388/>: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act No

Chances are you probably haven't heard his explanations for voting like this.

Name any mainstream candidate and I will dig up things that they did that are like 20 times worse than what people try to slander dr ron paul with. This includes major corruption, flip-flopping (lying), ethics, etc. (hillary is probably the worst)

On another note, has anyone read his https://www.amazon.com/dp/0912453001/?tag=pfamazon01-20?
I just got it in a shipment! :)

oh yea, and btw... constantly stating in every other post "He's a nut!" nutjob, kook, etc just makes you look immature.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
<h2>What is Ron Paul's political background?</h2><p>Ron Paul is a retired American politician who served as a U.S. Representative for Texas from 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to 2013. He is known for his libertarian and conservative views and ran for president three times, in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican.</p><h2>What are Ron Paul's main political beliefs?</h2><p>Ron Paul is a staunch advocate for limited government, individual liberty, and free market economics. He is known for his opposition to government intervention in personal and economic matters, including foreign policy and the Federal Reserve system.</p><h2>What is Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy?</h2><p>Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and has consistently opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars and conflicts. He believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy that focuses on diplomacy and trade rather than military action.</p><h2>What is Ron Paul's position on the economy?</h2><p>Ron Paul is a strong supporter of free market economics and limited government intervention in the economy. He advocates for lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a return to the gold standard. He also opposes the Federal Reserve system and advocates for a more limited role for the government in regulating the economy.</p><h2>What are some notable policies or initiatives supported by Ron Paul?</h2><p>Ron Paul has proposed numerous policies and initiatives during his time in politics, including auditing the Federal Reserve, abolishing the income tax, and reducing the size and scope of the federal government. He has also been a vocal advocate for civil liberties and has introduced legislation to protect individual rights and privacy.</p>

What is Ron Paul's political background?

Ron Paul is a retired American politician who served as a U.S. Representative for Texas from 1976 to 1977, 1979 to 1985, and 1997 to 2013. He is known for his libertarian and conservative views and ran for president three times, in 1988 as the Libertarian Party nominee and in 2008 and 2012 as a Republican.

What are Ron Paul's main political beliefs?

Ron Paul is a staunch advocate for limited government, individual liberty, and free market economics. He is known for his opposition to government intervention in personal and economic matters, including foreign policy and the Federal Reserve system.

What is Ron Paul's stance on foreign policy?

Ron Paul is a non-interventionist and has consistently opposed U.S. involvement in foreign wars and conflicts. He believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy that focuses on diplomacy and trade rather than military action.

What is Ron Paul's position on the economy?

Ron Paul is a strong supporter of free market economics and limited government intervention in the economy. He advocates for lower taxes, reduced government spending, and a return to the gold standard. He also opposes the Federal Reserve system and advocates for a more limited role for the government in regulating the economy.

What are some notable policies or initiatives supported by Ron Paul?

Ron Paul has proposed numerous policies and initiatives during his time in politics, including auditing the Federal Reserve, abolishing the income tax, and reducing the size and scope of the federal government. He has also been a vocal advocate for civil liberties and has introduced legislation to protect individual rights and privacy.

Similar threads

  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
2
Views
997
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
50
Views
10K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
4K
Back
Top