This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Ron Paul Releases Four-Part Statement On Budget Targets And Restoring Fiscal Discipline

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Ron Paul, who over the weekend won the straw vote at the Republican Leadership Conference held in New Orleans, with 40% of the vote, has just released a list of 4 points that will frame his budget priorities if elected president. As Jesse Benton, Paul campaign chairman says “The American people want and deserve someone who will tell them the truth, tell them what needs to be done, and who has an untouchable record of consistency to back it up." Whether everyone will agree with the proposed framework is unclear. However, what is true is that Paul, of all politicians on either side of center, has been the most steadfast in his message over the years, and the fringe benefit, naturally, will be the gradual elimination of Paul's arch-nemesis: the Federal Reserve.

From Ron Paul:

A four-part statement on restoring fiscal discipline

Today, 2012 GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul issued a statement on what his budget priorities will be if elected. See statement below.

“As President, I will not be able to waive a magic wand and solve all of our problems overnight. I will have to work with Congress and build consensus from the American People.

“But, there are several things that I will do right away to strengthen the fight for Constitutional government.

“First, I will veto any spending bills that contribute to an unbalanced budget.

“During these tough times, the American people are tightening their belts and making sacrifices to make ends meet. So should government.

“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.

“Like millions of Americans, I believe that innocent life deserves protection and I am deeply offended by abortion. It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars.

“As a Congressman, I’ve never voted for any budget that includes funding for Planned Parenthood. Instead, I’ve introduced the Taxpayers’ Freedom of Conscience Act to cut off all taxpayer funding of abortions, so-called “family planning” services and international abortionists.

“Third, I will direct my administration to cease any further implementation of ObamaCare.

“And fourth, I will on day one of my administration begin to repeal by Executive Order unconstitutional and burdensome regulations on American business. I will be the first President to shrink the size of the Federal Register. We must create a favorable regulatory environment for U.S. business. This cannot be stressed enough.”

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:07 | 1385191 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Is Ron Paul also a descendant from John Plantagenet?

http://12160.info/video/12-yr-girl-discovers-all-us

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:24 | 1385245 King_of_simpletons
King_of_simpletons's picture

He is John Plantagenet. Ron Paul's real age is 1100.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:30 | 1385280 Transformer
Transformer's picture

i am very disappointed in this statement by Ron Paul.  His statement on abortion will alienate 50% of the population.  It was my understanding that his position on this was to leave the issue of abortion to the states and to women.  Furthermore he says nothing about ending all the wars and bringing home the military.  This is the number one thing that can be done about the budget.  85% of America wants the wars to stop.  I can't help but wonder if his organization is compormised and whoever is running his campaign us trying to destroy him.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:30 | 1385301 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Alienate 50pc of the US citizens?

If indeed as a pro lifer he claims to be, he would have called explicitly for military budget cuts, with as much persistence as he called for non abortion, yep, he would have endangered that but he did not.

Paul is a professional politician. He has tons of experience and knows how to play the game.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:44 | 1385360 wanklord
wanklord's picture

By appealing to tons of bullshit about the Constitution and other patriotic crap, Congressman Ron Paul is able to seduce his brute and ignorant constituency and most important, to perpetuate himself in that position for years to come (a clever way to make easy money).

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:48 | 1385383 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Better to say that Paul is a niche politician who knows how to flatter his politics market segment. They can be intelligent or not. All it matters is that Paul serves them what they want to hear.

Warranteeing him his position as a long term, carreer, dynastic politician.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:50 | 1386031 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

All it matters is that Paul serves them what they want to hear.

Ron Paul simply tailors his message for his audience without altering his actual intentions or principles. In this day and age most people need  to have someone explain to them just exactly how important liberty can be to them personally.

For example he might say, "Liberty is good for you, Johnny, because you want to buy a gun with your own money in order to protect your family. Liberty is good for you Mary because if you want family planning services you can get them simply by paying for them yourself. Liberty is good for you Tommy because marriage is a contract between individuals and not the state so if you want to marry your lover Joey just go ahead and do it. Etc."

 

Warranteeing him his position as a long term, carreer, dynastic politician.

Dr. Paul had a real job as an OB-GYN and did not spend his life in DC. But aren't we all glad that he's put his personal desires aside and has made the effort to champion freedom for all of us?

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:04 | 1387235 eureka
eureka's picture

1 So, US citizens need kinder garden level explanations from their presidential candidates?

Wonder what good freedom will do such kinder garden level intellengences?

2 So, is Ron Paul going to liberate taxpayers from the military industrial corporatocracy, which sucks up 20% of every US tax dollar - and if so, he is going to a switch-aroo on all the fundamentalists who love empire and war?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:05 | 1387256 damage
damage's picture

I've got a better question... are you a moron?

 

I guess Ron Paul should always say the exact same thing to every audience even if it means he has less of a chance of winning the primary. You do realize... he has to WIN the Republican primary. If bashing on FEDERAL FUNDING of planned parenthood and abortions to placate the fundamental christian voter, while not compromising any of his principles is a problem for you... then seriously... drink some pragmatism juice to temper your retard level idealism.

Keep in mind this is coming from someone who considers himself to be VERY idealistic. However, there is always room for pragmatism. Stop being stupid, enough said.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:34 | 1387341 akak
akak's picture

Ron Paul declares that this press release not only "frames the debate" on  his federal budgetary priorities if elected president, it was not tailored to, nor delivered to, a select or paarticular audience, but to ALL Americans. 

Color me disappointed.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:37 | 1387364 damage
damage's picture

No, I'll just color you a political ignoramus.

Thanks.

You're probably so stupid you think that Ron Paul actually wrote this himself, and not just someone in his campaign targeting the typical Republican primary voter.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:54 | 1387394 akak
akak's picture

What is going on here today in this thread?  Where did all these unprincipled, no-nothing, kneejerk defenders of every jot and tittle of Ron Paul's campaign staff come from?

No, you are the ignoramus "my friend", and a particularly stupid and disingenuous one to boot, if you cannot see that this press release marks a RADICAL departure from the straight-talking honesty of Ron Paul in his last campaign, and in every other one to which I have been a witness. Whether written by him or by staff, his name is on it, and it was and is his responsibility.

To not address the two most fundamental federal budgetary black holes --- our aggressively interventionistic foreign policy and the war spending it engenders, along with so-called "entitlement" spending that is blowing up exponentionally --- is mind-bogglingly disappointing, coming from Ron Paul.  This is absolutely the lowest level to which Ron's national campaign staff (who undermined his last campaign at almost every opportunity) has ever sunk.  They have already cost him my financial support, and if this bullshit keeps up, they will cost him my vote as well.

Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:55 | 1387411 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

It's one press release among thousands which was designed to help position Ron Paul for the Republican caucuses and primaries. You're really overreacting to a minor event.

He didn't say anything he hasn't said before and he has not contradicted his principles. I really can't fathom what you're upset about.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:01 | 1387434 akak
akak's picture

What I, and MANY other Ron Paul supporters, are upset about is the fact that this press release was NOT in fact just "one among thousands", but was intended, as he stated in it, to "frame the debate" surrounding solving the federal budgetary morass and out-of-control spending.  To pointedly include one trivial issue, while neglecting to even discuss two vastly more important and monumentally greater issues, is utterly incomprehensible to me --- not incomprehensible if it had come from unprincipled political opportunists like Huckabee or Romney, but very much so coming from Ron Paul.  Stop trying to pretend that there is no issue here --- there is, and it is a major one.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:09 | 1387452 eureka
eureka's picture

Akak - you are correct. It is, as you state, a matter of principle, and without principle, one has nothing, and is, nothing.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:25 | 1387528 damage
damage's picture

But he didn't break any of his principles, that's the thing. This press release doesn't say anything he hasn't said before. You're just upset the press release wasn't focused on the stuff you're worried about specifically, but instead the typical Republican primary voter. Get over it.

You're both trolls anyways, so I wonder why I even let myself get baited into responding to this crap.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:45 | 1387608 akak
akak's picture

You have no idea what you are talking about, or to whom you are (unsuccessfully) trying to rationally converse.

I was already donating to Ron Paul while you were probably still shitting in your diapers.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:21 | 1388851 damage
damage's picture

Sure, buddy. We all know you're too young to vote.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:41 | 1387585 Rhodin
Rhodin's picture

Some might claim the wars are covered by item one..ie no adding to the deficit, and that may well be what is intended. 

All his previous statements have been explicit on closing bases, ending wars etc.  Perhaps it is a matter of timing, ie. this addresses immediate action, and it will take some time to close bases.   However, if he is backing off on those promises, and that will be evident soon enough, he becomes one of them.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:48 | 1387626 damage
damage's picture

Continue to watch his TV interviews then. I somehow doubt the message will change. As far as I can remember every single recent TV appearance he's had or speech he's had (including the one at RLC over the weekend) included his positions about bringing the troops home from overseas, as the top priority.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:58 | 1387423 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

It's one press release among thousands which was designed to help position Ron Paul for the Republican caucuses and primaries. You're really overreacting to a minor event.

He didn't say anything he hasn't said before and he has not contradicted his principles. I really can't fathom what you're upset about.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 06:09 | 1388251 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It's one press release among thousands which was designed to help position Ron Paul for the Republican caucuses and primaries. You're really overreacting to a minor event.

 

US citizens are so full of themselves they are fighting desperately lost causes.

On one hand, the Paultards are  proud of the 30 year long straight political public record.

On the other hand, they are fighting the very consequence of seeing Paul upping a minor topic over major topics.

They should get a grip: Paul's position is by their own words well known and well assured.  I know that flip floping is US citizenish by nature but still...

 

What is the Paul's point by not putting forward his well known positions, hold for now 30 years, front and center? This guy can not fool anyone in doing so.  Republicans know his record and wont swallow the bait, other non Paultard can only observe the stupidity of uttering a flattery that can not sell.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:46 | 1388848 damage
damage's picture

I don't think he's trying to fool anyone. God the trolls came out en masse over this shit.

If it was mothers day, knowing you aren't fooling anyone. Would you bring up all the things about your mom that you hate? or the good things? LOL... I guess you'd have to mention all the things you hate about her infront of her face cause otherwise you'd be trying to be "dishonest" huh? Yeah right, buddy.

Turn off the computer and go back to your hobby of smoking crack.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:03 | 1387432 eureka
eureka's picture

Dear "damage",

Thank you for your kind words.

Oh btw, I suppose "The Truth Shall Set You Free" isn't quite pragmatic enough for you?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:31 | 1387541 damage
damage's picture

Try again when you have something other than a strawman to work with.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 01:23 | 1387984 eureka
eureka's picture

Who's the "strawman"...? As akak said above, you're out of your bounds.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 01:54 | 1388019 damage
damage's picture

"Who's the strawman?"

LOL - I wasn't referring to a person as a "strawman".

You two keep warping the press release and his campaign's position into something it is not. Then arguing against that "strawman". That is by definition a strawman argument.

For example you two keep making silly ass arguments like the following:

"Because Ron Paul's campaign manager focused on cutting funding to planned parenthood and didn't mention the things more important to me in a release meant for Republican primary voters in Iowa... This somehow means he's gone back on his word regarding them."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be your issue, right?

You're attacking something which isn't even real.

As I said in another comment, if his audience is fundamentalist Christians should he focus on the fact he wants to legalize prostitution and drugs at the federal level? Or focus on the fact his ideology would ALSO dictate he should cut federal funding to planned parenthood?

Out of what bounds? For calling you two out as the mindless trolls you are? You're either obviously a troll or just stupid. There is no other explanation.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 02:04 | 1388040 eureka
eureka's picture

FYI: my point is, that as a matter of priciple, the whole truth and nothing but the truth should be stated, not just in court, but also in every political address.

No pandering. No manipulation.

If you can construe that an anti-centralization, anti-empire statement is "trolling" - you can get a Nobel price for New-Speak.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 03:16 | 1388052 damage
damage's picture

facepalm.jpg

But Republican primary voters in Iowa won't vote for him because he wants to end the fed, end their ethanol subsidies, end the wars, or legalize prostitution and drugs. Those that will vote for him already already know his positions about the wars and everything else. You're being retard level paranoid, or rertard level idealistic.

I don't even know if this was the wisest choice by his campaign manager, but the reason why he focused on such issues should be obvious.

Winning a Republican primary will be far harder than winning the general. Get over it, troll.

Edit: Also, I wouldn't quite call this "pandering" to Christian Fundamentalists. If it were he'd be saying the stuff should be illegal... not just ending federal funding for it. He isn't modifying any of his principles.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 04:10 | 1388196 akak
akak's picture

What is more important here: Ron Paul winning an election, or the advancement of the pro-liberty movement?

If Ron is going to start playing the same cynical and shitty games that all the other, sociopathic politicians routinely engage in, then liberty has already lost.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 05:06 | 1388222 damage
damage's picture

If all it takes is one press release to derail the liberty movement then it stood no chance anyways. Get a grip.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 06:14 | 1388253 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

As I said in another comment, if his audience is fundamentalist Christians should he focus on the fact he wants to legalize prostitution and drugs at the federal level? Or focus on the fact his ideology would ALSO dictate he should cut federal funding to planned parenthood?

 

Paul can not fool anybody with this charade.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:20 | 1388831 damage
damage's picture

I don't think he's trying to fool anyone. God the trolls came out en mass over this shit.

 

If it was mothers day, knowing you aren't fooling anyone. Would you bring up all the things about your mom that you hate? or the good things? LOL

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 03:46 | 1388178 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Liberty is good for you Tommy because marriage is a contract between individuals and not the state so if you want to marry your lover Joey just go ahead and do it. Etc."

 

Marriage is a contract between individuals? And? It is ages since the marriage contract is guaranteed by society. People marry before society.

US citizenism is really on the loose if they now go back on what they said on contract. The contract is not an individual notion (individuality does not lead to contract) Contract is a societal notion.

Individuals do not need any kind of contract to live together. Marriage is a contract and by such is done before society. Now if US citizens are led to repudiate that part, it would really show how messed their stuff was.

Keep the face...

 

But aren't we all glad that he's put his personal desires aside and has made the effort to champion freedom for all of us?

 

Freedom for all? Paul is certainly not an advocate of freedom for all. He for instance thinks that some people's liberty might be bought (and it would be better for everyone this way) while other people's liberty can not be negociated through financial means but be earned by armed struggle.

Paul does not advocate freedom for all.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 05:10 | 1388224 damage
damage's picture

huh?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:39 | 1385653 infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

" It is unconscionable to me that fellow Pro-Life Americans are forced to fund abortion through their tax dollars."

are you clowns all new to zerohedge?

paul is only against tax funding of abortions, that includes all other medical operations.

Second, paul is one of the largest critics of the wars in congress! Holy Shit.. and

@AnAnonymous... saying Ron Paul should be more critical of the war? AYFKM? do you know anything about Dr. Paul? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/bipartisan-antiwar_b_880404.html?ir=World

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:46 | 1385691 ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

Paul himself set his priorities in this release.  If he wants to focus our attention on wailing about Planned Parenthood's drop-in-the-bucket expense (and bringing up the divisive abortion issue), and neglecting to discuss how we're wasting hundreds of billions on Maintaining the Empire, don't blame ZHers for rightly taking him to task.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:50 | 1385721 Watauga
Watauga's picture

You may want to characterize Planned Parenthood's share of the slop in the trough a "drop-in-the-bucket," but the 50 MILLION dead since Roe v. Wade should not be considered anything but a horrible, national tragedy of our own making.  Admittedly, PP did not cause or assist in all of these deaths, but PP gets TAXPAYER money to promote such deaths. Certainly all Americans can agree that killing 50 MILLION fellow Americans in under 50 years is a disgraceful and shameful stain on our nation's character. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:26 | 1385913 minosgal
minosgal's picture

Oh, I see. So lets de-fund a reliable source birth control.

Sounds like you're shocked, shocked that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:58 | 1386065 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Display some sincerity. Abort yourself now.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:04 | 1387249 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Leave this community, zombie fanboy - you contribute nothing intellectually benefical.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:29 | 1387328 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:09 | 1387464 akak
akak's picture

I fart in your general direction.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:17 | 1387488 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

Finally some common ground! I was afraid I'd have to bring out the Holy Hand Grenade to deal with you.

"One, two, five!"

"Three, sir."

"Three!"

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:24 | 1387497 akak
akak's picture

'The lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch at thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."

 

Actually, we most likely have a vast amount in common, which is why I find this debate, and the subject of this thread, so painful.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:50 | 1387611 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

 

 

Sovereign individuals can agree to disagree.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:49 | 1387628 akak
akak's picture

I will agree, and leave it at that.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:27 | 1385914 minosgal
minosgal's picture

dbl post, srry

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:55 | 1386364 crosey
crosey's picture

Watauga, I'm with you.  Our culture condones the murder of the most helpless of our citizens.  90+% of abortions are merely "lifestyle decisions".  So, with this mindset, it is not a wonder to me that so many other socio-economic issue are screwed up.  Root-cause?  We are too damned narcissistic, on so many levels.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 23:40 | 1387772 eureka
eureka's picture

Would you rather:

A:  be born to parents who are ready & able to love and care for you?

OR:

B:  be born to a destitude or raped parent?

Do you know how many millions of kids suffer under abuse, rape, malnourishments etc etc?

What Lifestyle choises do abused, raped and malnourished kids have...?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:20 | 1385875 floridasandy
floridasandy's picture

i guess you didn't see the 1st thing on ron paul's list-which is that he will veto spending that doesn't result in a balanced budget, and war spending is huge. he also would probably have a lot of resistance from this pro war congress, so i am sure that nothing is a "done deal".

second, he isn't talking about banning abortion-just not forcing taxpayers to pay for them, which certainly seems fair. people shouldn't be forced to pay for something that THEY think is murder, but i also think that women shouldn't be denied the ability to pay for their own abortions if they feel they must. (otherwise, you have casey anthony situations around the country). there probably is a small amount of party pandering to get the nomination here, but who doesn't do that? obama did it in spades to woo the liberals (gitmo, wars, banker bonuses, etc.) and then let the liberals down.

bravo to ron paul. i would like to see the media force the other candidates to say what they would do, in specific detail. there will always be something on everyone's platform that is annoying but you have to go with who represents you -and america-best.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:42 | 1385994 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

your avatar makes me feel warm and fuzzy. i am a lover of 7.62 x 39mm..........

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:12 | 1387258 eureka
eureka's picture

The point of objection to this SPECIFIC Ron Paul statement is, that he should have made his, yes you are correct, cornerstone stance against US empire - part of THIS statement as well, since it is, supposedly a statement of his corner stone principles.

That's all. Not unreasonable at all. But perhaps, as some sugest above, Paul's strategy is similar to Reagan's; appear a cultural conservative to gather fundamentalist voters, but be rather "liberal" in practice once in office.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:18 | 1387295 damage
damage's picture

You do realize he's trying to win the Republican primary, right? The leftards really showed up in force to bash on this one even though the first thing he mentions obviously is meant to include the military industial complex if you've ever listened to the man speak before.

I guess if he was to go talk to a bunch of fundamentalist Christian voters he should focus all his time and energy on talking about legalizing drugs and prostution at the federal level? Are you really that fucking dumb? No, you're not... you're just a party-line democrat troll.

Anyways, to me this just means his campaign wrote some press release in his name to try to get voters who are scared away by some of his other policies by talking about stuff they'd like to see done. It just means he is in it to win this time. That is all...

Try and spin it however you wish, not like anyone will remember this press release come the general elections. LOL

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 23:16 | 1387709 infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

"I guess if he was to go talk to a bunch of fundamentalist Christian voters he should focus all his time and energy on talking about legalizing drugs and prostution at the federal level? Are you really that fucking dumb? No, you're not... you're just a party-line democrat troll."

+1207

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 01:52 | 1388014 eureka
eureka's picture

We must assume then, that the "fundamentalist Christian" voters, whom you refer to and suggest than Ron Paul should pander to:

A:  unlike everyone else in the US have never heard Ron Paul's statements against US empire and his Libertarian/laisez faire views on sex, drugs and rock n' roll

OR:

B:  if they have heard his Libertarian views (despite your assumption that they live under a very large rock) that they will never the less feel pleased that he spares them his true and economically far more significant agenda - i.e. that they really aren't Christians, but rather ostridges.

Finally, do you realize, that your conviction that leaders should - ought to - and are morally entitled to manipulate their voters, i,e, the masses, is pure classical, aristicrat, NWO, bureaucrat, centralized power, socialist, fascist elite scum run of the mill philosophy?

You do know that, don't you? Making excuses for manipulation, is patriarchal, colonial... don't you? Pathetically unprincipled. Without intellectual integrity.

Either you believe in truth - and, that people can handle it - or, you make excuses for manipulations. So therefore, the real and final question is:

Are you FOR the truth - and - can you HANDLE it?

An don't tell us, some US citizens can't handle the truth -

unless you, Mr Un-realized Troll, want to join the gangsters in DC/Wall Street/PentaGun.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 05:40 | 1388238 floridasandy
floridasandy's picture

let's hope ron paul can win it, because this country is running out of time to having to keep dealing with jackass high-spending war-promoting presidents.

 

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:36 | 1385309 bmusic
bmusic's picture

He is simply saying it will no longer be taxpayer supported.  He's NOT proposing, at least here, to criminalize abortion.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:14 | 1385544 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

I usually like Ron Paul but i think he dropped the ball on this one.  No need to climb into the muck of pandering to the religious right, his coalition is broader than that.

 

Also, in terms of which government programs are the most/least efficient.... 5 cents spent on a condom handed out by planned parenthood to low income (and mostly uneducated) potential parents prevents at least $500,000+ in entitlement spneding by the working middle class.  That is the best return you will ever see and by far the most efficient program the governemnt has at limiting future liability.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:18 | 1385564 psaudio
psaudio's picture

+1

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:06 | 1385810 narnia
narnia's picture

Does anyone really question where Ron Paul stands as far as ENDING the wars (on terrorism, drugs & education), the Fed, the centrally planned economy & the nanny state?  He has an Austro Libertarian record for 30 years!  He doesn't need to say all of this in every press release or speech.  Occasionally, in politics, you have to dumb it down and focus on the stuff that will win you the nomination.

If Ron Paul gets the Christian right to vote like Reagan, he's got the Republican nomination & the general election by a landslide.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:15 | 1385838 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

I don't question Ron Paul's sincerity regarding ending the wars, in fact i wholeheartedly support him on those issues.  I was just pointing out the Irony that he is attacking the single most efficient government program in existence (planned parenthood giving condoms to low income people) as a means of pandering to the religious right.

 

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:12 | 1386188 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

If all they did was hand out condoms, there probably wouldn't be an issue with them.

And why do you think PP will not be funded if Paul gets elected? 

Do you think the blue states won't give them taxpayer funds? He's not saying that they can't be state funded, just not that federal dollars will go to them.

And what about private funding?  If they asked you for a donation, would you not give it to them? No?  Don't you think they are important?  Why aren't you donating money to them right now?

And why the fuck do you think it's perfectly all right to force someone (under threat of violence) to pay for something that they deeply believe is morally wrong (this is a rhetorical question, it's obvious you are a statist)?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:48 | 1386347 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

Right wing talking heads claim 99% of what planned parenthood does is abortions, in reality i believe the most recent statics i saw said it was less then 5%.  I agree that taxpayers should not fund abortions, but he goes out of his way to say they should not fund any "family planning" at all.

 

I have followed Ron Paul for years and he has never overtly pandered to religious conservatives before, which is why i found this announcement disappointing.  Personally i agree with ending federal funding that would go to abortions.  However most of the conservative talking heads hate everything planned parenthood does and that is just ridiculous when you consider that providing low cost contraceptives has been proven to reduce poverty (and future taxpayer liability) in every single place on earth it has been implemented.

 

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:41 | 1386540 narnia
narnia's picture

Is honesty all that hard?  Planned Parenthood is the preeminent abortion & birth control sales organization in the world.  Those who say otherwise or claim it really is about cancer screening or some other health matter are the disingenuous ones.

If the federal government paid for a series of Ronald McDonald playrooms throughout the country & only 5% of the funds actually went to providing gift certificates to McDonalds, would these same people say- we really need to fund these because this is really about exercise for children? 

Ron Paul is not saying, lets reject the organization’s 501(c)(3).  He’s not saying, let’s close them down.  He’s not saying, they can’t be involved in sister political organizations.  He’s simply saying, the federal government shouldn’t be funding it. 

I have given support to PP & believe strongly in their right to exist.  Under no circumstances do I believe the Federal government should be funding them. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:44 | 1386548 narnia
narnia's picture

Is honesty all that hard?  Planned Parenthood is the preeminent abortion & birth control sales organization in the world.  Those who say otherwise or claim it really is about cancer screening or some other health matter are the disingenuous ones.

If the federal government paid for a series of Ronald McDonald playrooms throughout the country & only 5% of the funds actually went to providing gift certificates to McDonalds, would these same people say- we really need to fund these because this is really about exercise for children? 

Ron Paul is not saying, lets reject the organization’s 501(c)(3).  He’s not saying, let’s close them down.  He’s not saying, they can’t be involved in sister political organizations.  He’s simply saying, the federal government shouldn’t be funding it. 

I have given support to PP & believe strongly in their right to exist.  Under no circumstances do I believe the Federal government should be funding them. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 18:24 | 1386655 fly
fly's picture

How about all you Pro Life idiots mind your own business. And furthermore-if you are men-please, why are you even leaving comments concerning women's bodies and THEIR decision to do as they see fit. STOP telling me what I can do with MY body! Period!

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 19:06 | 1386783 harveywalbinger
harveywalbinger's picture

You sell yourself short.  You are a tremendous slouch (in terms of understanding Libertarian philosophy)... 

Dr. Paul did not say anything about telling you what you may or may not do with your stank body.  By all means, PLEASE abort all of your progeny.  Just don't expect somebody else to pay for it. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 19:55 | 1386958 yesmassarothschild
yesmassarothschild's picture

+ 50,000,000 to Mr. Harvey Walbinger, Narnia

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:02 | 1386110 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Also, in terms of which government programs are the most/least efficient....

 

The most efficient government program would be the one that stops politicians, corporations and special interest groups from stealing my money in order to do things I abhor.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:05 | 1386145 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

Well i agree with that but it's not realistic given our currenty system

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:11 | 1386185 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Of course it's realistic. I will not be held hostage no matter how unrealistic you may consider freedom to be.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:56 | 1386372 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

"Of course it's realistic. I will not be held hostage no matter how unrealistic you may consider freedom to be."

 

Nonsense! unless you plan on overthrowing the government then you are completely unrealistic.  The powers that be are thoroughly entrenched, the only way you are going to wrestle control of this country out of the hands of the banking cartel/FED, corporate lobbyists, and monarichal families that rule this country (Bush, Kennedy, Rothschild, etc) is through a complete destruction of the current system.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is just talking big on the Internet.

 


Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:04 | 1386389 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

One can simply stop feeding the beast. I purposely cut my workload down to where I'm making less than minimum wage because I'm sick of working for bankers and bombers. I've shrugged, you might say.

There are lots of ways to oppose evil without trying to start World War III but you will never discover them with your defeatist attitude.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:16 | 1386442 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

Well i wouldn't call my attitude defeatist but realistic, it is obvious the trajectory this country is on (and has been for the past 30 years).  

 

If i could cut down my income and still support myself i suppose i could do that, but i think "starving the beast" will ultimately fail.  The reason i say this is because the FED will just print more money, thus creating mass inflation that steals the wealth away from the citizens in a backdoor tax that we are unable to protest.  

 

Once this becomes untenable "austerity" will come to the United States.  It will come in the form of 1) cutting govt spending (which is a good thing) but also 2) it will come with massive tax increases at all income levels to "repay" the international banking cartel.  Take a look at Greece, austerity is a real bitch.  America will lose its sovereignty just like the Greeks as we are converted from a democracy into a slave nation where all of our disposable income goes to interest payments and prosperity moves offshore to the new manufacturing powerhouses (China, etc).

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:25 | 1386464 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

Stone walls do not a prison make,

Nor iron bars a cage;

Minds innocent and quiet take

That for an hermitage;

If I have freedom in my love

And in my soul am free,

Angels alone, that soar above,

Enjoy such liberty.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:42 | 1386526 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

I appreciate your optimism  :)

 

However i think as a young person in their early 30s my only viable plan of action is to save as much money as i can now and escape the building before the ceiling caves in.  I do not plan on submitting to debt/taxation slavery, if i have enough saved when it all collapses i will move to some remote place (maybe in South America, maybe an island in the pacific) and live a quiet life off the taxation radar.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:46 | 1386546 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

 

I will not initiate aggression but I will faithfully fly the Gadsden. Remember that the rattlesnake does not strike until trodden upon.

I ain't leaving.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 18:28 | 1386667 PuppetRepubl1c
PuppetRepubl1c's picture

It makes me wish i hadn't put any money in a traditional 401k, i should have been going Roth all this time, taxes will likely be well over 50% when the austerity hits our shores....

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 23:06 | 1387679 Jerome Lester H...
Jerome Lester Horwitz's picture

Does it really matter? By the time you retire your 401k will have been confiscated by .gov!

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:21 | 1387299 eureka
eureka's picture

Wow - your's is just one of a dozen or more prior comments above revealing that a good portion of zerohedgers are fundamentalists... "pro-lifers" socalled...

What does one get when mating a "pro-lifer" with a libertarian?

IS IT:

A:  I'm against abortion, but you can do it for your own money

OR:

B:  I'm against abortion and although I'm a libertarian I really wish we could outlaw it

It's open mike time for all you anti-progressive zerohedgers - let's hear the details.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:23 | 1387517 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Not sure if you're replying to me but I'm an atheist with no particularly strong feeling about abortions that have no relation to me personally. But I object to paying for other people's stuff.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 01:59 | 1388034 eureka
eureka's picture

"I object to paying for other people's stuff."

Me too. especially multi millio- & billionaires' asset protection rackets - i.e cops and military which eat 30% of US budgets.  80% of US citizens have zero net assets to protect, so let's just fold the socialized protection business and privatize it.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 23:25 | 1387720 infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

no need to pander to the religious right? 

neglecting to pander the religious right ends with neocon warmongers who call on bombing brown people in the name of Jesus getting elected. a La SC senator Lindsey Graham.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 00:44 | 1387906 rambo1028
rambo1028's picture

+1

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:40 | 1385325 WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Agreed. I was shocked that he did not mention the wars. Disappointing for sure.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:50 | 1385728 Bay of Pigs
Bay of Pigs's picture

I agree. Nothing on the Fed either. 

WTF happened to his platform? I will not support him at all if he goes down this road.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:10 | 1385800 akak
akak's picture

Indeed, this sham of a four-part program could almost have been written by any of the other Repugnican candidates.

It's about the illegal, immoral, unsustainable imperialistic WARS, Ron --- what about the WARS?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:43 | 1386004 High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

akak, his handlers don't want him talking about stuff like that.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:01 | 1386120 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Yeah, Ron Paul never went on national TV hundreds of times to say that the wars are immoral, a waste of money and just plain stupid. That was some other guy that just looks and sounds exactly like Ron Paul.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:50 | 1387382 eureka
eureka's picture

If his handlers are correct - the implications are clear:

US fundamentalists, i.e. who are anti-abortionist-under all-circumstances, but for endless wars and empire, which equals death to forreigners on other continents, are the dumbest, oxymoronic sheeple of all sheeples in the world; they must be lied to by their own candidates to be wound up to vote, motivated by the assumption/superstition that for example a two millimeter long, brainless organism is actually a "soul", whereas a foreigner who is angry at US for extracting her country's resources is a potential terrorist.

So much for Ron Paul deriving significant support from "young people" who "love freedom".

US seems to never evolve. Why not go back to appartheid as well again - and maybe we should attack Vietnam again. And maybe we should put all liberals in KZ-Camps...?

And maybe zerohedge should make anti-abortion articles part of its new editorial image...

OR - maybe fundamentalists should creep back to the holes they climb out of.

Dear fundamentalists: I wish for you that you may have your own country. You can't have all of the US - but - you can have half.  SO - which states do you pick?

It's open mike night for zerohedge visiting/infiltrating fundamentalists - so choose your new territory, choose your states and make your own country so the rest of us don't have to read your oxymoronic and financial-blog-wise irrelevant nonsense.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:17 | 1387479 akak
akak's picture

While your statements are certainly inflammatory, Eureka, I am hard-pressed to deny or disagree with them.

Indeed, an incalculable amount of political, social and moral damage has been inflicted upon this nation by the rabid Christian fundamentalists and their hysterical and vitriolic attacks on all other beliefs and superstitions but their own.  It would have been infinitely better had the US Civil War never been fought, if only so that the Bible Belt could have been separated from the saner half of the USA and left to fester in its own intolerant Christo-fascist rot.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:29 | 1388865 damage
damage's picture

While your statements are certainly inflammatory, Eureka, I am hard-pressed to deny or disagree with them.

 

Considering you two are probably in the same room or both the same troll from the DailyKoS I'm not surprised you don't disagree.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:03 | 1386133 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Indeed, this sham of a four-part program could almost have been written by any of the other Repugnican candidates.

It's about the illegal, immoral, unsustainable imperialistic WARS, Ron --- what about the WARS?

 

“First, I will veto any spending bills that contribute to an unbalanced budget," kind of covers that, doesn't it?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:54 | 1387421 eureka
eureka's picture

kind of covers that, doesn't it?

No!

Fundamentalists must be confronted directly with their oxymoronic love of war & empire.

They must be told that their Federal Employment programs, called PentaGun, CIA, TSA - which really should be called Tn'A, WILL BE CUT IN HALF - because THEY have ZERO rational and ZERO MORAL justification and just eat up 20% of US tax revenue for no other reason than to provide Federally sponsored jobs and mega profits to the military industrial and security - ANTI CHRIST FEAR MONGERING complex and its fascits elite owners.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:26 | 1387527 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

So you want Ron Paul to try to taunt people into voting for him?

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 02:33 | 1388088 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

++ some righteous fury!

ahh but eureka, can't have cannon fodder AND female body autonomy, must choose!

war it is then.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 20:36 | 1387140 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Dr. Paul has been consistant for years, and has written several books clearly explaining his positions.  If he has to paint a big red elephant on his forehead for the duration of the campaign, I am still going to for him.  

What is your other option?  Either he does what he needs to to get elected- and in this case, he has not altered his stance in any way, but has merely emphesised talking points for general consumption (which he has always been terrible at, IMO) that reflect somewhat less that what we might wish for.  

Give the man your support- we need him in.  Or, go vote for whoever- at this point, I guess it hardly matters any more.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 22:33 | 1387555 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

he has not altered his stance in any way, but has merely emphesised talking points for general consumption (which he has always been terrible at, IMO)

That's one of the most endearing things about him. He's the Ugly Duckling of American politics.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:37 | 1385329 nevadan
nevadan's picture

I understand your comment about abortion but must point out that cutting all federal funding of PP and other abortion activities is the first step in returning the question to the states.  As far as ending the wars, I am still awaiting his plans for what would fill the vacuum that bringing the military home are.  Simply saying that we shouldn't be in the business of policing the world doesn't cut it.  While I largely agree with his philosophical point of view, the fact remains that we simply can't close up shop.  Some logical plan for transition has to be presented before the electorate will even consider reducing our military presence in the world.  Don't get me wrong, I was an active supporter in 08 but he has never really shown a clear plan for reducing the military.  Until he does he won't be taken seriously. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:57 | 1385776 SilverIsKing
SilverIsKing's picture

Who's clear plan for reducing the military do you subscribe to?  I'm only interested since no one that I've seen has presented a clear plan for reducing the military but since you are criticizing RP for not having a plan, I'd be interested in hearing about others that have one.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 07:58 | 1388367 nevadan
nevadan's picture

Since no one else is really advocating reducing our military presence abroad there doesn't seem to be any clear plans in existence.  A good first step might be to tell Japan, Germany, Great Britian, South Korea etc. that they should prepare to step up and beging funding the defense of their own countries because the bases we maintain and they enjoy the revenues  from  are going to lessen as we reverse our spending patterns.  If they feel at risk from invasion by their neighbors they should foot the bill for their own defense on an increasing basis over time.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 02:50 | 1388086 eureka
eureka's picture

"we simply can't close up shop."

And why not?

"Some logical plan for transition has to be presented before the electorate will even consider reducing our military presence in the world."

Transition? When US corporations laid off 20 million people the past 5 years there was no "transition". It was just: "you're fired". Why do public military employees need special "transition"?

And what is the electorates stake in US empire? COuld it be military jobs? Or is it just a matter of habit.... "we're used to being an empire, waht are we going to do if we're not anymore..."? OR - is it purely a case of "White Man's Burden" impirialism - i.e. "we can't leave the savages around the world in charge of their own territories and chaoses"?

I supspect the latter is the common subconscious motivation for continued empire - never mind the fact that a on the surface not so white Nobel Peace Price Winner/man is the president of the never-the-less-continuous, habitual empire and its attempts of "White Man's Burden" justification.

 

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 08:02 | 1388386 nevadan
nevadan's picture

The local economies of our allies are heavily influenced by our bases.  Just closing down would devastate them.  Our civilian wage base is not the only one that depends on the military industrial complex.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 13:53 | 1389531 akak
akak's picture

.

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 13:49 | 1389532 akak
akak's picture

Your argument is just a restatement of the "Broken Window" fallacy.  You overlook the drain of resources that all that pointless and counterproductive military spending actually represents, and the vast good that would result from its diversion to more productive and socially beneficial activities.

The fall of the Marxist "workers' paradise" of East Germany in 1989 put a lot of former Stasi thugs, informants and stormtroopers out of work --- was that a rational reason, then, to oppose that development?

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 13:37 | 1389511 fallout11
fallout11's picture

The Russians, in the aftermath of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, somehow managed an orderly and cost-effective "transition" out of two dozen countries in a very short time.

Surely the US military & US government can do as well.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:44 | 1385359 D-liverSil-ver
D-liverSil-ver's picture

Ron Paul Wrote:

"Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you even read what he wrote?

He is leaving the matter to the states and to women... He is a US

congressman talking about the "FEDERAL" budget, how does this affect

a womans ability to have an abortion or any of the states ability to fund it?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:44 | 1385384 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Planned Parenthood's budget is not the reason for the fuckin deficit and doesn't even belong in such a statement.

Major thumbs-down for RP

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:02 | 1385465 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

Have to totally agree with you Trav.  I am a huge RP supporter, or was.  This kind of ruins it for me.  Is he going to start going after gay marriage too?  What a joke to put Planned Parenthood front and center. 

The size of the Banking Cartel, and it's power over regulators and politicians is THE BIGGEST issue. 

Planned Parenthood?  How much of our taxes have gone to that?  Really? 

We are truly screwed, thanks for the ride RP, it never got started. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:02 | 1385487 redpill
redpill's picture

How do you equate not spending federal dollars on abortion with regulating gay marriage?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:49 | 1385720 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

Both are such marginal issues and are almost disgraceful to discuss in the midst of a total economic collapse. 

When these issues are brought up, it is nothing else than politicking, and that is why I was supporting RP in the first place. 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:41 | 1385958 redpill
redpill's picture

Of course it's politicking, he's running in an election.  I'm not thrilled to see him discussing this stuff, but as long as his positions are consistent, I can accept that fact that he has to pander to the one-issue voters.  At least the planned parenthood subject has some budgetary impact, albeit minuscule.  To have any chance here he needs to bring some more people in to at least listen to what he has to say, which is what I believe he is attempting to do here.  This is the primary, he's got to pander to the social conservatives or the Republicans will wind up with Sarah Palin or something.

 

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 02:39 | 1388097 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

perhaps you can "accept" Ron Paul's "pandering" because it doesn't really affect YOU all that much, at least on the surface.

if those voters he's "pandering" to up their demands, as we know always happens when one group gets more "voice" in office, and they begin to touch on YOUR reality, maybe you'll wake up.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:13 | 1385533 psaudio
psaudio's picture

my thoughts exactly, CrazyJ - a big disappointment

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:16 | 1385551 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

His stance on gay marraige is the same stance he has on any marraige, which is that it is not the government's job to license them. What is their job, in this case, is to recognize as valid, any contract freely entered into by two people.

While many people receive government licenses in order to create a government blessed contract, it should not be mandatory, nor should it be the basis for special privileges for the masses to fight over, in order to restore "fairness."

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:30 | 1385938 Scarlo
Scarlo's picture

As someone else astutely pointed out, this is a crafty play. Those who know RP, know how he feels about war & other issues (The Fed). Many of those who don't easily fall into the pigeonhole of the miniscule, but highly polarized issue of Planned Parenthood funding. This is a crafty trap to gain idiot voters from the Right. Many of those same folks would tuck tail and run if he spelled out his war policies - so instead he talks of balanced budgets. Again - he votes where he speaks, and he's spoken enough so that those who've followed him know where he stands.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:15 | 1386200 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

ding ding ding ding

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:49 | 1387401 Buddha_Gorilla
Buddha_Gorilla's picture

+1.

I was certainly put off by the elevation of a marginal issue like federal funding of PP to a central tenent of his platform, but we know where RP stands and if he needs to tweak his message in order to survive the Republican primaries, so be it.  Otherwise we get Mitt Romney or Sarah Palin and NO debate about anything that really matters.

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:30 | 1385939 Scarlo
Scarlo's picture

As someone else astutely pointed out, this is a crafty play. Those who know RP, know how he feels about war & other issues (The Fed). Many of those who don't easily fall into the pigeonhole of the miniscule, but highly polarized issue of Planned Parenthood funding. This is a crafty trap to gain idiot voters from the Right. Many of those same folks would tuck tail and run if he spelled out his war policies - so instead he talks of balanced budgets. Again - he votes where he speaks, and he's spoken enough so that those who've followed him know where he stands.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:53 | 1386083 QQQBall
QQQBall's picture

Drum roll please - the keystone of my admin will be... abortion issues? This must be some sort of political manuever ballkick a "pro choice 'pub"... I give up, lets just reset the system  and get it over with ASAP.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:03 | 1385493 10kby2k
10kby2k's picture

+1 ..l..

The USA needs a economic overhaul. RP better stfu about moral issues or he'll have zero chance to be part of that overhaul.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:14 | 1385526 psaudio
psaudio's picture

+1

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:23 | 1385573 10kby2k
10kby2k's picture

Fringe ZHers that junk anything that questions the ZH 'message' are a lower form of sheeple than those they mock. A true ZHer has an open mind.

It was a crappy press release.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:45 | 1385688 Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

A true ZHer doesn't whine.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:29 | 1385846 akak
akak's picture

It was a crappy press release.

As a strong Ron Paul supporter and donor in 2008, and even during his run in 1988, I have to say that I am disappointed by the shameless pandering to the religious right in this release as well, in addition to his SILENCE on the vastly expensive, unsustainable, and morally reprehensible and aggressively militaristic and imperialist US foreign policy of kneejerk interventionism anywhere and everywhere in the world.

I suspect that this release represents yet more of the same undermining and sabotage of Ron Paul's fundamental message, and hundreds of thousands of supporters, by the same  grossly incompetent and suspiciously inept national campaign staff whom Ron had four years ago, headed by his own inexperienced son-in-law Jesse Benton, and that arrogant and woefully (and artfully?) bumbling fool Kent Snyder.  NOBODY did more to derail Ron's campaign, time after time, in 2007 and 2008 than his own national campaign staff, an issue that was never properly addressed afterward, and never has been properly examined to this very day.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:16 | 1386161 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

Please feel free to fuck off. And I say that with love.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:27 | 1386248 akak
akak's picture

I take it you disagree with me?

If so, an answer with some substance to it would be welcome.

And I will say it again, there was a VAST amount of grossly incompetent, self-defeating and suspiciously counterproductive activity on the part of Ron's national campaign staff four years ago, accusations of which were widespread, but never meaningfully answered, during and after his last presidential bid.  Yet here are the exact SAME high-level people in the exact SAME positions four years later --- why should Ron's tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters, who were not only NOT encouraged and assisted by, but actively discouraged and undermined by, that national campaign staff,  find this acceptable?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:42 | 1386318 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

The invitation to fuck off remains open. If you do not approve of Ron Paul's actions then don't contribute to or vote for him. I thought you understood the nature of voluntary association.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:04 | 1386380 akak
akak's picture

Your argument, such as it is, is illogical and intellectually bankrupt.

"My candidate, right or wrong" appears to be your platform.

And for the record, I did not disapprove of any direct action on the part of Ron Paul --- merely the actions of his national campaign staff, who appear to be throwing monkeywrenches into the machinery of the campaign once again.  And even if I DID disapprove of an action or statement by Ron Paul, so the fuck what?  Is the man God, to be unquestioningly obeyed and followed no matter what?  A REAL pro-liberty, Ron Paul supporter would understand that NOBODY is above being questioned or taken to task, Ron Paul included.

I find your attitude extremely disturbing, and indicative of the very sheepishness that has led this nation into the multiple disasters it faces today.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:12 | 1386401 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

 

 

How does asking you to shit or get off the pot make me a sheep? You're the one acting like he just found out there isn't a Santa Claus.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 19:25 | 1386836 harveywalbinger
harveywalbinger's picture

Politics is nasty business.  A little pandering just may be necessary.  Do you want to see RP get elected or not? 

 

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 19:37 | 1386875 akak
akak's picture

No, I do NOT want to see him elected, if it means resorting to the same sort of intellectually insulting pandering and meaningless soundbites used with such abandon by the typical, self-serving bastards who buy themselves into office today.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:02 | 1387224 Rynak
Rynak's picture

Don't bother, AK, what he really means is this:

Please don't criticize my hero when he does something stupid. I disallow you from doing that.

Apparently, even someone with mostly sane policies and arguments as RP, has his fanboys, and just as the (mostly silent) Obama fanboys around here, they will flame and junk anyone who speaks against their god, regardless of the actual arguments at hand.

RP's policies: Two thumbs up.

RP's diplomacy skills in the above statement: Two thumbs down.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 20:55 | 1387213 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

You know, I'm not thrilled with the text of the release either, but I am also a supporter of the good doctor. While I am aware of your position based on your comments a few rows down, I'm going to disagree here.

If I was the dictator of his campaign, he wouldn't be seeking the Republican party nomination- I think he has about as much in common with those dopes as a shotgun and a slingshot do.

But, if I was his manager, he would not win. Not even a question, I would bung that one up.

So, he's campaigning- not in the general election, but in the Republican Caucus and he's pandering to the empty-headed dolts in that party.

Great! I want him to be on the ballot with an (R) after his name in 2012, and don't care how he gets there, short of abandoning his real positions for good. If he takes this, the presidency is his, and we'll see if he can avert the almost inevitable bloodshed that is coming.

If not, what's your other plan?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:49 | 1386019 W T Effington
W T Effington's picture

You are hypocrite. You argue for people to keep an open mind just after telling RP to STFU. Its impressive that you can contradict yourself in just two sentences. Next time try to one up yourself and do it all in one. Clown.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 16:41 | 1386323 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

You sir, you there, you are new to this community. That is all.

Thanks creating the gayest possible abbreviation of a community member. We could have really done without that.

P.S.,

Ron Paul has to use wording that doesn't put himself in a corner. He's in the lime light now. He can't start saying "I'm ending all the wars, closing all the foreign bases and dismantling the Fed immediately once I get in office." He has to start slowly. People still don't even know that hte Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Hell the majority of Americans don't even know what 1776 means.

If he just blurted out what he's been saying to all of his supporters in one press release that would be one helluva short lived run and he knows that. He needs to get in office, then he can release press releases that people might not agree with. This is the first of many presse releases and as far as I'm concerned he pretty much covered everything except for the Fed which I'm sure he'll be getting to once he's in the White House.

GO RON PAUL! He's our only chance at making it out of this fucking shit storm with our pants on at all. Everyone else will just get beaten into submission like the ones before them.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 17:31 | 1386478 WaterWings
WaterWings's picture

+1

We can hope. 

As long as the current system maintains itself its all Kabuki IMHO.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 19:14 | 1386800 crazyjsmith
crazyjsmith's picture

Yeah, Gawd forbid he keeps gaining momentum by pointing out he has been right about both the economy and these Wars of Mass Destruction.  Better that he change his game with 2 minutes left in the 4th quarter.  Really?  What a eff'g joke, really.

I get what he is trying to say.  His point should have been this " We need to audit the Fed, and make those who are spending our tax dollars accountable"  Simple as that.  The last election, his message was just starting to ring true.  Everyone is seeing the truth behind his message, whether they know it or not.  Now, he can basically tell everyone "I told you so" but instead, he has gone the way of every other policitian, in a time that EVERYONE is sick of these politicians pandering for votes.  

RP is not our only chance of making it out.  No matter who we plug in, the system will not change.  We need to change the system, and that will take far more than RP to get there.  And going after a marginal issue like PP, is NOT changing the system, it is just participating in it.

 

 

Tue, 06/21/2011 - 02:55 | 1388120 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

No matter who we plug in, the system will not change.  We need to change the system, and that will take far more than RP to get there.  And going after a marginal issue like PP, is NOT changing the system, it is just participating in it.

++ crazyjsmith!

it's pretty disheartening reading all the back-peddling, and calls for subterfuge and "pandering" yet again, as you lot gear up to participate in the farce that is amrkn electioneering.

I doubt we'll make it to election day intact, so discussing "winners" is a moot point, but FFS dudes, spine????

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:56 | 1385430 alexwest
alexwest's picture

###
He is leaving the matter to the states and to women... He is a UScongressman talking about the "FEDERAL" budget, how does this affect a womans ability to have an abortion or any of the states ability to fund it
###

did you? where did you get it ?
so you're saying its against abortions on federal level, but dont care if its perfomed on state level ? do you understand stupidity of that ?

YOU're for OR AGAISNT .. thats it ..
no matter who's paying for ..

alx

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:27 | 1385587 W T Effington
W T Effington's picture

His arguement is that the constitution requires that the laws and policies pertaining to abortion need be decided at the state level. Its that simple. Either the constitution is the laws of the land and you agree with his arguement, or we continue to ignore the constitution and make s*%t up s we go. Ultimately the federal government should just be honest with itself and all of us and admit that Laws don't mean anything to them and we should just get over it. Atleast we would then discuss the issues that matter. I.E. Following existing laws.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 21:00 | 1387228 Prometheus418
Prometheus418's picture

Google Hegelian Dialectic.

Then, if you can understand the relevency to your comment, hang your head in shame and reconsider what you've said.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:02 | 1385469 djsmps
djsmps's picture

And how does this even make a dent in reducing the budget?

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:48 | 1385372 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture
San Francisco says this:
  • No to owning pet gold fish of either sex
    (too cruel-not a choice)
  • No to circumcision of baby boys
    (too cruel-not a choice)
  • Yes to abortion of either sex baby humans
    (not cruel-is a choice)
Is it just me, or is there a contradiction here somewhere? ----------------------------------- San Francisco Considers Ban on Goldfish as Pets to Prevent Their 'Inhumane Suffering'

As for people who would argue that it’s just a goldfish? “That’s how we are in this society,” Gerrie said. “Some people say, ‘It’s just a human’ – when it comes to some that kill. It’s a matter of degree. Where do you stop?” 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/16/san-francisco-wants-to-ban-goldfish-to-prevent-their-inhumane-suffering/#ixzz1Pq3LQ1vu

----------------------------------- San Francisco Circumcision Referendum Stirs Anti-Semitism Debate

Under Hess’s proposal, circumcisions performed for other than a “clear, compelling and immediate” medical need would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of as much as $1,000 and up to a year in jail.

 

The penalty would give a circumcised man “more legal standing to complain and file suit after the fact,” said Lloyd Schofield, 59, who is spearheading the effort in San Francisco.

http://noir.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aC425KLd.d_c ----------------------------------- SF Area Pro-Choice Coalition Stands Up for Choice; Forty Organizations Join Forces to Protect Women's Health

The rally and march are in demonstration against anti-choice extremists who will descend on San Francisco on the same day to push a radical agenda that opposes access to reproductive freedom in all is forms including access to abortion, birth control services, and medically accurate sex education. Supporters of the anti-choice protest include groups with a history of intimidation and clinic harassment, who oppose not only women's rights, but also other civil liberties like freedom of religion and marriage equality.

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0118-09.htm
Mon, 06/20/2011 - 13:50 | 1385394 trav7777
trav7777's picture

Matriarchy never pretended to be logical.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:26 | 1385538 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Got it...

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:34 | 1385643 So Close
So Close's picture

I am too old to cry and it hurts too much to laugh.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 14:33 | 1385631 legal eagle
legal eagle's picture

Your mother must have beat you, you have to pay for sex, or you are still in the closet. Probably never made a woman orgasm in your life, poor pathetic soul.

Mon, 06/20/2011 - 15:06 | 1385813 Watauga
Watauga's picture

So, Rudolf Hess is alive and well in San Francisco?  Why is that does not surprise me?

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!