This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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.”
»
- 14706 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
He does not need to pander to his base. His base will elect him even if he moves slightly to attract other voters. Why 'his guys" can't see this I don't know. This is a republican primary. Going after PP is fine and will win over republicans. We just need to get him into debated against Obama, where he will wipe the floor. Our country is too stupid to elect him anyways, so it doesn't matter.
Exactly my thoughts.
It´s about winning "likely republican voters". But it could have been done better.
Anyone doubting Ron Paul´s intentions should check his voting record: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296
It's a political campaign guys.
1. The "no federal tax dollars to Planned Parenthood to perform abortions" is a straw man argument...federal law already prohibits the funding of any organization with tax dollars to perform abortions. Just base pandering to drag that up.
2. RP has voiced that he finds it objectionable that pro-life Americans see their tax dollars go to fund abortions. I would have liked to hear similar voiced indignation regarding anti-war Americans seeing their tax dollars used to fund imperial military adventures.
3. While I would have liked to hear RP go on record (again) opposing military adventurism and would welcome a statement to that effect, to his credit he has, (along with Kucinich and nine other congressman), filed a lawsuit in Federal Court to force the Obama administration to cease it's involvement in Libya.
4. All in all, imho a better alternative to Romney (a guy who reminds you of the prick that fired your dad at his last job) or the twisted sisters (Palin & Bachmann).
<caveat> I also voted for Nader in 2000 so you can blame eight years of those assholes Bush & Cheyney on me.
Tax dollars go to PP. PP provides abortion.
Not so. I refer you to the Hyde Amendment. Besides, does any one believe that PP hands out "vouchers" redeemable at your local abortionist or provides "in house" abortion services? C'mon now, if that were the case it would be the lead story at Faux news!
I have news for you....the federal government may have laws that prevent tax payer funded abortions, but Planned parenthood does provide those services. THey just choose to redirect the funds recieved from the taxpayer into other services. A little accounting trickery.
Very disappointed that Ron Paul felt the need to go there on a womens right to choose, and providing needed family planning services to women in the US.
I don't understand yanks obsession with these issues.
It seems especially contradictory to me to refuse to provide family planning to poor women. 15 million kids living in poverty in the US isn't enough?
I agree with Ron Paul on so much of his economic policy. This would make me think twice about voting for him.
As for disinformation about planned parenthood here is correct info:
It is against federal law for U.S. taxpayer dollars to be used for abortions except in certain emergency situations, like the life of the mother.
The organization itself, provides family planning in its mix of services. But a large percent of the health care it provides is preventive screening services like those for breast and cervical cancers.
"I don't understand yanks obsession with these issues." What is not to understand? This nation has permitted the slaughter of over 50 MILLION lives since Roe v. Wade. That's 50 MILLION. All deaths, combined, in WWII may or may not have reached 50 MILLION. Hitler slaughtered 6 million Jews because he hated Jews. Americans have slaughtered 50 million because of inconvenience. Stalin slaughtered 20 million or more through starvation. Americans have slaughtered 50 million through abortion. The obsession? If we cannot protect the most innocent human lives in our "civilization," how can we protect any? It is a national disgrace that we have allowed this. It is just further shame that we FORCE people to pay for it.
My cogent response is, "is there some sort of human shortage I haven't heard about"? Don't confuse an undifferentiated mass of cells with a fully developed human being.
did you miss the part in lizzy's post where she pointed to 15million children already born living in poverty?
when you and your constituency take on board the FACT of childhood poverty in amrka, then see how much time and money you have left over to deal with the "50 million" never born.
Would you respect my right to chose to kill my 2 year old baby? Why? It's my baby and my choice. Right?
I can't speak for Dr. Paul, but I wonder if this is Marketing 101? Simply, courting voters. Most 'conservatives' have the nut sack to go on record for two of those four goals.
Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in America (more than 324,000 a year) and is the largest recipient of federal funds under Title X.
Last year alone, according to PP’s annual report, it received nearly $350,000,000 from government grants and contracts. According to LifeNews.com, Planned Parenthood has increased its share of the abortion industry to 27.6 percent of all abortions done annually.
The organization DefundPlannedParenthood.org reports that Planned Parenthood has received some $3.9 billion in federal funds since 1987.
In a $200,000 ad buy by PP to pressure a recent House vote, says LifeNews, “The ad says Planned Parenthood has done 500,000 HIV tests — but it came under fire recently for suggesting that a man with an STD give blood.”
The bottom line: American taxpayers are funding abortions.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/02/28/planned-parenthood-spending-200k-on-ads-for-taxpayer-funding/
http://biggovernment.com/wthuston/2011/01/31/planned-parenthood-funding-a-defacto-abortion-tax-on-america/
++
he's got my vote.
Tyler;
I respectfully request that you forego any more articles about Dr. Paul and his priorities. They bring out the most ignorant side of some ZHers.
I don't watch the corporate, propaganda on cnn, msnbc and fox, so now you are suggesting that alternative news sources not report the news because you don't like some of the posts? Really?
First of all, Tyler Durden copies and pastes snippets. He did not hear Dr. Paul speak at length this weekend, as did I. Dr. Paul has articulated consistent reasons why abortion is a destructive economic variable. Some posters at ZH wish to marginalize any others that express our violent disgust at the very thought of abortion, legal or otherwise.
Abortion is an existential crime, not just one of temporal or national legality. The constitutional framers did not address the issue of personhood re: innocent pre-born, because it didn't even occur to them that their constitutional creation would be so misused as to justify 'legality' of so horrible an act. Abortion is part and parcel to the worship of the idol Mammon, also called Molech and Baal in ancient paganism. It is a denial of the Holy Spirit of God, whose charity allows us to be made in His image.
Feel free to junk me, not because I write the truth here, but because I will reveal my true name, which is CreoleGenius. I DARE all of the economic scribblers and scoffers who won't vote for Dr. Paul, to come down here to Louisiana and face me, in person, with your damned, utilitarian theories, including: not electable, too right-wing extreme, too old, grouchy, skinny, whatever. If you are too cowardly to try a vote for Austrian economics, you won't have the liberty or the FRNs to travel here so that I can punch you in the nose.
dude, that's YOUR imaginary friend - not mine - keep it out of female body sovereignty, okay?
robert welch, the ron paul of the 50's. has anything changed?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZU0c8DAIU4
controlled opposition then as it is now....same game then as now.
Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws
Mayer Amschel Rothschild
again, unless we control our own money we cannot control our own government. when are people going to understand this concept? political discussions are pointless unless you control your won money systems.
As if the uSA (or the world) needed 50 million more souls over the past X years.
Population increase is the single most devestating item we all face and have to face up to. The world has finite resources and should be inhabited by a (smaller) finite number of people.
You are EVIL.
naw, population is not a problem nor was it ever. we were just told that in order for the UN to implement its zero population policies. abortion is just part and parcel of this policy. they want to kill a lot of people. by having a mother kill her own offspring, is one of the ways they do this. it is sick and it is wrong. the final solution is to kill most of the world population because when the jewish world order comes into being, they will not need that many goy slaves to service their lands.
So why havent you left?
Lots of retarded comments here.
This is just one press release among the tons of speeches, debates, clips, articles that Ron Paul has issued over the years. We know this man, we know he his the last hope. And some here are ready to dump him because of one bad press release?
Also remember Operation Valkyrie. The guys knew that their shot at overthrowing the regime was if they could work from the inside. IT'S THE SAME HERE, bitches. Let RP play the game now and maybe he has a shot come November 2012. Then he can change things.
Some comments above show the political IQ of a teenager burning a flag in protest and hoping that he's changing the world doing it. It ain't like that in the matrix.
+ 2012
Your nick says it all :-)
spoken like a true blue paulista. what bullshit.
Ok I know the ZH disciples have been known to be pessimistic, but geez? Politics is not about taking the moral high ground! ZH is for that right? Paul is simply getting his agenda on the hot Blondie "beep beep" fox news over and over.
I can already hear the typical republicans' reaction
"Ron Paul stands up against abortion!!! WHoa, I thought he was morally liberal crazy!!!! And he wants to cut the budget! Whoa!! and repeal OBamacare! Whoa! AND HE'S FROM TEXAS! I'm going to get my baby circumcised with his initials! Hook em horns!" (san fran story shoutout)
I'm trying to see the forest through the trees on this one. i.e.
Ron Paul = 0.X multiplied by (Fed Reserve Power)
Where X is the integer of public hysteria 6 months into office.
Again - Forest, not trees.
More favorable regulation for US businesses-- how much more favorable can you get when they run this fucking country?
Ok I know the ZH disciples have been known to be pessimistic, but geez? Politics is not about taking the moral high ground! ZH is for that right? Paul is simply getting his agenda on the hot Blondie "beep beep" fox news over and over.
I can already hear the typical republicans' reaction
"Ron Paul stands up against abortion!!! WHoa, I thought he was morally liberal crazy!!!! And he wants to cut the budget! Whoa!! and repeal OBamacare! Whoa! AND HE'S FROM TEXAS! I'm going to get my baby circumcised with his initials! Hook em horns!" (san fran story shoutout)
I'm trying to see the forest through the trees on this one. i.e.
Ron Paul = 0.X multiplied by (Fed Reserve Power)
Where X is the integer of public hysteria 6 months into office.
Again - Forest, not trees.
Abortion is not family planning. It is birth control for the lazy. And screw you if you think I should have to pay for it out of our treasury. Ron Paul is exactly right, no federal funding for any of this social(ist) crap. And I won't even vote for him, unless he's up against Fauxbama.
uh....who else would he be up against? You really don't think Obama is going to be challenged in the dem primaries do you?
Who cares? It it saves welfare/prison/unemployment funds in the future its a good investment. PP is one of few organizations to which I've given funds. We need more family planning and abortions, not less. As my friend used to joke, abortion up to age 10! Watch The Jerry Singer Show some time if you doubt the benefits of contraception! Nice to laugh at the left half of the IQ curve. Its like being an NRA member and very pro-gun (like me) and going to your first gun show-you certainly will have second thoughts about the wisdom of coupling morons with guns.
Hello?
ZH?
Is abortion really so divisive?
???
...clueless European...
For lefty fucktards, yes it is.
Ron Paul is still a politician that sees the world through monetarism. (so he's inherently wrong!)
Is he better than the other fucktards on the R/D/T bandwagon? In some ways, probably, but that doesn't mean he's the correct choice.
Remember Austrian is the endgame for Keynesian. One side prints, the other side forces the pay off.
Two sides of the monetarism coin (well there are others, but that's the gist)
If Ron Paul were truly the patriot everyone claims him to be, he'd be for CANCELLING the fraud. Not cutting budgets to PAY IT OFF! (seriously it's not a hard concept, and people that let Ron Paul get away with it are just the same as Bush/NerObama fucktards...call him out on it)
Instead he talks about 'balanced budgets' as if that really means anything. Oh fiscal discipline is important, but there are times that when a system is so fucked up, you can't just hit the off switch after 100 years of Fed fuckups. There are times when you need to increase spending on things. Just is. Fusion, mag-lev, all the thigns we need won't be done under a Ron Paul presidency, so is he really the answer? Not on THOSE important aspects.
One side says print
One side (including Ron Paul) says CUT.
The key is...why are people saying print or cut? Debt
Is this debt legitimate? NOPE.
So cancel it. Legally. With Glass-Steagall
Otherwise when you force people to pay off FRAUD, through CUTS, then are you really any better than a bankster? Not on THIS account.
Ending the fed? Sure
Getting out of the wars? Sure
I can agree with him on those and a few other ones.
Getting climate crap out of the EPA? Sure. Do we need an EPA? Yep, when it's free of the fascist green agenda, to a body that actually protects people with credible regulations. Like no industrial waste in groundwater type regulation. Or toxic chemical plants spewing shit right next to a school, etc.
Fucked up regulations, and the repeal of regulations are one of the reason we got here. Oh I'm sure there is SOME stuff to cut, but I don't think Ron Paul knows what they are (actually I KNOW he wouldn't). Some sure, but most will be the same bullshit type regulations cuts, that say Glass-Steagall repeal was the type of. There ARE some regulations that actually worked. Glass-STeagall is a perfect example.
Just because what you are cutting is 'regulations' (there's that generic all-bundled together term) doesn't mean what you are cutting should be cut.
We need both MORE regulations in some areas, and LESS regulations in other. Someone who only wants to cut, is just an extreme idiot that will get it wrong on that account.
We don't need ANOTHER monetarist in office. We need to END moentarism. Ron Paul IS A MONETARIST. No way around it. People are still backing the wrong horse.
What we need is a candidate who understands the above, and well Ron Paul isn't that.
Seriously Abortion shit is in his top 4? What a fucking retard. With the problems we're having, abortion shouldn't even be spoken of until we get the first 1000 things done.
So Ron Paul's top four
1. Pay off the fraud
2. Stop abortion funding
3. Stop Obamacare (sure sounds good, but what are you going to replace it with? nothing? oh so basically a bad plan is better than a worse plan?)
4. Stop regulation (which is what we've done for 40 years including removing that big barrier to banksters namely Glass-Steagall)
Is that grass really greener, or are his supporters just viewing things through a green colored lens? Green colored lens. Without a doubt.
He has 1000 things he can say, and his top four are those of a lunatic?
Why isn't End the Fed #1, since that is what he's most loved for? I mean Kennedy started issuing money outside the fed, so it isn't like he couldn't try it himself.
So much wrong with Paul that we still don't even know about. But I'm sure we'd find out shortly after elected.
Glass-Steagall, don't cut to pay off for fraud.
Ron Paul, right about a few things, dead wrong about most. SO staus quo. Just different variables.
End the Fed and Wars would be great, but you need some real leadership besides those points, and Austrian Ron Paul, is still only a flawed monetarist fooling people that don't realize it.
Reality sucks sometimes, and America needs FAR BETTER and WISER than Monetarist Paul.
You see that? There's an opening for someone to take the best of Paul, with the best of the other side, and ride home to victory. Will anyone take that opening held by the majority of Americans? Or will we play pretend that Ron Paul's monetarist ideas are just what the doctor ordered?
Will Ron Paul...enact Glass-STeagall? Fund Nasa? Mag-Lev? Fusion? Healthcare? Desalinization? Science (not psuedo science)? Keep dreaming...and without those things, will anything really change? Nope. (and anyone claiming we don't need this or private business will do it, is a fucking idiot...guaranteed)
So elect Ron Paul so he can pay off the banksters with a pound of flesh? Just like the Austrian School's dogma was created to do. To get people to believe they were 'balancing their budget', when really they were paying off banksters. This American, ain't buying Hapsburg bullshit. Apparently many haven't figured this out.
Ending the fed isn't just confined to Ron 'austrian monetarist' Paul. Remember the tenants of our founding fathers was not that of an Austrian monetarist. Those were the tenants of the TYPE of who we BEAT! Better relook at that patriot angle, since econoimcally he isn't anything like our founding fathers who created the American (Hamiltonian) Credit System. That is founding father shit. NOT the Austrian school of monetarism. American Credit System is not Ron Paul's economic philosophy, so HE should listen to himself and go back to what our founding fathers did. Just about a little thing, our econoimcs. Nothing big.
No more bullshit, and Ron Paul is running on a whole lot of it, while promising only a few important things, and apparently they aren't even in his top 4.
GLass-Steagall, and fuck Obama and any of that side's Keynesian dipshits. We don't want ANY monetarism, because America is ANTI-MONETARIST. That's reality. Someone clue in Ron Paul and his blind supporters to it. Don't be another form of bush-tards or obama-tards. Force Ron to either CHANGE himself, or tell the truth and allow you to change away from him, and back someone who really 'get's it'. End the fed. End the wars. Somewhere out there is a potential candidate that understands this, and THEY should get your support, not Ron Paul.
First of all, Tyler Durden copies and pastes snippets. He did not hear Dr. Paul speak at length this weekend, as did I. Dr. Paul has articulated consistent reasons why abortion is a destructive economic variable. Some posters at ZH wish to marginalize any others that express our violent disgust at the very thought of abortion, legal or otherwise.
Abortion is an existential crime, not just one of temporal or national legality. The constitutional framers did not address the issue of personhood re: innocent pre-born, because it didn't even occur to them that their constitutional creation would be so misused as to justify 'legality' of so horrible an act. Abortion is part and parcel to the worship of the idol Mammon, also called Molech and Baal in ancient paganism. It is a denial of the Holy Spirit of God, whose charity allows us to be made in His image.
Feel free to junk me, not because I write the truth here, but because I will reveal my true name, which is CreoleGenius. I DARE all of the economic scribblers and scoffers who won't vote for Dr. Paul, to come down here to Louisiana and face me, in person, with your damned, utilitarian theories, including: not electable, too right-wing extreme, too old, grouchy, skinny, whatever. If you are too cowardly to try a vote for Austrian economics, you won't have the liberty or the FRNs to travel here so that I can punch you in the nose.
Abortion is not murder. Why? Because charges of murder or assault only apply to actions taken against real, actual, productive sentient beings.
Do you want to understand this issue? Then listen up, since I've never heard anyone state the answer correctly before (though I assume many understand it). Here goes.
Assume some aliens land. Assume they are extremely smart, extremely thoughtful, extremely productive, extremely benevolent... all around kind, generous, wonderful beings. Got that?
But if you cook them... wow! They taste better than roast chicken (or choose your favorite dish). So our scientists ask for a bit of their skin and blood so they can run tests. Their findings... the aliens do not have human DNA. Hell, their DNA is even further from human DNA than... oh, let's say "chicken" for example.
So, what's the deal? Anyone can ethically kill them? That is the pro-life position. Any protection ethics provides only applies to actions taken upon human DNA... even if that DNA is only a clump of 64 cells.
Well, then it is open season on the aliens! Well, it is for religious conservatives anyway. Fire up the barbecue Mildred, we're heading out to catch us some aliens for dinner tonight!
Capture them. Lock them up in cages, breed herds of them. Inject them full of chemicals to increase growth rate. Torture them. Kill them. According to pro-lifers they deserve ZERO consideration, ZERO respect, ZERO rights, nothing. Because the one and only measure of "murder" (or assault, or any other crime) is whether an action has been taken against human DNA. Period. That is their position.
I hope everyone finds this notion appalling. Here are aliens that could literally liberate mankind from disease, from famine, from constraint to this one planet, to so many limitations and problems. And the religious conservative position? We should capture them, cage them, inject them, abuse them, kill them, eat them... and relish the experience. If god wanted to protect aliens, he would have put them in the bible and given them human DNA. Sheesh!
I'm sure the aliens will appreciate this amazing "enlightened species" they happened upon, huh?
Oh, what? Did I hear a few anti-abortion advocates say, "we shouldn't treat them this way"? Gee, I hope you believe that, but be careful, because you're about to lose your favorite argument.
We should treat them with respect... why? Perhaps because they are sentient beings? Gee, what about your argument that "human DNA is the standard" of ethical action? Whoops, now you're caught... those few of you who even bother to think about the significance of your positions.
Here is the other half of the mistake. On the basis of the religious right anti-abortion argument, we must arrest all non-quadriplegic humans for murder... and put them to death (as these conservatives demand for murderers). Why? Well, because according to their theory, a "potential is the same as a real". That's right. They claim a "clump of 2 or 4 or 8 cells is a potential human being", and "therefore we are forced to apply all the same ethics to that clump as any fully grown, self-sufficient, sentient human being". That is their position and argument.
But if we must treat "a potential as equivalent to a real", then every non-quadriplegic human being is in fact a potential murderer, and therefore must be treated the same as a real, actual murderer. They must be arrested and executed. No need for trial, for there is no possible defense against what you might potentially do someday... unless you are a full-bore quadriplegic and can't take any actions whatsoever.
This is the nature of psychopaths and sociopaths who are not satisfied to be left free to make their own choices. Whoops, can't have that! For that is the "pro-choice" position, and they are 100% opposed to that. These are predators who will literally kill (execute) people for destroying 2 cells... NOT because those two cells is a sentient being (because it isn't), but because those 2 cells contain human DNA and have the potential to become a sentient human being... given a long series of favorable circumstances over nearly a year. This doesn't even include the requirement that the already existing living breathing sentient human mother must become a slave to that being for at least 18 years, according to these same misguided faith-based beings.
Therefore, the pro-life faction must as a matter of their insane "beliefs" agree that abusing and killing those aliens is perfectly fine. That is their position. Those aliens have no human DNA, and possibly no DNA at all. They cannot claim the aliens deserve protection because they are sentient beings... because that clump of 2 or 64, or 65536 or billions of cells is not a sentient being either, so being a sentient being therefore has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these considerations... according to their beliefs.
This is what happens when any sentient being believes things because "some authority told me so" rather than thinking through the issues. And guess what? Thinking up "thought experiments" like this one (the DNA-free aliens) is one way to figure out exactly what is the basis for ethics in the first place.
Unfortunately, these people have literally abdicated their status as sentient beings... on principle (as if that isn't a contradiction in terms, but don't tell them that). It is literally true that anyone who believes anything "on faith" is insane. This is obvious to any sentient being who has made even a modest effort to observe the nature and history of mankind, including the endless stream of utter absurdities and insanities that have been believed by millions "on faith" or "trust in authority".
To whom does ethics apply? To real, actual productive sentient beings. The answer is as simple as that.
-----
PS: Why do I include "productive" in the above? Because ethics do not apply to predators and parasites. The entire notion of ethics is absurd and worse than meaningless if predators and parasites are protected. In fact, it is ethics that says you are acting ethically if you kill a predator invading your home or attempting to harm you.
-----
Nonetheless, Ron Paul is entirely correct as a matter of principle that nobody should be forced to pay for someone else to have an abortion. Thus, whether it raises hairs on your neck or not, the position taken by RonPaul is 100% pro-choice... we all should have a choice to pay or not-pay for any service we wish, and should never be forced to pay for services desired by others.
Of course the reason RonPaul even raises this specific issue right now is because he is running in the republican primaries. Duh. This is not his focus by any stretch of the imagination, but finally he has a better than zero chance of winning, and is therefore being a bit thoughtful about which issue to mention to which audience in which situation.
I repeat. Abortion is an EXISTENTIAL crime. If some quorum of black robes said some 40 years ago that some woman's child is an abrogation of some fictional 'right's of my body', then that judicial crime does not authorize the act. Again I read your stupid litany of hypothetical circumstances meant to cover your own soul's ass.
And whoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Just a postscript re: your dictum 'productive'. Go back to school and take a degree in philosophy before you resume propounding on ethics. You are no more than some anonymous digital scibbler. Abortion is murder and has been throughout many thousands of years of human history. Your situational ethics is the result of a very specialized brainwashing. Honestann, I wouldn't be surprised if you were a woman!
Quite simply, you are insane... purposely insane, as a matter of principle (in your opinion). I laid out facts, and situations designed to test the veracity of ideas. I laid them out to help you and others who have turned their brains over to authoritarian liars, thugs, predators. Your reply is to ignore everthing I said and simply assert a conclusion. Well guess what? A tape recorder can assert a conclusion, it can mindlessly repeat the claims of anyone who makes a recording. And that is precisely what you do. You provide no observations, no evidence, no logic, no reason, no mental activity at all.
A clump of a few cells is not "a little one"... unless "one" means "one clump of cells". It is not what you pretend to imply, that it is a living, breathing, observing, thinking creature like a 3 year old baby. That clump and a 3 year old baby have nothing relevant in common. You know that (if you mind functions at all) but stubbornly refuse to consider any evidence. Instead, you wish to KILL people who let you live your life according to your delusions but insist upon being allowed to live their lives as they know is rational. BeauTox, I wouldn't be surprised if you are a murderer. You certainly advocate it, which should give you pause. Someday you should wonder why you advocate slaughtering living, breathing human beings just trying to live a decent life, while making a huge deal about busting up a clump of a few human cells. Wacko on steroids.
I know more about ethics than you could ever imagine because I have never had a class in ethics... because I have figured ethics out from first-hand observation and reflection, not from mindlessly repeating nonsense spouted by some "authority".
No, RonPaul sees the world through the prism of liberty. And it is liberty that makes any form of "bankster money" or "government money" or any form of "fiat money" or "fractional-reserve practices" WRONG ON PRINCIPLE... wrong because they give predators the power to destroy or harm every honest, ethical, productive individual.
The ENTIRE point of "gold" as money is this. When you trade any real, physical good for any other real, physical good... nobody is ever in a situation where they are not holding real, physical goods.
A "gold standard" absolutely DOES NOT force anyone to exchange his goods for gold. He can exchange his goods for any other goods he wishes. Got that?
A "gold standard" absolutely DOES NOT force anyone to accumulate and save his wealth in the form of gold. He can save silver, platinum, copper, land, buildings, factories, equipment, seeds... any real, physical good... including gold if he wishes.
The ONE and ONLY fact of the real "gold standard" is this. When people go to trade one good for another, how do they figure or compute the nominal, usual exchange rate for those two goods? The answer is simple. There is one standard list of exchange rates for all goods, and that list gives the exchange rate between every good and gold.
This does NOT mean you must trade for gold. It means, if you wish to trade lumber for bananas... or any other of the infinitude of pairs of good... you simply look up the two exchange rates between those goods and gold, and divide them. Now you know how much lumber to exchange for that truckload of bananas, and you are 100% entirely free (under a gold standard) to make that direct exchange if you wish.
That's right. The gold standard forces NOBODY to do ANYTHING whatsoever. Never. Hell, you can even ignore that "standard list of exchange rates between goods and gold" and try to negotiate any exchange you want. No problem. The standard is ONLY for your convenience and efficiency, and you are not obligated to pay any attention to it. Nobody is. That is why it is called a "standard", not a "law" or "mandate" or "imposition" or "regulation".
What should be a law is the illegality of substituting any piece of paper for real physical goods (that is, unless you are purposely exchanging your goods for a bunch of paper for your laser printer or something).
This whole "monetarist" claim is a bunch of bull. The point is liberty, and that's the only fundamental point.
To all those who would find fault in Ron Pauls positions (all taken from the Constitution), who would you advise we choose instead? Is there ANYONE running or that will run that is a better choice? Nothing like people who bitch about anything/everything without offering up any kind of alternative. Of all the huge positives Ron Paul brings to the table, you choose to attack the man on Planned Parenthood? Why dont you offer up your choice to the discussion and see how they fare in this forum.
"One cannot solve a problem with the type of thinking that created it in the first place." - Albert Einstein. In short, you cannot "fix" the system with more of the same broke-ass system, no more than you can repair the brakes on a car as it careens down the road at 90mph.
Politics are politics, and yet another pandering politico (RP) is not going to make a difference.
I love Ron Paul, but somehow I don't see him surviving the primaries - he doesn't seem to fit the mold of the 'either person wins - we win' Bilderberger candidate. Should be interesting.
Crockett wrote:
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.
Multiply your stance X 180 milion, all with their own succinct list of governemnt spending no go areas and you'd have total chaos and total disorder. Having a NIMBY attitude is great until said NIMBY actually NEEDS something they cannot provide for themselves. Then it's a case of why doesn't the government do this, why doesn't the government provide that.
NIMBY = totally short sighted, selfish, moron in my book.
By all means have zero income tax and replace with sales taxes. At least people would have a choice of how much tax they were willing to pay the government, by taking responsibility for their own consumption levels, or not.
Let me be clear: all taxation is theft. Do as you wish in your own backyard but don't take the apples from my tree. It's an immoral and dangerous act.
unintended duplicate post
It's really very simple. The Ron Paul folks are trying to cut the neocons off from the religious right. There's a large faction of people on the right who vote nothing but the abortion issue. Talk about war, the banks, the budget, the Fed, the EPA, Obamacare. It doesn't matter. Some people just vote abortion. The problem with some in the evangelical right is that theyve failed to seriously consider the morality of these wars. Pander to them. There's no sense in being correct for 4 decades on everything else if youre not going to speak to things that relate to people who you want to vote for you.
The position is consistent with libertarian thinking. Stolen money used to pay for anything is wrong. Therefore stolen money used to pay for abortions is wrong.
As for the other implications about not ending the Fed and not cutting corporate welfare, you've drawn a conclusion that this statement doesn't suggest.
Thank you for your rational analysis.
Crockett wrote:
Let me be clear: all taxation is theft. Do as you wish in your own backyard but don't take the apples from my tree. It's an immoral and dangerous act.
On one level I can agree with you, BUT on a hundred and one others I can't. No man is an island.
What does taking away people's hard earned wages in order to bail out bankers and kill foreigners have to do with no man being an island? I suspect that you make the common mistake of believeing that society and government are the same thing.
'Family' anything and govt do not mix. I don't give one flying shit about PP or what they do. To support them is just political empowerment to some other statist to support their pet govt intrusion.
Back away from it all - all of it. Do not and you give rational basis.
The real issue here is that this country is infested with a large number of incapable human beings...devoid of intelligence and demonstrating self destructive behaviors with the added benefit of offering ZERO back to society. They are human debris and exist only through the production of others.
I care not how they will exist now or how they will exist in the future.
You lost me, Ron. Taking on abortion before taking on the surveillance security state? WTF? I don't like taxpayer funded abortions, either, but I care more about taxpayer funded wiretaps.
Fly wrote:
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!
LOL. Priceless!
If people have a right to make others pay for their mistakes then I suggest that you send me a great big check. I've made mistakes and therefore you owe me money by your own logic.
okay anarchist logic boy - now you're talking personal responsibility and retribution - IF you can also apply it to the sperm donor, who never gets mentioned in all this moral outrage, then I'm listening.
IF you can make an argument for the men who impregnate women to take responsibility for the foetus/baby, and all costs, since that's what most of the argument seems to revolve around, money, then I'm all ears, sincerely.
You seem to take the tax money which you wish to see stolen from me seriously enough. Gotta love the way the moochers put you down while insisting that you owe them a living.
nice swerve, non-answer.
You swerved first with your irrelevant sperm donor rant.
I have an idea.
Ron Paul and his supporters (like Crockett) buy an island, move there and live happily ever after in the secure knowledge that they are all free men and women.
After three months of no sanitation, refuse collection or collective will to build sewers or buy refuse trucks, pay anyone to provide the services, no limits on gun ownership, no taxes (as there's no government), etc etc would they still want to live there (assuming they were still alive)?
If all the productive people moved away from whom would you mooch? It would be fun to watch people like you slowly starve to death while demanding that the other talentless moochers owe you a living.
That's funny Crockett. What the last half a century of life has taught me....most would be Randroid ubermensch are, in fact, among the least productive members of society. They just don't realize it, classic egotism and self delusion at its finest. Most do not even do their own laundry or yardwork, much less independently create "value" from their own labors. They inevitably need others to actually that for them so they can take credit for it. Thomas Edison comes to mind, he didn't invent the incandescent lightbulb or phonograph, his employees did. Predation at its finest.
Fact is, I'll bet FunkyOldGeezer is far more productive that you are. Your simplistic suggestion is the emotional equivalent of a temper tantrum, take your ball and go home when things do not work the way you think they should. "Objectivism" is a childish cargo cult for loser teenagers and emotionally stunted man children. News flash - You're not a captain of industry like your fictional idol, and never will be. Please keep dreaming though, society still needs daydreamers.
While I fully embrace the Jeffersonian principle that the best government is the one that governs least, life in the anarchic "Galt's Gulch" described above, absent the rule of law, was already well discussed by Hobbes, i.e. "nasty, brutish, and short." Someone would become warlord pretty quick, and if it wasn't you, well, hope you can fight.
Move to Somalia for a true Objectivist's paradise.
You are freaking ON.
I'm not kidding. You get the predators-that-be and predator-class to give us an ABSOLUTE guarantee they will not invade us, not bomb us, not poison us, not steal our one little liberty island paradise, and...
WE WILL GO to our liberty island and stay!
We would love that. We would LOVE to have even ONE place on this entire planet where we could live free. Oh yes, you arrange Hawaii or Fiji, or somewhere like that, and we will go. You and the rest of you sheeple authority-lovers can be happy slaves FOREVER.
Go ahead. Make our freaking day!
Oh, and to be clear, we already pay for our own septic systems, our own infrastructure, our own goods. The government produces ZERO... they only steal and redistribute the few percent they don't outright steal.
We will have a freaking paradise, and YOU and your ilk are not welcome.
That's idiotic.
If this were the case, I would make a killing by collecting the refuse. Being a naturally trifty sort, I'd seperate out what could be reused or sold as clean scrap for recycling. I'd put the rest into a landfill and collect the methane produced by it to sell to the other island inhabitants for power. I'd use that money to build a sewer system with the proceeds, and charge off a meter for its use. Wouldn't take long at all, if I wasn't paying taxes and hiring lawyers to interpret pseudo-psychotic EPA laws. Common sense would dictate that I would need to use the bet information I have available to avoid poisoning the island's water supply.
Sure, it'd be stinky at the start, but it wouldn't take all that long before I had enough to hire employees for the grunt work.
Now, let's look at this in the context of the current system.
Let's say that we were to reset the US to a physical state of nature, but kept the government and it's regulations intact. We'll stick with the same situation, refuge collection and sewage treatment.
So, there is no one to collect trash. I'll do it- but wait, I must first gain a license for my truck. After collecting the trash, I find that I cannot dump it in a pit outside of town, because the meadow that is currently there is home to the rare spotted one-eyed butterfly. Nor can I incinerate the refuse, because the soot from the fire is bad for the environment. I can't dispose of it on land, into the air, or by sea. How far is that going to go?
Ok, so I need to divide everything into it's base components and recycle it all- whether or not it makes any economic or even environmental sense. Maybe I can still generate methane, but compliance with the regulations eats 75% of the profit from that side hustle.
Despite my best intentions, I am sued multiple times and protested by libtards incessantly throughout this, for failing to perfectly analize every line in a 10,000 page document containing the rules and regulations.
After all that, I'm ready to retire, and f*** your sewer system.
I'll take libertarian-land any day. Your postulate is that most people are psychopaths, when in reality, only a very limited number are, and they can be dealt with either in the form of continuous, punishing lawsuits resulting from their disrespect for the property of others, or they would be killed by regular people with those unlimited guns.
Most people have no interest in destroying thier own home and community, and just want to do their thing while being left alone.
Dr. Paul, for whom I voted in the last election, got to tee up the whiffle ball himself. He wasn't taking the high, hard heat of an inside fastballs from his opponents or the press. Still, he only managed a bloop single, in a game against fellow Republicans.
This milquetoast manifesto should have gone after Bailouts, an easy homerun. It should have gone after wasteful subsidy programs and government welfare for corporations, an easy triple. It should have gone after the foreign wars, based on waste of national treasure, an easy double. It should have gone after the Fed, Fannie and Freddie, an easy single in anybody's book.
Should be beat the incredible odds and get the Republican nomination, I now tremble at the thought of him playing Tee Ball again, against ruthless Dems, Wall Steet, and the Media.
I could just kick every pro-lifer square in the balls.
1. I wonder how Ron Paul would feel if his daughter was raped, impregnated and then expected to raise this child. Would he bounce baby girl on his knee?
2. This fucking world has enough poverty and ignorance in it. Why bring in more! The fact of the matter is the poor and dumb are popping out the most kids, not the intelligent or wealthy. Sadly, it takes time (something those who are working all the time don't have) and money (something the poor don't have) to raise a child. We don't need abortions to make the world a better place, we need something far more severe.
Yes, but read what Ron Paul says. What he says is, making people who are pro-life PAY FOR abortions is wrong and should be eliminated.
I'm totally pro-choice, but he is correct. Nobody should be forced to pay for something they consider repugnant, unethical and even murder.
His position is in fact pro-choice if you think about it. People now have no choice whether to finance abortion or not. Let them have that choice.
How can you argue with that? PS: Not once have I ever heard RonPaul advocate a federal ban on abortion. At WORST he would allow states to pass laws against abortion, which is wrong (since a clump of a few cells is not a human being). But that will not stop anyone from traveling to a neighboring state, even if that mistake was implemented.
RonPaul has too much right to blow up one minor error into a huge issue.
Ron Paul has repeatedly said that abortion is an issue for the states. The federal government has no business being involved in it at all.
Yes, let's depend on the US government which has killed millions of innocent people in it's history to rain compassion upon poor rape victims. Your moral superiority is clear!
Crockett wrote:
If people have a right to make others pay for their mistakes then I suggest that you send me a great big check. I've made mistakes and therefore you owe me money by your own logic.
Doh!
I once had a friend who insisted the best bottle of wine was the one he could afford and could therefore drink, no matter if all logic pointed to that same $5.00 bottle being the biggest load of vinegar ever bottled. His logic was also flawless in HIS own mind and hard to argue against, especially when he was inebriated.
I had a friend who wanted to send money to help Agent Orange victims in Vietnam but he couldn't because your beloved government took half of everything he earned in order to bail out bankers and bomb the Middle East with depleted uranium.
http://www.vietnamfriendship.org/
Despite my high regard and financial support for Ron Paul, he will NEVER be president. The American people are just too fucking stupid to elect him - they will vote for some criminal Muslim or some good looking white trash meth addict before they vote for him. The unelectability of Ron Paul, the last great patriot of the old republic, shows just how worthless and fucked up America really is. All you white trash Wal-mart shoppers can eat shit for the rest of your lives - that's all you deserve. America is for losers.
Harvey W wrote:
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.
Given the choice would most Paulites pay for any goddamned thing???? Fatuous argument guys, unless you really think no-one would, or could ever morally owe you anything, or vice versa.
One day, your own family members may just be desperate enough to need that state funded operation, or advice. Think you can be morally and financially self- supporting forever and a day?
SO you'd prefer backstreet, unlicensed abortions?
This is one issue I completely disagree with Ron Paul on. His stance on abortion is akin to saying that we shouldnt have biology classes taught in public schools because some people believe a magical man in the sky created everyone out of clay.
and why the hell is abortion such a big issue to him? funding of planned parenthood is only a few million dollars a year. Its like defunding PBS or something, wont make a damn bit of a difference except getting rid of a public service that is relatively low cost and has a substantial and positive impact on the community (keeping people from having unwanted pregnancies, and pushing them into poverty/debt/homelessness)
First off, in the interest of disclosure, I am personally pro-choice. It's just not my place to make some kind of overarching call on the morality of people whose situation I have no knowledge of.
But to answer your question, it is a big issue to him because he was an obstetrician in his medical practice. I would guess he thought about the issue a lot more than you or I have, working with it every day for decades.
You don't have to agree with his stance, quite frankly it's an extremely minor point to me.
and you would be male? I presume.
IMO, the USA should be very wary of a man who is such an isolationist. His foreign policy would be a disaster, as he wouldn't recognise any self interest in securing oil supplies. We all know why the USA pursues its current foreign policy, everyone except him and his fervent supporters, that is.
He's simply not pragmatic enough, is he?
Just save time and admit it- you dont like Paul because you are basically a sheep in need of a shepherd and the thought of a President who doesnt want to play Big Daddy terrifies you.
"If you doubt the power of philosophy to set the course and shape the destiny of human societies, observe that our mixed economy is the literal, faithfully carried-out product of Pragmatism—and of the generation brought up under its influence. Pragmatism is the philosophy which holds that there is no objective reality or permanent truth, that there are no absolute principles, no valid abstractions, no firm concepts, that anything may be tried by rule-of-thumb, that objectivity consists of collective subjectivism, that whatever people wish to be true, is true, whatever people wish to exist, does exist—provided a consensussays so."
-Ayn Rand, "The New Facism: Rule By Consensus"
Control the Delphi Method, and you control the consensus, tool.
he isn't an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. Isolationism would be not trading and traveling to other countries. Ron Paul encourages that. The bombing and pre-emptive wars are isolationist. "Securing oil supplies", as if they were ours to begin with. You obviously get all your news on fox news which is tragic.
What a sad day for those counting on RP to "fix" America!
He first warns us that he's not going to "waive" the magic wand ... ie. he's going to continue to wave the magic wand, as did his predecessors.
Then, he sets out his order of priorities to lead America out of economic depression and disappearing employment (as if any American president could do so against the efforts of Congress to continue with 'business as usual'!):
1. Attempt a balanced budget ... ie. no attempt to reduce the existing deficit, just an attempt (Congress can override any presidential veto) to not let it get any bigger!
2. Cease funding for Planned Parenthood and all family planning schemes. Only in America can it be deemed that being either pro- or anti- abortion is the most important measure to solve economic irresponsibility and declining employment ... indeed, this focus on personal matters by federal government is the cause of economic irresponsiblity and declining employment!
3. Cease Obamacare -- with no alternative proposal offered for his administration. (Anyway, he already covered this under item 1 above, since Obamacare would increase spending).
4. Repeal "burdensome" regulations on business by Executive Order. (Note: Any regulation is burdensome for business ... paying federal taxes is both burdensome and unconstitutional ... it is burdensome even having to read all the regulations before conducting any business)!
WTF!?! It's all double-speak and obfuscation.
END THE FEDS!! (Federal Reserve & Federal Government)
I never counted on Ron Paul to fix America. America as it is can not be fixed. But Ron Paul does speak very plainly about the steps that rational people would follow if they had a real desire to try to save America.
The way I see it, Ron Paul is John the Baptist and the Messiah is each and every one of you seeking to lead your lives as sovereign individuals.*
*Yes, atheists are permitted to make religious allusions. If one can look to Shakespeare or Emerson for supportive imagery then why not cite the Bible as well?
I agree completely. I used to really like Ron Paul, but after his rhetoric of auditing the Fed, then his milquetoast questioning of Bernanke a couple of months ago, I lost my enthusiasm. His four points today just made me give up on him. Why is Planned Parenthood even in a discussion about budget deficit? I don't care what his views on abortion are, but this was a platform stance about the budget deficit.
Why is Planned Parenthood even in a discussion about budget deficit?
Ron Paul is running for President as a Republican. To secure the nomination he must show Republican voters (many of whom are pro-life) that smaller government can work for them. He can't win the nomination if he doesn't try to get the voters to vote for him. If someone else gets more votes than Ron Paul then that candidate will win the nomination. If some other candidate gets more votes than Ron Paul and wins the nomination then Ron Paul will have lost. He is not trying to lose. He is trying to win.
/-*-\=>[]<=/-*-\
Not that many will read this among the flood, but Ron Paul is part of the masonic order that Adam Weishaupt so deftly usurped in 1776. He has not delivered on his promises. He bailed on the 2008 election. His attempts to audit the Fed have no teeth. If Ron Paul is your excuse for being complacent then you are playing right into the NWO's hand. Chuck Baldwin is the real deal, but Ron Paul is going to dupe everybody so that's a longshot. Forget politics, replace as many FRN's with silver as you can. CRASH JP MORGAN
http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/ron-paul-and-freemasonry/
\-*-/=>[]<=\-*-/
Ron Paul bad man. He no believe Bigfoot and magic UFO do 9/11.
John Birch Society.
*ooooga boooooga*
What do you like the John Birch Society? Let's hear some details.
nice bait, I'll pass - you no doubt are aware of Paul's support of the Birchers, and their goals.
Wrong again. I'm not aware of any such thing.
George Washington was a Freemason.
'nuff said.
Ron Paul is the ultimate defender of freedom and liberty - even for the unborn. He has my vote!
“Second, I will veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood, facilities that perform abortion and all government family planning schemes.
This is a Federal spending prohibition. The states can spend whatever they want.
“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.”
Are the wars Constitutional? If not expect to see an EO to end them.
Chuck Baldwin not on the ballot in TX
I was thinking of the next presidential race. Baldwin moved from Florida to Montana because he knows who's got the guns.
Now I see why he is a republican and will not run as a libertarian. I am not against abortion and I can see how it is fine that the government should not fund abortions, but why should the government fund marriages? Marriages are not mentioned in the constitution, the only time that people are referred to in groups and not as individuals is in the context of voting. I also find it odd that he proposes to fix problems with more executive orders as opposed to legislation. Hey Ron, how about returning to 1 legislator for each 30,000 citizens? It will cost much more to buy the votes of that many legislators and they will be much more responsive to their constituents.
Now I see why he is a republican and will not run as a libertarian.
Why make guesses about people's motives? Ron ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and said that he had to spend half his cash on just getting on the ballot. Now you know.
The more I read this statement the more I like it. It is brilliant! Absolutely brilliant! Ron Paul's character refutes Zerohedge's survival rate.
If I'm so useless why do you continue to insist that you must steal my money for the good of all the kind hearted, productive, intelligent poor people?
Just so you know, I was a liberal Democrat most of my life and that road leads to nothing but disappointment. When you learn to take control of your own life instead of waiting for others to fix it for you you will be much happier and you can simply help the needy one on one as you meet them.
Please stop insisting that your desire to steal my money and taunt me for objecting to the theft gives you the moral high ground. I am willing to allow you to live your life unmolested. Can't you afford me the same courtesy?
Aren't you the guy that says only government can build a road? Highway projects are some of the biggest pork barrel projects around. If you love public highways then you have to suck up to pandering politicians. But here you go again putting down Ron Paul who is the only guy in government who honestly wants to shrink the beast.
I support Ron Paul as an exercise of free speech -- it's like giving the big government boys the finger. I don't expect him to win the nomination or the presidency but I love seeing him on national debates saying things like, "Just come home (from the wars)."
Slavery lasted for thousands of years as well. I suppose you think that Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass were childish for insisting on freedom for themselves and others.
If she weighs the same as a duck then she will float and therefore: she's a witch!
"It's a fair cop."