Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest surfohio

Ron Paul

Recommended Posts

^Good point.  I probably should have said "military personnel" instead of "military".

 

Also good point about the generally non-political attitude of the armed forces.  In fact, I'd be interested to see the military personnel donations for all of the candidates.  I wonder if the total money amount given by military personnel to Ron Paul is comparable to the total money amount given by military personnel to President Obama and Mitt Romney. 

 

It could be the military personnel donations are showing up in Ron Paul's top five because he has a much lower amount of corporate donations than Obama and Romney.  Although, the chart does indicate military personnel's favor of Ron Paul over Hermain Cain!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess like the following, as reported in the New York Times:

 

On Monday, his deputy campaign manager, Dimitri Kesari, reiterated that Mr. Paul “did not write, edit or authorize” the language.

 

“He totally disavows what was said and disagrees with it totally,” Mr. Kesari said. “The only responsibility he takes is for not paying closer attention.”

 

Though Mr. Kesari said those comments were intended to be “lighthearted,” they drew criticism from some commentators, including the Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who on Monday pointed to Mr. Paul’s newsletters as evidence that he was being hypocritical.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In politics, life is like a jar of jalopenos..... what you do today will burn your a&& tomorrow.  The media and your opponents are relentless in reviewing anything and everything that you ever wrote, said, or was attributed to you in the past.  I'm just waiting for data mining to come into play.  Have we even seen Paul's birth certificate yet?  How could we vote for him without seeing the original certificate (with raised seal of course)?  Where did he go to church and have we reviewed the transcript of every single sermon ever given there regardless if he was present or not?  Have we looked into whether he ever attended any parties which were also attended by questionable characters?  I hear he was once caught on camera in a hotel room with a "friggin queer!"  What is the story behind that?

 

Since Fox seems to have such a distaste for Paul, I would be prepared to answer those "hard questions" if I were him...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any reason why the content of the "Ron Paul Political Report" shouldn't be fair game in Ron Paul's political campaign?  I don't really understand how he could object to that kind of question.  Then again, I also don't understand how someone could let other people write such garbage under his/her name (giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't write it himself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like his response and wish more people could think this way....

 

Mr. Paul, who is a physician, had said his political persuasion as a libertarian precluded him from harboring such biased views because “I don’t see people in collective groups.”

 

It also appears that he is facing a bit of retaliation from the conservative lame-stream media for comments he made last week....

 

During an appearance on “The Tonight Show With Jay Leno” on Friday, Mr. Paul joked that Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a Republican rival for the nomination, “hates Muslims, she wants to go get them.” He also concurred with Mr. Leno that former Senator Rick Santorum speaks about “gay people” almost exclusively, adding, “And Muslims.”

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/us/politics/bias-in-ron-pauls-newsletters-draws-new-attention.html?_r=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ^Yeah saw that interview last night. I think he was irritated because CNN just interviewed him on this thing the day before. Plus she seemed to ask the exact same question over and over.  But he shouldn't have walked off the set imho. If he were a better politician he could have diffused the situation, I think.

 

^ No doubt the "NEOconservative" media will be coming at him full bore now that he's running first in Iowa in most polls. He'd better be ready!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting points here.

 

NPR The Nation: Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul?

by John Nichols

 

Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.

 

Not the corrupt, inside-the-beltway construct that goes by that name, but actual conservatism.

 

And if he wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the "old-right" Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.

 

Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets. Already, they are claiming a Paul win won't mean anything. If Paul prevails, says Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, "People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states."

 

The party's amen corner in the media is doing its part. Republican-insider radio and television programs have begun to go after Paul, the veteran congressman from Texas who is either leading or near the top in recent polls of likely caucus goers. Rush Limbaugh ridicules Paul on his radio show, while Sean Hannity's Fox show has become a nightly Paul-bashing fest, with guests like former Education Secretary Bill Bennett trashing the congressman with lines like: "his notion of foreign policy is impossible."

 

continued here....

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting points here.

 

NPR The Nation: Why Do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul?

by John Nichols

 

Just as Ron Paul has consistently opposed free-trade deals and schemes to enrich government contractors, the elder Buffett railed against the crony capitalism of his day. "There are businesses that are being enriched by national defense spending and foreign handouts," Buffett warned in 1948. "These firms, because of the money they can spend on propaganda, may be the most dangerous of all. If the Marshall Plan meant $100 million worth of profitable business for your firm, wouldn't you Invest a few thousands or so to successfully propagandize for the Marshall Plan? And if you were a foreign government, getting billions, perhaps you could persuade your prospective suppliers here to lend a hand in putting that deal through Congress."

http://www.npr.org/2011/12/22/144122913/the-nation-why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

D-mn right

That was an insightful article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've enjoyed seeing the pro-Paul commenters on national sites scramble to address this newsletter thing.  I've disavowed plenty of views over the years, it's not like people aren't allowed to change their minds.  But we're talking about open bigotry being spread through a personal newsletter.  I think that makes Ron Paul unfit to govern.  And I think the libertarian movement is commingled with white supremacy.  Not entirely of course, but way too much for my taste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ ????????????? Are you trying to imply that Ron Paul is a white supremacist? He couldn't be further. He believes in freedom more than any other candidate, whether it be freedom of religion or gay rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looking at Ron Paul the presidential candidate that's certainly his track record.  Ron Paul 20yrs ago there's evidence to suggest he believed in white supremacy or at least didn't believe in the civil rights movement.  His excuses and refutations aren't so solid that I would think someone that chooses not to believe him is just trying to bring him down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Ron Paul supports DOMA from a states rights perspective; that legislation of marriage should be left up to the States. This is why he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have limited marriage in the U.S. to one man and one woman.

 

Actually, to me the libertarian take on marriage makes so much sense. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Just think about it, the definition of marriage would be left up to the individual. It would erase so many problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^aaaah....I hate that qualifier. Either you're a libertarian, and government should stay out of these types of social issues, or you're not.

 

I like a lot of what Paul stands for....but these two things make me have to think a little more about whether I could truly pull the lever for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Actually, to me the libertarian take on marriage makes so much sense. Get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Just think about it, the definition of marriage would be left up to the individual. It would erase so many problems.

Some Marxists advocated that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not comfortable with states banning interracial marriages, yet some would if not for Loving v Virginia in 1967. Lawrence v Texas in 91 banned state laws criminalizing homosexual behavior, yet some states would gleefully reestablish laws prohibiting gay acts if they could. Ron Paul is incredibly naive with his bastardization of the fed gov; the fact is that sometimes we need it, even for social issues like love and marriage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I believe Lawrence v. Texas was 2001, not 1991.

 

I think if Paul really, truly sat down and weighed it all out, he would come to a different conclusion on this States Rights issue.  Throughout American history, the "States Rights" meme has been bastardized to try and avoid application of what our Federal Constitution requires..... whether it be Governor Wallace standing on the steps of his State's University attempting to block the admission of black students, Sen. Calhoun banging his fist against the table trying to fight off the abolitionists, and many other similar examples.  People will formulate whatever argument they can to maintain the status quo that is working for them and their beliefs.  States Rights just happens to be a convenient tool for those who oppose the required change.

 

I will be shocked if sexual orientation is not declared a suspect classification within the next decade or two.  The American people have never failed at securing rights for ALL.  It might take awhile, but it always happens and the conservative movement against the issue always eventually crumbles.  I don't think the rights will extend to the "T" in LGBT.... nor should they.

 

^ ????????????? Are you trying to imply that Ron Paul is a white supremacist? He couldn't be further. He believes in freedom more than any other candidate, whether it be freedom of religion or gay rights.

 

Amongst the Republican primary candidates, that's not a very big acheivement.  It's akin to being the smartest person in a special ed classroom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ I don't think one can wholly discredit the states rights argument simply because some idiots have advanced its usage in for ignorant or terrible reasons. For an obvious example a states rights argument would protect Californians from Federal raids of marijuana dispenceries.

 

Things get weird when the constricts of the Constitution come head to head with pragmatism. Throughout history we've had occasions where judicial decisions have come at the crossroads of what one can consider morally "right" and what is allowed under the Constitution. This is the old "activist judge" debate. Luckily for Supreme Court justices, there are no less than FIVE legal arguments they can justifiably use to route themselves to a desired conclusion!

 

p.s. I'm not sure why I cannot use the quote function on this old box at work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The California example is not a good analogy.  What we are talking about with the LGBT movement is SECURING INDIVIDUAL rights a particular state or group of states wish to deprive from their citizens.  The California example involves a State right given by California to its citizens the Federal Government seeks to deprive.

 

Whether it be Federal vs. State or State vs. Local, the general (not universal) rule is that the higher authority sets the "floor."  For example, the Federal government can set forth a minimum wage for all workers.  That would be the floor.  The state can go over and above that floor, but cannot dip below it.  This line of thought became particularly relevant during the SB5 debate when the State of Ohio desired to set ceilings, not floors, on compensation for local government employees.  If the referendum had failed and SB5 was challenged in the courts, this would have been a key point of contention.

 

Calling someone an activist judge, BTW, usually just means you disagree with his or her opinion.  Activist judge opinions, if that is what they really truly are, would not withstand, and have not withstood, review on appeal no matter how compelling their policy arguments may be.  Judges can not answer 'political questions'..... that is Constitutional Law 101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling someone an activist judge, BTW, usually just means you disagree with his or her opinion.  Activist judge opinions, if that is what they really truly are, would not withstand, and have not withstood, review on appeal no matter how compelling their policy arguments may be.  Judges can not answer 'political questions'..... that is Constitutional Law 101

 

Judges also cannot include arguments not presented to them in chambers.  Clarence Thomas made this point in a decision regarding medical marijuana, noting that the Court could not rule on the constitutionality of the Controlled Substance Act itself because it had not been challenged.

 

Judicial activism gets excessive when it orders the states to *do* something rather that not do something.  For example, banning de jure school segregation was not activism.  Ordering busing was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my intention wasn't to compare marijuana with gay rights, but merely to show an arguably positive side of a states rights assertion.

 

Agree the term "activist judge" is much derided, often hypocritically so. Yet there are numerous examples where judges tread on grounds that should arguably be left to the legislature.

 

Policy arguments are indeed one of the five arguments available. And you would be surprised how often- and how effectively- they can be evoked. It's one of those things that will keep pro-judicial "activisim" vs. pro "restraint" types in a perpetual source of disagreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be surprised at anything.  I make policy 'arguments' all the time.  But the judge's decision still can't offend the political question doctrine or it will not be upheld.

 

^^That's a whole separate can of worms on the 'busing' point, E Rocc.  Go back and look at the southern states way of side-stepping Brown v. Board.  Federal court ordered busing and other remedial measures only came into play when the local school boards failed to exercise good faith in desegregating the schools.  It was mostly only used during the transitory period following the civil rights act, from the 60's into the 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't know ceding Texas to China was even an option.  Just imagine the savings the federal goverment could reap by pulling back the 200,000 troops we have stationed in 15 military bases there.  #UnoccupyTexas  :drunk: :wave:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Ron Paul's foreign policy sounds good on paper, but could become a mess in reality.  Imagine the US pulling away from it's posts in the middle east, far east, etc.  Even 1 or 2 dictators rising up in the void could create problems that could take years to correct.  We live in a global economy now and it works because the US makes sure things run smoothly.  If Chavez gets out of control in Venezuela or something happens between North/South Korea, what would the impact be on the US economy?  Four years of that instability could wreak havoc and we'd likely have to work twice as hard with military, diplomacy and foreign aid to reign it in....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed - it's a very slippery slope.  I'm no military expert but I have to think we have room for improvement, as you mentioned in both costs and policy...  whatever cuts/changes are made have to be done in a manner that would not compromise our long term security.  I'd be against closing military outposts in far reaching places, for example.  I have friends that were stationed in Japan, Germany, Kuwait, etc and I can't see the sense in giving up footholds around the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irresponsible Foreign Policy: The Republican Establishment, Not Ron Paul

 

Even loyal Republicans are disheartened by their choices this year: the man who flips and flops whenever convenient, the official turned lobbyist who imagines he is Churchill (or maybe Caesar) reincarnated, and the governor with memory problems. But the man the GOP elite most fear is a genial 76-year-old congressman from Texas. He actually believes in something and remembers what it is. And he has been largely right on the big issues.

 

Of course, Rep. Ron Paul suffers from some self-inflicted problems. But for most of his critics what most matters is his stand on the issues. Especially on foreign policy. If the Republicans ignore him they deserve to lose the 2012 election.

 

A decade ago President George W. Bush chose arrogance over humility as his foreign policy. Since then virtually every Republican presidential candidate has embraced his philosophy of endless war: in effect, the GOP mantra is "we're all neoconservatives now."

 

Only Paul (and Gary Johnson, excluded from most of the debates) challenge America's role as a de facto empire. Paul observed that conservatives enjoyed spending money, only "on different things. They like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases."

 

All of Paul's establishment GOP opponents support defending a gaggle of prosperous and populous "welfare queens" around the world. Rick Santorum warned: as commander-in-chief Ron Paul "can shut down our bases in Germany. He can shut down the bases in Japan. He can pull our fleets back."

 

Why would this be bad? The European nations have a larger GDP and population than America. The U.S. faces fiscal crisis: after 66 years, it is time for the Europeans to defend themselves. Japan, long possessing the world's second largest economy, also could take care of itself.

 

cont at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/irresponsible-foreign-pol_b_1176287.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Ron Paul's foreign policy sounds good on paper, but could become a mess in reality. 

 

You could say the same thing about any campaign platform.  The difference is, as Commander-In-Chief, Paul would actually have at least some of the unilateral power to implement his policies.  It's not like Herman Cain repeating "9-9-9" ad nauseaum, knowing that he could never get such a plan through congress..... or Bauchmann saying she would scrap the tax code.  It sounds good, but most campaign promises take at least two branches of government to tango.  What Paul proposes to do with the military, he could do a lot of it without congressional approval.

 

I like what Paul says, but I think that shift in policy could only be transitioned in over time to prevent any shock effect.  For that reason, his ability to implement such policies on "day one" does indeed scare me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary Johnson's officially running as the Libertarian Party candidate.  I don't think he has enough cred to make any kind of a splash.  If/when Paul ends up bowing out of the Republican race, I'd really love it if he ran as an independent.  This may be his last chance at really running for President and hopefully that will lead him to follow his heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...