Ron Paul is the perfect cantidate for

[Ilov80s 0]

The Christian Right Wing and the Liberal Left Wing can rarely agree on anything, but if they examine presidential cantidate and 10 term senator Ron Paul, they may find themselves coming to a rare mutual affirmation. How did Ron Paul devise a strategy that would please both sides? He didn't. The writers of the Constitution did. Ron Paul's constitutional devotion would take power away from federal politicians and return it to YOU- the people of the United States of America.

 

America is a large and very diverse nation. This diversity has never been more apparent then following the 2004 National Election. We had red states vs blue states, "Whats the Matter with Kansas?" and a whole host devisive mass media mudslinging that only sought to polarize the nation (and boost ratings). As a nation, we should be proud of our diversity. It is wonderful to live in such a great country with so many rich and wonderful people.

 

I love that I can travel 4 hours south and discover a whole new culture and way of life- it is a culture very different from mine, but just as purely American. I have great respect for the deeply religious who devote their efforts towards spreading the peaceful word of their god. I am awed by their dutiful desire to live under the laws of their almighty creator. It is not how I would ever choose to live my life, but that does not diminish my respect for them. I hope in return, they can appreciate the urban north: our devotion to free speech, the arts, and the weaving together of countless international cultures. You can come to my city and have authentic Mexican food, Greek food, Italian and Arabic food without driving more then 10 miles.

 

We are a broad nation and every state has it's own unique needs and desires. The federal government and it's overgrown power can not speak for all Americans; we need to allow the Americans to speak for themselves. The federal government says abortion is legal and must be offered (with very minimal restrictions) in all states. Why does the federal government feel the need to go beyond their Constitutional powers and decide this issue for all of America? Why does the Federal Government think they know what is best for all children of the US? And why do they feel that the same guidelines are best for all schoolchildren Hawaii to Iowa to Maine?

 

This is essentially how Ron Paul's plan of liberty could change the nation by allowing for the people of the states to decide key issues:

 

California vs. Kentucky

legal abortion vs. abortion is ILLEGAL

 

marijuana legalized and taxed vs. marijuana remains ILLEGAL

 

support stem cell research vs. deny stem cell research

 

recognize same-sex marriage vs. deny and not recognize same-sex marriage

 

 

 

The list of social issues could continue. The key is that Ron Paul wants to allow the people to choose the rules that would govern their community. Americans (both liberals and conservatives) are intelligent people who have a long history of exercising freedom. They do not need a massive government telling them how to deal with every minute detail of life. People from Georgia do not need (or want) people from New York dictating and voting on the laws that will govern life in Georgia. The people of New York do not want legislators from Georgia determining laws that will guide life in New York. We are not a nation of one, but a nation of many who stand together.

 

Support Ron Paul or expect even bigger government spending, even more federal control, even less personal freedom and choice, and more empty rhetoric.

 

More info on Ron Paul

wiki- ron paul

 

wiki- ron paul's positions

 

Official Ron Paul Site

[VikesFan 1]

Paul is the only candidate I'd be willing to vote for in the entire establishment.

[hoytdwow 202]

I've never been a fan of the name 'Ron.' It's like Don or Russ, it just has kind of a dumpy ring to it

[Guest Black Label Society]

Very well spoken.

 

Might I also add:

 

He plans to abolish the IRS and Federal income taxes.

 

He plans to change foreign policy to one of non-intervention.

 

He plans to increase benefits for our nations veterans, who I personally believe are basically forgotten once the wars are over. They are usually forced to accept substandard health care.

I find this appauling that our nations greatest heros are given very little for their sacrifices.

 

The more videos of this guy I watch, the more and more I truly respect him.

And it's not like he's some pure genius who has figured the perfect way to do things.

He just speaks the truth, NEVER wavers from the constitution, and his record proves it.

[MahSoonerz 0]

I'm not gonna quote the whole thing but that is a most excellent post, not just for the Ron Paul love but even more for the beautiful description of what America is all about. I have had the opportunity to travel and live across this country and could not agree more with what Ilov80s is saying. Good enough for an evening bump.

[IndyTom 0]

I couldn't help notice that it's the same 5 posters that support this guy thread after thread - among 100+ GOP voters on this bored.

 

[ArnieBragg 1]

I couldn't help notice that it's the same 5 posters that support this guy thread after thread - among 100+ GOP voters on this bored.

 

 

On multiple message boards too. You'd think he is a Paul campaign worker!

[lechuza 0]

I'm not gonna quote the whole thing but that is a most excellent post, not just for the Ron Paul love but even more for the beautiful description of what America is all about. I have had the opportunity to travel and live across this country and could not agree more with what Ilov80s is saying. Good enough for an evening bump.

 

we have gotten others to recognize Ron Paul, hopefully people will continue to hear him and see what he is all about

[randandy 0]

repeal the right to vote for women, minorities, and descendents of slaves, we'd be ok.

[Ilov80s 0]

I couldn't help notice that it's the same 5 posters that support this guy thread after thread - among 100+ GOP voters on this bored.

 

 

Considering the mass media and Republican party are trying to hide this guy, somebody needs to spread his message. Shoot me for being involved in something I believe it.

[MahSoonerz 0]

I couldn't help notice that it's the same 5 posters that support this guy thread after thread - among 100+ GOP voters on this bored.

 

 

And generally the same three posters show up to throw spitballs. But that's cool, to be expected and it don't bother me. I'm actually beginning to appreciate hoytdwow's deadpan sense of humor. Just don't confuse me with those filthy Republicans. The only reason why I started posting in political threads here at all is because until Ron Paul came along I thought I was the only one who thought this way. You may be right but if so I see that as a 500% increase from a month ago.

[PackerAttacker 0]

I agree with the post except for one thing... I think using abortion as an example is a bad idea. I think a lot of people think that falls into the same category as murder... and that is something the federal govt certainly should have laws for. <please dont turn this into an abortion thread.. im simply pointing out there were better examples>

 

As for everything else, I completely agree with the idea of smaller govt and more power to the states. It also helps to better track where the money goes. Its hard for the federal govt to tell if an organization REALLY needs more money next year. Thats the problem with govt money... people are goingt o spend all of it whether they need it or not. I think if that money comes more and more from a state level, it would be a bit easier to track.

[PackerAttacker 0]

Ok, I just read that guys positions.... and I hate him. I completely agree with about half his positions, most of them having to do with limiting govt and increasing liberty. I also completely agree with his assessment of how the republican party has lost its dedication to being the small govt party.

 

But by leaving EVERY decision to the states, he just appears indecisive to me. Also, I wouldnt be opposed to someone against the iraq war, but this guy wont go to war unless voted on by congress... whichll never happen in todays world. <WWII was the last time it happened>

 

Why cant there be strong conservative cadidate with his views on the economic sides of govt?

[IndyTom 0]

Why cant there be strong conservative cadidate with his views on the economic sides of govt?

 

http://www.fred08.com/

 

[Guest Black Label Society]

Also, I wouldnt be opposed to someone against the iraq war, but this guy wont go to war unless voted on by congress... whichll never happen in todays world.

 

That's right, he won't go to war without Congress' approval, because according to the constitution, the President should not have the sole power to initiate a war. It's designed that way to make sure no one person has too much power.

 

You have to admit, the fact that this guy wants to be president, so he can turn around and limit his overall power, is awfully refreshing.

 

I don't necessarily agree with all of his viewpoints, but I fully respect a guy who NEVER wavers from his principles. Especially in today's politics.

[Ilov80s 0]

Ok, I just read that guys positions.... and I hate him. I completely agree with about half his positions, most of them having to do with limiting govt and increasing liberty. I also completely agree with his assessment of how the republican party has lost its dedication to being the small govt party.

 

But by leaving EVERY decision to the states, he just appears indecisive to me. Also, I wouldnt be opposed to someone against the iraq war, but this guy wont go to war unless voted on by congress... whichll never happen in todays world. <WWII was the last time it happened>

Why cant there be strong conservative cadidate with his views on the economic sides of govt?

 

 

He would not be able to walk in and overturn federal drug laws or Roe v Wade, so that is secondary to his financial, immigration, and non-interventionist policies. I don't see him as weak or indecisive, but a man who stands firmly behind his belief in the constitution. He is certainly no flip-flopper as he has the most consistent voting record in congress.

 

 

When was the last time we won a war?

[IndyTom 0]

When was the last time we won a war?

 

That would be WWII - when we were allowed to use the weapons that we have at our disposal.

[Ilov80s 0]

That would be WWII - when we were allowed to use the weapons that we have at our disposal.

 

We were also fortunate enough to be the only country with nukes at the time. Do you believe we should have used nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq?

[IndyTom 0]

We were also fortunate enough to be the only country with nukes at the time. Do you believe we should have used nukes in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq?

 

 

That's a tough call, probably not.

 

It's hard to compare the climate of our country now to back when Truman had to make that hard decision. We had already lost 400 thousand US troops by then.

 

Japan bombed US soil so it was probably easier for Truman to reconcile his beliefs (not to mention public opinion) with that one. As for Korea and Vietnam, we were helping other democratic countries in need, so perhaps it didn't fit the rationalization like Japan did.

 

As for the Afghans and Iraqis, I believe the intent was to use technologically advanced surgical strikes, so we could achieve the same goals, while limiting civilian casualties (tools we didn't have back then). Obviously, that worked to topple Saddam and his Guard, quite easily as well I might add. However, most of our casualties have taken place post-Saddam in guerrilla fashion, which we have never been good at.

[bubba franks 0]

Hell, Ron's going to be lucky to win the primary for his house seat much less the presidency.

[MahSoonerz 0]

Hell, Ron's going to be lucky to win the primary for his house seat much less the presidency.

 

He's won them all before, including once or twice the Tom Delay faction tried pretty hard. I am extremely familiar with his announced opposition in 2008 (assuming Paul runs again, which I doubt), and boy are you in for some entertainment (of the "laughing at" variety).

[Guest Black Label Society]

That's a tough call, probably not.

 

It's hard to compare the climate of our country now to back when Truman had to make that hard decision. We had already lost 400 thousand US troops by then.

 

Japan bombed US soil so it was probably easier for Truman to reconcile his beliefs (not to mention public opinion) with that one. As for Korea and Vietnam, we were helping other democratic countries in need, so perhaps it didn't fit the rationalization like Japan did.

 

As for the Afghans and Iraqis, I believe the intent was to use technologically advanced surgical strikes, so we could achieve the same goals, while limiting civilian casualties (tools we didn't have back then). Obviously, that worked to topple Saddam and his Guard, quite easily as well I might add. However, most of our casualties have taken place post-Saddam in guerrilla fashion, which we have never been good at.

 

Ask Russia how they faired in a Guerilla War (called afghanistan).

You can't win a war like that. They simply will never surrender. Every single person would rather die.

And that is the EXACT reason why we cannot win the war in Iraq. It'll never be over, and I'd prefer we pull out now, having lost 3400 people, instead of another 6 years from now, and having lost 50,000.

 

Vietnam was the same exact thing. Our politicians told us we just needed more time, and more troops.

Russia's mighty war machine couldn't even take out little ole Afghanistan, with half of their people fighting atop a horse back.

 

We will NEVER win the war in Iraq. Ever.

[MahSoonerz 0]

You know, it occurred to me later, we decisively won every war up to WW2 (with the possible exception of the War of 1812), which were all declared by Congress according to the Constitution, and we have lost every war since, which were all unconstitutionally declared by the President. Ya think there might be a connection?

[lechuza 0]

the U.S. is way too involved in middle east politics and until we get a president that realizes that, there were not be any improvements over there. Reagan had it right when he realized this, unfortunately Bush and some other politicians that currently call themselves conservatives, will not accept this and continue to get us into more of a mess

[kpbuckeye 2]

He would not be able to walk in and overturn federal drug laws or Roe v Wade, so that is secondary to his financial, immigration, and non-interventionist policies. I don't see him as weak or indecisive, but a man who stands firmly behind his belief in the constitution. He is certainly no flip-flopper as he has the most consistent voting record in congress.

When was the last time we won a war?[/b]

 

How about defeating the Iraqi army twice.

[MahSoonerz 0]

How about defeating the Iraqi army twice.

 

If we had won the first war we wouldn't be mired in the second one now. The lesson of the first Iraq war is that our military knows what the hell they are doing and the alleged "commander-in-chief" politicians in charge, well, not so much.

[kpbuckeye 2]

If we had won the first war we wouldn't be mired in the second one now. The lesson of the first Iraq war is that our military knows what the hell they are doing and the alleged "commander-in-chief" politicians in charge, well, not so much.

 

uh, the first war was won when sadam retreated from kuwait then agreed to terms of a surrender with the UN. Not sure where you were but I thought this was a given since we all lived through it......and watched it every single day on tv for about a month.

[MahSoonerz 0]

uh, the first war was won when sadam retreated from kuwait then agreed to terms of a surrender with the UN. Not sure where you were but I thought this was a given since we all lived through it......and watched it every single day on tv for about a month.

 

Please, the condescension isn't necessary. I was glued to the TV just like you, but what I saw was a great plan drawn up by Gen. Schwarzkopf and executed perfectly by our troops that was ready to march into Baghdad and take out Saddam, and then.... It was like if we were playing chess, had taken most all the opponent's pieces, was one move away from checkmate, and we resigned. That Saddam was allowed to stay in power meant that the first Iraq war was merely a minor distraction to him.

 

If you want to split hairs, absolutely our military wins wars and then Presidents throw away their victories.

[Guest tiki_gods]

Good post. Libertarians are all about limited government and restoring civil liberties to the people.

[kpbuckeye 2]

Please, the condescension isn't necessary. I was glued to the TV just like you, but what I saw was a great plan drawn up by Gen. Schwarzkopf and executed perfectly by our troops that was ready to march into Baghdad and take out Saddam, and then.... It was like if we were playing chess, had taken most all the opponent's pieces, was one move away from checkmate, and we resigned. That Saddam was allowed to stay in power meant that the first Iraq war was merely a minor distraction to him.

 

If you want to split hairs, absolutely our military wins wars and then Presidents throw away their victories.

 

the question was about the US winning a war, which I answered and you disagreed with then agreed with He asked what war the US won, the US has defeated the Iraqi army twice. plain and simple.

 

Since you are looking to point fingers, point them at the UN, they brokered the deal. The US was fighting under the UN umbrella so we were limited in what we could and could not do. Bush1 wanted to 'finish it' so get off the 'Presidents falt' excuse.

[zazoozazoo 0]

Since you are looking to point fingers, point them at the UN, they brokered the deal. The US was fighting under the UN umbrella so we were limited in what we could and could not do. Bush1 wanted to 'finish it' so get off the 'Presidents falt' excuse.

This is another reason why I support Paul. He doesn't believe the US should wage war under the auspices of foreign bodies such as the UN. The UN is a proven corrupt organization, why should we use it to dictate our foreign policy? The ultimate responsibilty for the foreign policy decisions lies with the President, so it's not an excuse to lay the blame for the decisions to follow or not follow UN guidelines on him.

[MahSoonerz 0]

the question was about the US winning a war, which I answered and you disagreed with then agreed with He asked what war the US won, the US has defeated the Iraqi army twice. plain and simple.

 

Since you are looking to point fingers, point them at the UN, they brokered the deal. The US was fighting under the UN umbrella so we were limited in what we could and could not do. Bush1 wanted to 'finish it' so get off the 'Presidents fault' excuse.

 

It's still obvious (well, to me at least) we lost the first Iraq war because we let Saddam stay in power. Beating the crap out of somebody doesn't necessarily equal winning. I'm not into "pointing fingers," just stating facts. Like the well known fact that Schwarzkopf was the one who wanted to drive straight into Baghdad, but he was ordered to stop his advance. Tell me, who could have possibly issued that order except the first President Bush? And if Bush1 really did want to "finish it," who could have possibly stopped him?

 

I will totally agree with you that "fighting under the UN umbrella" was a prescription for failure. Did you support Bush1 despite the fact you just admitted he gave away our national sovereignty in this instance to the UN? (That is meant without sarcasm - I don't know you so well and am assuming I am speaking with someone who thinks for himself and not someone who places blind faith in the cult of neoconservatism.) It was Bush's choice to listen to the UN, and as the so-called "commander-in-chief" the war was his responsibility.

 

Getting back on topic, this is one big reason why I like Ron Paul. I consider myself to be a patriot, and a rather extreme one at that, but my first allegiance is to the truth. We won't be able to advance as a nation if we insist on being selective with our facts. Ron Paul understands this and Rudy Giuliani obviously doesn't.

[kpbuckeye 2]

It's still obvious (well, to me at least) we lost the first Iraq war because we let Saddam stay in power. Beating the crap out of somebody doesn't necessarily equal winning. I'm not into "pointing fingers," just stating facts. Like the well known fact that Schwarzkopf was the one who wanted to drive straight into Baghdad, but he was ordered to stop his advance. Tell me, who could have possibly issued that order except the first President Bush? And if Bush1 really did want to "finish it," who could have possibly stopped him?

 

I will totally agree with you that "fighting under the UN umbrella" was a prescription for failure. Did you support Bush1 despite the fact you just admitted he gave away our national sovereignty in this instance to the UN? (That is meant without sarcasm - I don't know you so well and am assuming I am speaking with someone who thinks for himself and not someone who places blind faith in the cult of neoconservatism.) It was Bush's choice to listen to the UN, and as the so-called "commander-in-chief" the war was his responsibility.

 

Getting back on topic, this is one big reason why I like Ron Paul. I consider myself to be a patriot, and a rather extreme one at that, but my first allegiance is to the truth. We won't be able to advance as a nation if we insist on being selective with our facts. Ron Paul understands this and Rudy Giuliani obviously doesn't.

 

At the time, I thought that we could depend on the UN to do the right thing. I was of course wrong. I assume Bush1 felt the same way, he was caught in a political crossfire. Imagine if he told the UN to fock off at the time. It would be huge clusterfock. Keep in mind that we did not know just how corrupt the UN was at that time. I think at that time we wanted to believe in them. Now of course, we know what a bunch of dirtbags they are, and hindsight is 20/20. Personally, the first time they violated anything I wish Clinton would have finished the job but we still didn't know what a dirtbag org the UN was. Now we know and which is why I have no problem with what Bush2 did. He did what no one else wanted to do.

[VikesFan 1]

 

But by leaving EVERY decision to the states, he just appears indecisive to me.

 

 

The problem I see with this, is that this is exactly what was intended by the constitution. The founders wanted a weak central government. They had seen enough monarchies and despotism lead to war on the whims of one or two men. Adding accountability to the mix was the first part. Limiting the power of the head figure was the only way to do this. This, by the way, was the fundamental reason for the bill of rights as well. The second ammendment was for the purpose of keeping the government in check, and (either the 9th or 10th ammendment) basically states that whatever isn't covered in the constitution belongs to the states. I do not like abortion, but I do believe that Paul is dead on here. This is not something the federal government should be regulating.

 

Go Paul