NationStates Jolt Archive

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) is probably the first guy since I've became interested in politics that I can actually see myself voting for, not just because he'd be the lesser of the two evils, but actually because I support his beliefs and stance. That's the first time that's ever happened to me. However, the media, isn't paying that much attention to him. Hell they're actually trying to keep him buried despite the fact that MSN polls shows that he won the last two Republican debates. So, since the media isn't going to cut Ron (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) any slacks because well, let's face it, he can actually help this country, I've decided to start advertising and spread the word about Ron Paul here in North Carolina, and through the internet.

So what will I do for Ronny Boy (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)? (Yes I called him Ronny Boy (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/).) Well here's what I've come up with so far.

#1. Include a link to his website on my sig to every forum that I visit (trust me there's alot.)

#2. Hand out fliers with his website address and a brief summary of his stance.

#3. Contact the Republican Party and tell them that unless they start pushing Ron (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) to the front, I'll encourage registered Republicans not to donate any more money to the party, and I know alot of Republicans.

#4. Make Bumper stickers that simply says

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) in '08!
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

#5. distributes the bumper sticker along with flyer.

#6. Mention him in my blog and also has his website linked to my blog.

#7. (maybe) Start a Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) support group website.

#8. Encourage other people to spread the word about Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/).

#9. Massive Google bombing.

So remember. Ron Paul in '08! (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)

I hear he's a bit of a kook.

I'm stickin' with Newt. :)

I hear he's a bit of a kook.

I'm stickin' with Newt. :)

Oh please, Newt hasn't done anything since "Contract to America", which was back in 1994.

The flyer thing reminded me of how I never got my free posters from that guy.. on that website? I want my free posters! :mad:

All good ideas, but stripping naked with a picture of Ron Paul and the letters "RON PAUL O'8" tattooed on your body will get even more attention.

All good ideas, but stripping naked with a picture of Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) and the letters "RON PAUL O'8 (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)" tattooed on your body will get even more attention.

You don't want to see me naked, nah you don't.

You don't want to see me naked, nah you don't.

If the Naked Cowboy can get some press time, why wouldn't you?

Oh please, Newt hasn't done anything since "Contract to America", which was back in 1994.

He's an influential writer/commentator, and was elected 10 times to Congress. What has Ron Paul even done in Congress? :p

Anyway, we won't be hearing about Ron Paul in six months, so I'll just relax and let the system work. ;)

If the Naked Cowboy can get some press time, why wouldn't you?

Please, I don't want to make people throw up.

Please, I don't want to make people throw up.

Screw the children, think of the press!

He's an influential writer/commentator, and was elected 10 times to Congress. What has Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) even done in Congress? :p

Anyway, we won't be hearing about Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) in six months, so I'll just relax and let the system work. ;)

Here's what has done!

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html

The guy wants to do away with income tax...hm, what could go wrong?

Oh, thats right, complete break down of public services. :rolleyes:

I find it interesting that not only is a fox news clip on his website but the fact that it is hosted on youtube

What laziness web sight creators fall to these days

Screw the children, think of the press!

Yea, but would it really be good press for Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/), or bad press for Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)?

The guy wants to do away with income tax...hm, what could go wrong?

Oh, thats right, complete break down of public services. :rolleyes:

He'd probably put in the Fair Tax Plan, which has been proven to be a much better tax system than the progressive tax that we have right now.

He's an influential writer/commentator, and was elected 10 times to Congress. What has Ron Paul even done in Congress? :p
Pretty much, he votes against every bill that involves increased spending, or raising taxes.

Yea, but would it really be good press for Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/), or bad press for Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)?

"In an interesting attempt to spread awareness of Presidential hopeful, Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/), a local man took to the streets with nothing but a flyer in his hand, and a political flame in his heart. More at 11."

BARE ALL FOR PAUL (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)!

Pretty much, he votes against every bill that involves increased spending, or raising taxes.

That's nice. But I prefer a candidate with a track record of getting results, e.g. Newt. :)

Pretty much, he votes against every bill that involves increased spending, or raising taxes.

Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) has done more than that.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s (http://www.ronpaul2008.com) Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html

He'd probably put in the Fair Tax Plan, which has been proven to be a much better tax system than the progressive tax that we have right now.
I don't see the point. They would just make up for it by jacking up the sales tax on non-essential items, which means people would buy less and just save their money. I know I would.

I don't see the point. They would just make up for it by jacking up the sales tax on non-essential items, which means people would buy less and just save their money. I know I would.

True if that was any other President, but if Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)was President, he would veto any spending bill that raised the sale tax.

True if that was any other President, but if Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com)was President, he would veto any spending bill that raised the sale tax.
Well then I don't think you and Ron Paul understand what "Fair Tax" is.

That's nice. But I prefer a candidate with a track record of getting results, e.g. Newt. :)

Like I said, Agerias was pretty simplistic, Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) has done more than that.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) Record
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html

That's odd - I don't see 40,000 BJs (http://www.nee-antwerpen.be/index-eng.htm) anywhere on your list.

So remember. Ron Paul in '08! (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/)

It's too bad...

...I love his stance on foreign policy, and I tend to side with him on free trade issues as well, and I'm all for limiting spending and taxes. I also love his stance on the Patriot Act and privacy issues.

The problems?

I don't feel that he's a good environmental candidate. Strike one.
He's solidly anti-abortion. Strike two.

...I have a feeling that third strike is out there somewhere.

I'll probably vote for him in the Republican primaries, just to try to keep out some of the loonier Republicans. As for the actual election...if he makes it that far, we'll see, but I doubt it.

Like I said, Agerias was pretty simplistic, Ron Paul (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/) has done more than that.

I read that the first time. What I was saying was, there's a difference between high ideas and real achievement.

It's too bad...

...I love his stance on foreign policy, and I tend to side with him on free trade issues as well, and I'm all for limiting spending and taxes. I also love his stance on the Patriot Act and privacy issues.

The problems?

I don't feel that he's a good environmental candidate. Strike one.
He's solidly anti-abortion. Strike two.

...I have a feeling that third strike is out there somewhere.

I'll probably vote for him in the Republican primaries, just to try to keep out some of the loonier Republicans. As for the actual election...if he makes it that far, we'll see, but I doubt it.

From what I have read on him so far I tend to agree

It's too bad...

...I love his stance on foreign policy, and I tend to side with him on free trade issues as well. I'm all for limiting spending and taxes, and would love to see a Fair Tax implemented by Paul.

The problems?

I don't feel that he's a good environmental candidate. Strike one.
He's solidly anti-abortion. Strike two.

...I have a feeling that third strike is out there somewhere.

I'll probably vote for him in the Republican primaries, just to try to keep out some of the loonier Republicans. As for the actual election...if he makes it that far, we'll see, but I doubt it.

I've looked at Ron Paul's abortion related voting records, and it does seem like he is against abortion, but could it also be that he just doesn't want government to be involved in what people do with their bodies?

* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)


Maybe it's just me, but from his voting records it seems like Ron Paul is more interested in keeping the government's nose out of what people decide to do with their body rather than prevent people from getting abortions. That does include cutting off federal fundings, but abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood can always get private donations.

Ron Paul voting record on Environment.

* Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
* Voted YES on barring website promoting Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump. (May 2006)
* Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

Seems like he is environmental friendly. I am using Ron Paul voting records because anyone can say they stand for anything on the campaign trail, but if you really want to see where a person stands, look at his voting records.

Voted No on stem cell research? Great, now we get another president that wants to prevent the curing of serious diseases.

Voted No on stem cell research? Great, now we get another president that wants to prevent the curing of serious diseases.

I never said that he was the perfect candidate, he just seems to be the most sane one.

I never said that he was the perfect candidate, he just seems to be the most sane one.
Perhaps, but I would rather bite the bullet (if I was you) and vote for Obama or Hillary. Completely sane stances, and the only thing you would disagree with them on is economics. Thankfully, economics won't kill anyone, banning stem cell research will.

Perhaps, but I would rather bite the bullet (if I was you) and vote for Obama or Hillary. Completely sane stances, and the only thing you would disagree with them on is economics. Thankfully, economics won't kill anyone, banning stem cell research will.

1. Hillary Clinton thinks that Video Games are the root causes of all school shooting and wants to ban them. So already she is out.

2. I really don't think Obama has enough experience yet to be a President, so maybe after a few more years in Congress, I'd reconsider him, but right now he's a rookie trying to play a veterans game and he's going to get burned.

1. Hillary Clinton thinks that Video Games are the root causes of all school shooting and wants to ban them. So already she is out.

2. I really don't think Obama has enough experience yet to be a President, so maybe after a few more years in Congress, I'd reconsider him, but right now he's a rookie trying to play a veterans game and he's going to get burned.

1. I agree with you here to a lesser extent. I like the woman as a person but she is just plain wrong about video games. They're naught but a source of entertainment, like books or television.

2. What would he learn in Congress that would give him more experience in the ways of a President? Senator and President are two completely different jobs. He will learn nothing in Congress that will help him.

1. Hillary Clinton thinks that Video Games are the root causes of all school shooting and wants to ban them. So already she is out.
Personally, I also dislike her for that reason (among others)

2. I really don't think Obama has enough experience yet to be a President, so maybe after a few more years in Congress, I'd reconsider him, but right now he's a rookie trying to play a veterans game and he's going to get burned.
Experience as a congressman doesn't make you a better president.

1. I agree with you here to a lesser extent. I like the woman as a person but she is just plain wrong about video games. They're naught but a source of entertainment, like books or television.

2. What would he learn in Congress that would give him more experience in the ways of a President? Senator and President are two completely different jobs. He will learn nothing in Congress that will help him.

1. I just don't see her as a good President, I mean she even said that she's in this to win, I mean excuse me, but I think that if you want to be President, you must want to serve the people, not serve yourself by winning a pissing contest.

2. He could become majority house leader in the next few years (if Democrat remain in control or get back control) and that would give him leadership experience. Also I agree, the only way you can learn foreign relationship if you either A. work for the UN or become President.

1. I just don't see her as a good President, I mean she even said that she's in this to win, I mean excuse me, but I think that if you want to be President, you must want to serve the people, not serve yourself by winning a pissing contest.

2. He could become majority house leader in the next few years (if Democrat remain in control or get back control) and that would give him leadership experience. Also I agree, the only way you can learn foreign relationship if you either A. work for the UN or become President.
1. I think that was her trying to make herself look like a better candidate. If it weren't for the fact that she's a Clinton and we needn't keep switching back and forth between the two families--and of course our other differences--I would be tempted to vote for her. Alas, she will not be the first female President.

2. True...but to be honest? I don't think he'll have a chance if he waits another four years. He needs to go for it now. Obama will make a good President...you'll see.

It'd be delightful to see an Obama vs Paul election...two candidates who are both worthy of the Presidency is ridiculously rare.

1. I think that was her trying to make herself look like a better candidate. If it weren't for the fact that she's a Clinton and we needn't keep switching back and forth between the two families--and of course our other differences--I would be tempted to vote for her. Alas, she will not be the first female President.

2. True...but to be honest? I don't think he'll have a chance if he waits another four years. He needs to go for it now. Obama will make a good President...you'll see.

It'd be delightful to see an Obama vs Paul election...two candidates who are both worthy of the Presidency is ridiculously rare.

Yeah If I see thoes two up I would be a lot happier about the candidates our country is putting forward

1. I think that was her trying to make herself look like a better candidate. If it weren't for the fact that she's a Clinton and we needn't keep switching back and forth between the two families--and of course our other differences--I would be tempted to vote for her. Alas, she will not be the first female President.

2. True...but to be honest? I don't think he'll have a chance if he waits another four years. He needs to go for it now. Obama will make a good President...you'll see.

It'd be delightful to see an Obama vs Paul election...two candidates who are both worthy of the Presidency is ridiculously rare.

1. I don't think Hillary will get the nod, too many people don't like her. Obama I can see.

2. Eh, it worked for Richard M. Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

I just like Ron Paul stance on limiting government in our private lives, and in our public lives as well. A limited government is a good government. I just think Obama will do the opposite, and I cannot support that.

I've looked at Ron Paul's abortion related voting records, and it does seem like he is against abortion, but could it also be that he just doesn't want government to be involved in what people do with their bodies?

* snip*

Maybe it's just me, but from his voting records it seems like Ron Paul is more interested in keeping the government's nose out of what people decide to do with their body rather than prevent people from getting abortions. That does include cutting off federal fundings, but abortion clinics and Planned Parenthood can always get private donations.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) appears correct in characterizing Ron Paul as a pro-lifer that is oppossed to Roe v. Wade.:

As an obstetrician by trade, Paul is pro-life. Paul holds that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that his pro-life stance aligns with his libertarianism, by viewing abortion as aggression against a person. "Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures."[30] Nevertheless, in order to offset the effects of Roe v. Wade, he voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding.[31] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[32]

Allowing states to decide on abortion would be the effective result in the event Roe v. Wade were reversed by U.S. Supreme Court.

His opposition to Roe is bad enough but his HR 4379 bill would hamstring the Supreme Court and leave it unable to protect our liberties. This is a whole-scale attack on our systeme of government as well as a threat to our fundamental liberties.

I just like Ron Paul stance on limiting government in our private lives, and in our public lives as well. A limited government is a good government. I just think Obama will do the opposite, and I cannot support that.
A democrat involving themselves in private lives? That pretty much goes against the grain.

As for public life, I assume you mean business, in which case, yes he will involve himself in that.

I just like Ron Paul stance on limiting government in our private lives, and in our public lives as well. A limited government is a good government. I just think Obama will do the opposite, and I cannot support that.

Well, I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by limited government. I agree the government should not be a nanny state nor should it poke into our private lives without just cause(such cause being the investigation of crimes, of course) but what I fear is the limiting of government for the sake of limiting government, which will leave it toothless.

I, instead, favour an efficient government, where the size is irrelevant; what matters is the efficiency of each part performing its specific tasks. I don't see Ron Paul or Obama doing this, but to be honest I would still feel more comfortable with Obama because I don't trust to have Paul's party in control of the Presidency again, even through someone as decent as Paul. It's too risky...certainly not a risk I am willing to take.

I hate to burst your bubble, but Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul) appears correct in characterizing Ron Paul as a pro-lifer that is oppossed to Roe v. Wade.:

As an obstetrician by trade, Paul is pro-life. Paul holds that the United States Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. He believes that his pro-life stance aligns with his libertarianism, by viewing abortion as aggression against a person. "Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures."[30] Nevertheless, in order to offset the effects of Roe v. Wade, he voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding.[31] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[32]

Allowing states to decide on abortion would be the effective result in the event Roe v. Wade were reversed by U.S. Supreme Court.

His opposition to Roe is bad enough but his HR 4379 bill would hamstring the Supreme Court and leave it unable to protect our liberties. This is a whole-scale attack on our systeme of government as well as a threat to our fundamental liberties.

Sounds like he's saying that it shouldn't be up to the Federal government to decide what is right for the citizens, it should really be up to the states, and I agree with that. In regards to abortions, Federal government does yeild too much power and should just butt out. If the states want to pass laws, then fine.

Well, I guess that depends on what exactly you mean by limited government. I agree the government should not be a nanny state nor should it poke into our private lives without just cause(such cause being the investigation of crimes, of course) but what I fear is the limiting of government for the sake of limiting government, which will leave it toothless.

I, instead, favour an efficient government, where the size is irrelevant; what matters is the efficiency of each part performing its specific tasks. I don't see Ron Paul or Obama doing this, but to be honest I would still feel more comfortable with Obama because I don't trust to have Paul's party in control of the Presidency again, even through someone as decent as Paul. It's too risky...certainly not a risk I am willing to take.

So you're not going to vote for Paul just because of the horrible job Bush has done? Yea...that make sense... :rolleyes:

Here is what I believe Government proper function is. Government need only provide law and order, roads and other goods the market can't provide. Government should not dicatate what a person does in the privacy of his own home, in his private life to his body, nor should it regulate on what a person does with another consenting adult or several as the person may choose. So basically you can do whatever you what, with whoever you want (as long as they're consenting adults) as long as your action does not infringe on the rights of others, and government is there to make sure your actions does not infringe on the rights of others and to basically keep the peace.

Ron Paul is the closes person to my view.

So you're not going to vote for Paul just because of the horrible job Bush has done? Yea...that make sense... :rolleyes:

I didn't say that. I spoke of the party itself. Right now the Republican party is a fractured mess that only supports far-right winged religious extremists, and to be frank, as a left-winged athiest, I cannot in due conscious vote to place that party in office again unless I felt the alternative was even worse.

Now, don't get me wrong...if Obama is not the Democratic nominee, but Paul is the Republican nominee, I'll probably vote for him...it's just that when taking Obama vs Paul, I would have to vote Obama.

1. Hillary Clinton thinks that Video Games are the root causes of all school shooting and wants to ban them. So already she is out.

Come, now, that is hardly a fair characterization of Senator Clinton's position.

Rather silly to exclude a candidate based on a hysterical distortion of one issue.

Come, now, that is hardly a fair characterization of Senator Clinton's position.

Rather silly to exclude a candidate based on a hysterical distortion of one issue.

But even a pebble can make waves.

Sounds like he's saying that it shouldn't be up to the Federal government to decide what is right for the citizens, it should really be up to the states, and I agree with that. In regards to abortions, Federal government does yeild too much power and should just butt out. If the states want to pass laws, then fine.

Sorry but the whole point of Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights is that our fundamental rights are not subject to violation by any level of government. Matters of fundamental rights cannot and should not simply be left to the states. As the Supreme Court has explained in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html ), 319 US 624, 638 (1943):

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.

(Also, if his stance were really based on federalism, then he's a hypocrite, because he voted for the federal partial birth abortion bill.)

*Snip

Well, seeing as you and I see eye-to-eye politically speaking, I took a look, and I must say, I highly approve of this fellow. He's what Republicans should be. If there were more like him, I'd have stayed in the party.

I really like Ron Paul. I'd vote for him, except that I don't believe voting is morally licit. That leaves myself unable to vote for him. Oh well... it's not like my one lonely vote would have mattered anyway.

Hm, is there anything that Ron Paul actually likes, or does he just want more power to say "no" to people?

The guy wants to do away with income tax...hm, what could go wrong?

Oh, thats right, complete break down of public services. :rolleyes:

Negative.

All public services are paid for by other existing tax bases. Roads come from tolls/gas taxes. Education comes from property tax. Defense (police & national) comes from Corperate Income Taxes, etc ...

Income taxes pay for one thing and one thing only, the interest on our debt we owe to the Federal Reserve for the privalige of allowing us to print money, which we don't need anyways since our consitution grants Congress the power to print money. Wow the American people in 1913 have had the wool pulled over their eyes, just like today.