This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Ron Paul Releases Four-Part Statement On Budget Targets And Restoring Fiscal Discipline
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.”
»
- 14705 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
When Paul addresses budgeting and fiscal discipline, spends time bemoaning Planned Parenthood -- a drop in the fiscal bucket, and a diversion -- and never focuses on the utterly huge spending for the Maintenance of Empire (including but not limited to wars), the word "pandering" comes to mind. Disappointing.
In other words, he's starting to believe he can win the nomination.
Which, if it wasn't totally rigged, I believe they'd have a hard time stopping him. This means that the MSM will have to promote all of the other clowns (ala Hucksterbee and Palin last time) in an effort to drown him out.
I have to agree with you, Zaku --- this release was not all bad, but has at least a strong taint of pandering to the Repugnican majority about it, with its focus on the triviality of Planned Parenthood while ignoring the monumental issue of the USA's imperialistic and financially (and morally) ruinous interventionistic foreign policy.
What's trivial to you is not trivial to others. If you like Ron because he says you should not have to pay to kill people who live near oil fields then others will like Ron Paul when he tells them they shouldn't have to pay to kill fetuses. Why is that so hard to understand?
Paul has spent so much time saying things which the Republican base dislikes that I don't blame him for pointing out that liberty is just as good for pro-lifers as it is for everybody else.
As usual, I have no problem with Ron's position here, merely with his emphasis on such a financially trivial matter (and the release WAS supposed to be about federal finances, correct?) to the exclusion of vastly more important and far-reaching issues such as our ongoing and financially ruinous wars.
I would ask Ron here, why beholdest thou the (Planned Parenthood) mote in thy government's right eye, and not the aggressively militaristic and interventionistic beam in thy government's left eye?
Ron has spoken out against the wars hundred of times from a fiscal as well as from a moral standpoint. You know that. Why pretend that he didn't say the wars are breaking us just last week on a national televised debate? There are issues that appeal to other people, you know. Why should Ron hide the benefits of liberty from pro-life voters?
Again, I have no problem with his message --- just the tactic employed here, which was potentially highly divisive and counterproductive in the longer term. The expenses of Planned Parenthood do not amount to a hill of beans in the overall federal budget, and it is correct for us to criticize mention of it in a short press release addressing that subject, particularly inasmuch as it fails to address VASTLY larger financial issues such as the mulitple ongoing wars, and the imperialistic and broadly interventionistic US foreign policy in general.
Ron Paul has talked about ending federal funding for abortion for years and yet he's more popular than ever. You appear to be confused.
True, but his message was not being exposed to, and reaching, such a wide audience as it is today. I would NEVER suggest that he backslide on any position, but again, the mention of Planned Parenthood in a short press release on the growing federal financial imbalance is all but irrelevant, and smacks of the typical pandering to a fervent subset of voters employed by all the other unprincipled and ideologically rudderless candidates.
Spot on.
So you want Ron Paul to stop pandering and only talk about the things you care about?
No, I merely want Ron Paul to talk about those matters that matter the most on a national level --- and it is insulting to even suggest that the paltry costs of Planned Parenthood are among such fundamentally important matters. Face it, its mention in this release was a shameful bit of political pandering and NOTHING more.
No, I merely want Ron Paul to talk about those matters that matter the most on a national level
You sound like a collectivist. Ron Paul talks about the positive effect of liberty on individuals. Some individuals have different priorities than you do. Ron Paul talks to them. I fail to understand why you have a problem with that.
And I fail to see why you refuse to acknowledge that the red herring of throwing mention of Planned Parenthood into a summarized press release on the nation's growing fiscal problem is not just political pandering to a small but fervent subset of voters, pure and simple. Your kneejerk defense of this is what TRULY smacks of collectivism, or of an unhealthy cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul among some of his many followers, for whom no criticism of him or, more to the point, of his national campaign staff is permissible or tolerable.
You scare me, Crockett, and if your narrow and intolerant attitudes expressed here are indicative of your general political beliefs, I suspect that you are NO friend of liberty either.
So now I'm intolerant because I believe that Ron Paul should speak for himself and not you. Brilliant!
by federally defunding it, it automatically goes back to the states.
There is a reason that the Founders placed life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in a particular order. Your pursuit of happiness cannot infringe on my life or liberty. My pursuit liberty can not infringe on your life, but life trumps all. So if the government is to defend life, ALL life then abortion needs to be pushed out to the states and individuals.
Do some research and look at the social, mental ramifications of women of abortion. Liberty to have sex does not trump the right of the unborn's life. Once that life was created your pursuit of happiness and liberty is set aside until you have the child.
If you think it is but a tissue mass, then yuo need to study how the unborn at conception develop defenses against the mother's immune system. It can not be a part of her body since it has a seperate and distinct DNA sequence.
LIFE trumps your liberty and pursuit of happiness....fits with a Constitutionist Liberterian not a Liberal Liberterian, which Ron Paul is not.
You're right. It's called the necessary and objective ordering of rights. You have to have one right to be able to enjoy the other right. If you don't have the right to life, then you really don't have liberty, because someone (say the government, or your mom) can come and take away your life. That was the problem with slavery, the slave owner's claimed their property rights superseded the liberty rights of the slaves.
Spitzer has a very good discussion on this in his first audio segment, it's less than 30 minutes long. He also explains the objective criterion for determining human life. If there is a complete human genetic code (conception) and it's metabolizing (alive), then you you have a live human with all intrinsic rights that pertain.
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=6710&T...
but only for the female, amirite?
Yes
But he may be very popular in history books
As more and more people thank him for their very existance
With this statement about Planned Parenthood, you can stick a fork in Ron Paul.
He's done.
He's said the exact same thing dozens of times. Why is he "done" this time?
We have one side with people saying this issue is so miniscule in nature it doesn't even matter so why did he even bother with it, and you have another side with people like this saying this "miniscule" issue is enough to finish him as a candidate.
Amazzazazazazazazing isn't it?
Seems the confusion has set in.
And it all Paul's choice about how he wanted to present himself on fiscal matters. Sad.
And that's ZakuKommander's choice about how he wanted to present himself with fecal matter. Sad.
So you agree that focusing on PP and abortion as it relates to "restoring fiscal discipline" is a sound position/argument?
And before you go full retard, just so you know, I have supported RP for a very long time.
I believe that it makes sense for Ron Paul to try to win the election by showing potential voters how his philosophy of smaller government can benefit those voters. To do otherwise would be completely insane.
Please explain how not making an effort to convince voters that smaller government is good for all individuals would boost Ron Paul's chances to win this election.
I find it difficult to understand how a long time Ron Paul supporter could object to Ron Paul explaining that liberty is a good thing to as many different people as possible. It's the only way to short circuit the false left-right paradigm.
Personally I just want to use heroin.
LOL. Anyone see that debate?
That was a classic Ron Paul moment. Seems to me that if his proposal to legalize heroin didn't derail his campaign then his proposal to end federal funding for abortions won't derail him either.
I agree there should have been a statement on the war, but I disagree on the abortion assumptions you make in regards to fact that is stating only for tax payer funds being directed for abortions to stop in these tough economic times yada yada... but nothing about outlawing them. Sounds right in line with his typical libertarian line of less government regulation and involvement which the funding/ subsidies for abortions and birth control are.
Thanks for running Ron.
I agree there should have been a statement on the war, but I disagree on the abortion assumptions you make in regards to fact that is stating only for tax payer funds being directed for abortions to stop in these tough economic times yada yada... but nothing about outlawing them. Sounds right in line with his typical libertarian line of less government regulation and involvement which the funding/ subsidies for abortions and birth control are.
Thanks for running Ron.
I agree there should have been a statement on the war, but I disagree on the abortion assumptions you make in regards to fact that is stating only for tax payer funds being directed for abortions to stop in these tough economic times yada yada... but nothing about outlawing them. Sounds right in line with his typical libertarian line of less government regulation and involvement which the funding/ subsidies for abortions and birth control are.
Thanks for running Ron.
self junked little jet lag still sorry folks...kinda good to be back in the states...kinda
I like Ron Paul's straightforward approach, but the "Pro-lifer" pandering to the religious right is where he jumps the shark for me.
All these so-called "Right-to-lifers" when put on the spot regarding their views have zero solutions (other than adoption) for the mother and baby once born. They don't want to spend any money to prevent preggers OR to provide support for the mother/child afterward the birth. Seems to me if the proposal is to take away the options on the one end, there should be support on the other. And what business is it of Ron Paul or any other politician to tell a Woman what she can do with her body? To me this is a worn-out argument. Sort of like when H.W. tried to make flag burning a big issue.
And what business is it of Ron Paul or any other politician to tell a Woman what she can do with her body?
If you don't pay my mortgage are you telling me what I can do with my house? What makes you believe that a woman has a right to have me pay for her abortion? Are you in the habit of paying for the medical benefits of strangers?
do you pay taxes?
Yes. And that's precisely what I've been bitching about in this thread -- being forced to pay for other people's crap when I have good use for my own money to benefit myself, my family, my friends and the needy people who I see but the government does not.
when you begin to bitch more substantially about "being forced to pay for other people's" crapping ON the people in other countries via the global military industrial complex, vs. the pennies to dollars ratio of PP to military expenditure, then I'll take you seriously.
the majority of "libertarian voters for Republican Ron" appear to be white males, and his pandering to Xtian voters doesn't bother you all that much, but maybe a new draft that affects YOU or your male friends, sons, brothers, etc. - maybe that you will consider serious.
I've been protesting against wars since age 6 in 1970. Sorry if that doesn't fit your wildly mistaken preconceived ideas.
Do you drive on roads? Or would you prefer to pave your own?
Private roadways have existed throughout history. Read a book. Surely you don't believe that only people like Anthony Wiener or Sarah Palin can pave a road.
Private roadways, much like private armies, were a proven failure and dissappeared with the passing of time. Sounds like you need to read a history book.
Fewer private roadways exist because the government steals people's money to build roadways (including "Bridges to Nowhere.") The private sector can't compete with the virtual monopoly government exercises on transportation.
Also, government control of transportation allows the TSA and other government thugs to place checkpoints anywhere and everywhere. But that's just another benefit for the big government crowd who love to kick the little guys in the face.
If so, then such has been going on since at least the Roman Empire (they built public roads with taxpayer wealth), if not longer. Seems unrealistic, if not childishly naive to expect to reverse the last 2000 years of history.
Indeed --- that is why I am going to the witch-burning later today, just after I finish beating my slave.
Despite of your high junk-count, i mostly agree. This to me felt not only like a weak statement, but actually a dumb statement, because:
He is willing to leave the decision to the states anyways, and from how i understand it, just wants to stop funding it. A good deal of "pro-choice" people would probably have been okay, if he quickly mentioned just that. Instead, he went on further about how he is pro-live - just causing fear in anyone pro-choice. And how does such a minor budget aspect belong into a statement about big-picture fiscal discipline restoration anyways? Why, he cannot even make a generic statement about budget, without bringing the ideological abortion issue into it. He unnecessarily is alienating people, who would be fine with him otherwise.
I have a lot of respect for him, especially because of his consistency, economic policy, and advocation of non-intervention regarding international affairs. Still, this statement was outright dumb and counterproductive, and if he continues with such stuff, then the reason for him not being elected may not just be dumbness of the masses, but instead his own diplomatic flaws.
So do you believe that pro-lifers (or any other disinterested party) should have to pay for other people's abortions?
I believe that trolls and sophistic fanboys as you, should be junked into oblivion.
Your insults would be more effective if you didn't talk like a fruit.
Papayas and mangos make me so ANGRY!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXLNxgjArW4&feature=fvst
“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.
He is leaving it to the states to decide, which has always been his stance.
I too am disappointed. Apparently taking away a woman's choice (only poor women) is more important than stopping 6 wars. I think he has been advised to carve out the niche, big mistake because it shows his lack of seriousness on the things he can impact. He just called into question my vote.
Taking away womens choice? No that is not what he is doing - RP is taking the Federal Government out of the decision and sending it back to the States, the Women and her doctor to make the choice. He is refusing to fund abortion.
...And have you heard RP speak about his position on overseas military intervention? Ending the wars? Bringing our troops home?
Geez if this statement calls into question your vote, you got a lot of searching ahead of you for a better candidate. Who else wants to stop the wars? Who else wants sound money? Who wants balance budget spending? Who else wants to End the Fed and bnring back free market economics?
You are reading into his position what you hope he means, or what he may have said before, and making an argument for him. I am simply reading the language without adding parole evidence. My point is he cannot change US Supreme court precedent, but as comander in chief he could end our continual murder of folks all over the world. By putting Planned Parenthood in his top four priorities is pure pandering, and suggests he is just as serious about ending the war as Obama. We can't afford to be tricked again.
No, he's repeating what RP has said consistantly for the last 30 years, but just didn't include in this press release.
BTW, you're an asshole.
L E, that is exactly the problem. RP has an extensive body of work out there with his speeches, books and interviews. To resort to "sound bite" analysis and only use that to form one's opinion is like the blind man feeling the elephant's trunk and describing the animal from that alone. Don't be disingenous.
Beware this L.E. character. Remember that interesting GW article... (Props to GW)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/02/government-and-big-business-gamin...
Ron Paul's positions have been stated and restated for 30 years. There are YouTubes from the 80's and it's him with dark hair saying the same damn things he's saying now. His voting record proves he walks the talk. If you think that Obama, or Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Pawlenty, Perry or Romney are more trustworthy..then you're a couple fries short of a Happy Meal. We cannot afford to get fooled again, indeed!
I too am disappointed. Apparently taking away a woman's choice (only poor women) is more important than stopping 6 wars.
You are free to set up a charitable foundation to provide abortions for poor women. Why don't you do that instead of saying that people who do not wish to pay for someone else's abortions are bad? Suppose that I expected you to pay for every charity which I support including the ones with which you disagree?
And Ron will stop the wars, too. He said so hundreds of times and as recently as last week's debate. Do you insist that Ron talk only about war 24/7? Do you insist that Ron speak only of how liberty will enrich your life but not the lives of other people with other hopes and other dreams?
FU...so sick of you Pro Life people....telling the rest of us how we all should live our lives based on your religion............
I'm an atheist who doesn't want to pay for your stuff. Oh, the humanity!
dude, you (indirectly) pay for other people's "stuff" every day, so get over yourself. . .
like banker's bonuses, MASSIVE war toys debts, and subsequent after care for those sent to fight the banker's wars, and food stamps and mortgage bailouts, huge numbers of proles working in government, and local schools that fail to teach - I could go on virtually all night, but basically, you're making excuses for just wanting YOUR dude in office - well, I hope he wins and then everyone can sit around for ANOTHER four years shaking their heads about "how could he betray us?" - of course, this whole mess of a nationstate will be completely finished before any of these fairytales come to pass. . .
I love Ron Paul but he's not "my dude." As an anarchist, I'm my own dude.
Now you can go back to cheering for big government and it's quest to kill Muslims and bankrupt America.
point out the post where I've EVER done that - are you high?
or just looking to spam the thread with how radical you are, you voter you!
If you support the welfare state then you also support the warfare state. It's the same thing.
dude, you're the voter, not me.
I don't support any state, nor any politicians who live off the state - my sole agenda here is female body sovereignty, the right for females to decide what happens to their bodies without state interference, particularly religious beliefs embedded in state laws, and the politicians who manipulate voters towards those ends. . . and the past has shown that most laws are stealth, incremental, inching their way towards the goal(s) - so as far as I'm concerned, the Republican Ron Paul has shown his hand.
now get in your *last word* post. . .
"Last word" ... from him? ... LOLOLOL ... He's made over 60 posts in this one thread already!! ... spouting his statist nonsense! Enuf, already......
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe -- "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have.
But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at one no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
--Thoreau, Henry David . Civil Disobedience
I don't support any state, nor any politicians who live off the state - my sole agenda here is female body sovereignty, the right for females to decide what happens to their bodies without state interference, particularly religious beliefs embedded in state laws, and the politicians who manipulate voters towards those ends. . .
If you don't support the state in any way why are you so angry about the possiblity of a cut in federal funding for abortion? You do realize that the federal government is the state, don't you?
End
The
Fed
(ETF)
I'm still waiting for him to even ask a challenging question to the Fed. He'll never end it. Today, he is officially a pawn.
I'm waiting for you to end the Fed.
Paul seems more caught up with Planned Parenthood than the Bernanke.
He makes too much sense to get elected.
Cliche... We (collectively) get the goventment we deserve.
Sometimes the reasons cliches come into existance is an underlying truth.
You must be kidding?!?
The only thing Dr. Paul has going for him is that he is a decent man, whose Christian ethics and morals makes him an valid alternative when compared to sociopaths that have -0- honor and only want to gain power & wealth via the (D) & (R) Free Shit Empire™...
This guy has -0- common sense, otherwise he would have dropped his religious zealotry, been elected in 2008, and actually accomplished something by now!
How can anyone take him seriously now?
Yep like all those other Christian wackos that founded this country. You are correct in stating someone is way off base.
Most of the Founding Fathers (Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine et al.), were DEISTS.
And this country was established under NATURAL LAW.
Try studying up before you try to converse on that which you don't understand next time...
Who gives natural law. It is generally believed at this point that many of the founding fathers where Deists. It is also generally believed in this country that we can sustain our current financial trajectory. Coincidence? Perhaps before you continue to choose to belive what you say you do it may be worth your while to consider looking at the family bibles for ALL of the men you mentioned. Perhaps you can help me reconcile your point of view with the New Testament in all of their bibles. Generally people believe what you do. And generally people have problem accepting that Ben Franklin spent the amount of time in French brothels that his own memoirs recall. Generally.
Listen, I don't care what religion you bow down to, neither did the Founding Fathers.
Natural Law is a legal definition that establish the sovereignty of the individual, from which the Democratic Republic was established and ALL of our laws derived.
All things are permissable as long as you don't deprive the Natural Rights of another individual.
That the USofA was at one time a unified culture based mostly on Christian morals and ethics does not escape me, and I see that as a superior condition to that which we are presently in!
Unfortunately, Natural Law and the US Constitution was suspened by Emergency Powers by FDR in 1933, and to this day that is the case.
Also, Christianity is no longer the predominant culture, and there's probably -0- chance it will ever be again...
But, a US President can on his own restore Natural Law, by rescinding Emergency Powers!
There is hope, however grim The Trend in place appears, but it would require a Common Sense Patriot, elected as US President, to make it happen.
I'm not holding my breath...
I am assuming your first sentence is the foundation of the rest of your statement. If that is true then
("neither did the founding fathers...." care about what religion to bow down to... ) * -1 = When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
In which case I can ignore everything else you just said because you invalidated yourself.
I get your point and I understand what you are choosing to believe. And I have no problem with that. But let us not confuse your personal viewpoint with the facts.
You wouldn't know that facts if it hit you upside the head.
You're not even close...
Next time spend several months (or years in my case) investigating the historical record before you claim to know the difference between personal viewpoint and the facts!
I know you are talking.. or typing... I assume neurons are firing... I read words... but I don"t see any back for the point you are trying to make other than your opinion. Help me help you.
What, are you 12?
Or perhaps a .GOV psycho-babble therapist?
Are you even a US citizen?
Thank you kind sir.
You will know that you have won the argument when they stop attacking your argument and being to attack your character. Socrates.
Poor reasoning. It is generally believed that the sun is the center of the solar system by those who generally believe that we can sustain our current financial trajectory. Coincidence? LOL.
Nature's god. Read below.
Uhm.... the apostrophe means that nature is possessive.
Nature's God. Also known as God. as in.... One nation under.. by their creator.. In God we trust. Etc.
Natural law simply embodies the obvious fact that man, by nature, must be free just as he must eat and sleep. God doesn't have anything to do with it as far as I'm concerned. But please feel free to praise the Lord as long as you remember to pass the ammunition.
No. Known as Nature's god. Not known as god.
And the great debate 100 years before the constitution was whether Adam, yes the created man, was granted king like tyranical powers by the Creator.
Or was he a man just like the rest of us --- not totaly depraved capable of sin and above all --- reason.
John Locke won the debate
And the Founders read John Locke and Viola we got a constitution
+100 to Quixotic_Not
Have not read Liberty Defined yet, but here is the list of the titles of his other books.
End the Fed (2009)
The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008)
Extensively argues for government as established under Natural Law.
The Pillars of Prosperity (2008)
A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce and Honest Friendship (2007)
Freedom Under Siege: The US Constitution After 200 Years (1987)
Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View (1984)
The Case for Gold (1982)
Gold, Peace, and Prosperity: The Birth of a New Currency (1981)
And Zero hedge commentors are lambasting him because he failed to mention something in one press release?
He's by far the most, if not only, honest politician (oxymoron?). But you are absolutely right - he needs to drop that religious shit. It has no place in politics and doesn't fit well with his libertarian ethos.
You misunderstand the origin of roots of liberty then my friend. Perhaps a re-read is in order... When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Ditto So Close,
I am sure some of the founders were deists, a deist is not an aethist though. Madison founded the Bill of Rights on Biblical principles throughout the old and new testments. Washington's speeches are complete with Biblical and chirstian references
And too our aethist friend I have studied it, at length, in depth, chapter and verse.
Believe what you will, your freedoms are endowed not by man but by your creator. Sorry to say there is only one Creator God. A pet rock, Twisted willow tree or Allah are not creators.
You should be happy I agree upon the theory that humans were created.
Expecting me to agree upon the monotheistic singularity aka god is not only selfish, but it violates Freedom of Religion.
Besides, since it appears that Evolutionists have the .GOV edict to teach that humans are nothing but advanced primates, and thus non-spiritual animals, the whole conversation is null & void about the superiority of your god complex until such time that the .GOV stops treating us like chattel.
So keep voting for your favorite duopolistic team, keep being fleeced by superior farm animals, and keep living the dream.
QN Out!
I do not expect you to believe anything. I do not hold you to a standard that I choose freely for myself. I ask only that if you wish to discuss on what basis of belief this country was founded on you bring me facts.
You should be the one providing evidences that Nature's god is somehow linked with the christian god. Even using the Bible, good luck with that.
I'd argue the opposite. Just the other day somebody was defending Weiner to me with the old "what he does in his private life..." bullshit. Basically, the human piece of shit (Weiner) is a pervert, consorting with underage children, while married, who when cornered lies and tries to destroy his critics rather than fess up. He only abandoned his lie when threatened with an FBI investigation which would have likely surfaced worse offenses. Even then he did not honestly take responsibility but instead played the mental illness card.
Can you honestly say that a personality like that can be suddenly turned off in his professional life? Also, wouldn't you prefer someone who lives and votes by some sort of moral code--even if it is not exactly your own?
Perhaps RP's religious beliefs will, at some point, create friction with purist libertarians. I welcome the day when that is our biggest concern. He is not a perfect libertarian. Still, I believe that he has shown more spine and conscience than our other "representatives" put together. RP also offers the transparency to honestly engage him in disagreement by doing what he promises rather than resorting to back-peddling on his pledges.
Even if I don’t agree with every point he makes, I put RP in a separate species from most of the Washington scum.
He is controlled opposition. He's been in the game for 30+ years. He'll never get elected President.
If he truly wanted to End the Fed, he'd also want to repudiate the odious debt. Any attempt at austerity and 'paying back the debt' at this point is actually a gift to the bankers.
No. He is Ron Paul. He would say we signed up for it. We will pay it back. But we will not walk that path again.
I didn't sign up for it, and I certainly am not paying it back. F*ck that.
You have a really good point! I assume what you just said efectively sums up the WHOLE GREEK PROTEST MOVEMENT! :-)
We had a choice when we got our SS card. We were too clueless what it really meant.
Ron Paul is about the only guy in politics that has the guts to do anything. Since he will go after the FED, his vice presidential choice becomes very important...
here's 2 minutes of reality, courtesy of dr. ron paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUMeYf6w32c
'Ron Paul is about the only guy in politics that has the guts to do anything'
It seems to me that there are plenty of people doing lots in politics today, it is just that they aren't doing what you want them to...
dp
Here is a consolidated video of his last debate.
http://dont-tread-on.me/ron-paul-from-last-nights-debate/
He's missed the point; intentionally, I suppose to seek votes, but he's raised two other issues over and over and over.
End the FED. End the Empire.
The Four Points specified here are almost trivial in comparison. These four points won't matter if you don't end the empire and the FED.
+1!
Not only that, these are the divide and conquer issues that people are used to fighting over, so he loses the opportunity to reach out beyond the biases in order to promote the real solutions to the real problems created by "The Fed" and its operations.
I talk politics with very few, and those with whom I do, I find that I always respond to points by introducing the well-known idea of "follow the money." Now, it doesn't sink in at first, as they've already been ingrained with beliefs about what the primary problem is, and consider monetary issues to be secondary (or dismissed as greed, or just don't understand what money even is). After a few iterations though, it always comes back to money, and every time I hammer home the point that it is the unbridled creation of credit (mostly securitized to hedge risk from the issuer) that allows any logical business construct to be undermined with those who have access to money without having to earn it first. It is this lack of risk (and the responsibility required to manage it) that creates [whatever problem we're discussing]. So in the end, governments create the very moral hazard they were allegedly supposed to prevent. In this case with the creation of The Fed.
If the person still doesn't get it, I just have to ask them one final question, "Do you believe counterfeiting to be a good, or a bad thing for society?" I've never had an incorrect answer on that question. It seems people aren't so dumb after all, as much as they are apathetic. (not that you can blame them, it's a coping strategy)
+1
Very simply put. Follow the money, and you will usually find the root of the problem. When we teach American Political History, it always starts and ends with Presidents. I think if we took a look at their choices for Secretary of the Treasury, we will find out a lot more. How about Reagan = Regan. That is where this crisis began in my opinion. Follow the money from there.
Trivial points are what the masses latch on to, like a breastfeeding infant latching on to its mother. The religious right is what drives the republican ticket as a whole anyway, so why not address them. State issues? What the funk is that? Don't kill babies? Grandma with her republican card can vote for that.
From my short 33 years on this earth I have found that politicians simply need to focus a significant portion of their political capital on issues that will, intentionally or not, not have any significant policy shift once that politician is actually in office. Those issues have to grab the attention of the Limbaugh and Olberman crowds from a "value-based perspective" regardless of the actual change of legislative verbiage of these issues after the winning of the election.
Keep in mind, I do believe Ron Paul would follow through on this pledge regadless.
Talking to Joe Six Pack about fiat currencies or the fact that capital has to come from savings is akin to discussing the significance of rituals behind monks in Tibet. First off, they won't understand what the hell is being said. Secondly, the masses don't give a shit about the theft since they don't understand it.
Talk about killing babies, or not, will at least up his credentials on the population that decides these elections from the repulican old guard.
Just my two cents, but I just Dick Head.
The founding fathers embraced Age of Reason and Enlightenment principles, not the intentional dumbing down of political platforms and debate to the level of the least comprehending, and deliberate pandering to the most feeble minded of citizenry with prepackaged and predigested morsels of pablum. Such is roughly equivalent to letting 3 year olds choose what you eat for the next 4 years (mmm, paste is good).
No wonders we have the pathetic excuse for good governance we currently enjoy.
Well I like 1, 3, and esp #4 ( I will be the first President to shrink the size of the Federal Register )
ditto
interesting that he puts the abortion issue front and center. i wouldve thought the federal reserve, the very institution he blames for america's financial decline, would be a bit more important to him during these precarious economic times.
These are the things he can do ALONE.
He needs congress to repeal the FED act, he can´t do that.
The Abortion issue is targeting social conservatives. I don´t care about this.
It´s just showing that he is running to win, not to educate as last time.
Were he running to win he would hire a campaign manager who knows the difference between WAVE and WAIVE.
He cant bring the troops home himself either, all he can do is veto the spending which allow them to stay there. The next president will need the senate and house or he won't be able to do much except veto spending bills
he was a practicing gynaecologist so life means something to him.
exactly ,,thank you
alx
At least he is consistent on protecting life. Many on the Right are anti-abortion and pro-war, while the Left is anti-war and pro-abortion. Both sides just talking out their asses, farting out their pie-holes..
read his book "the Revolution".
The chapter on abortion he talks about his time as an intern when he sat in on a live abortion when a two pound fetus was removed from the women taken crying and breathing then thrown into a bucket. He described it as a dramatic experience that played a large part in shaping his views on the issue.
pppppplease
im gonna cry..
is he against napalm too? let mr paul talk to any
Vietnam veteran how did it feel TO BURN DOZENS OF PEOPLE IN ONE SCOOP? let mr paul ask those people what was the 'scent' over there in couple days?
is he against bombs too? let mr paul talk to USA military guys in Afganistan how does it feel to bomb some innocent people and have 15, 20 50 of them to die in one scoop? i wonder
what a hypocrite, not wonder he never achived anything, just blubbering endlessly on TV
alx
Are you fucking kidding me? Dr. Paul is THE MOST outspoken critics of the wars. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul398.html
Perhaps you haven't heard his voice over the static of the Main Stream Media's programming or you pay per blog posting job is running out of memes to pass around.
the military people I talk to all say killing like that feels like "the greatest rush ever"
True, trouble is they don't differentiate between killing the "enemy" in the war zone, or watching our young die by sending them into senseless war
those that have experienced it tend to see it for the horror it is....
how about the women in Iraq and Afghanistan (and other places) who have been told not to get pregnant because their babies were born so unbelieveably deformed from the chemical soup used on those countries in our OIL and OPIUM commodity wars?
can we spare a tear for them while we're at it?
Those issues, unfortunately, will go his backburner I'm afraid and sorry to say. Because I like the guy but he has very clearly outlined his piorities
Yes it seems his priorities are different than yours. Ponder the implications.
Thank you Tyler for posting this!
Wow.
Besides of what he says, he should have added that he will end all wars as the commander in chief!
All fine and dandy, think the guy would be great but he's too short and too old to ever be elected president. That's just the way it works folks.
Reagan was 69 years 349 days old when he was elected, so that would make Ron Paul just 5 years older.
Ron Paul would be 77 on inauguration day. That's 8 years older than the oldest ever elected.
Ron Paul: August 20th, 1935
Junk me if you like but you know in your hearts I'm right, sad as it is.
It's sad that Dr. Paul is too old, but he was never electable in the first place to POTUS.
IMHO, Perot was the last chance to turn the USS Titanic around before course was irreversible...
Collapse is on the way, and I don't give the USofA two bits chance to survive it intact.
apparently age has nothing to do with corruption. Lets just keep Obama in because age is so important
ahhh, perhaps he hopes to pave the way for Rand, who also holds these religious views on behalf of his voting class - amrka appears to like electing family of late. . . the dynasty gene.
Ben Franklin was 81 years old when he was elected president of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania.
He must run on a 3rd party ticket the Republicans will never elect him, and this is the last presidential race he can enter, what's to loose ?
Just another horse in the race to be crowned CEO of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA corporation.
Another actor on the stage.
Junk and run.
Probably a card carrying officer of the CORPORATION.
Or maybe you simply didn't present any evidence of what you say.
sorry doublepost
Ron Paul is the only candidate I will vote for.
In 1963 someone died because he went against the TPTB
Let's find out how long can Ron Paul last IF he is elected.