Ron Paul in his own words - "My Plan for a Freedom President"

What with being in the UK i feel i'm on the outside looking in at this issue,
and while i can follow how ending the fed and removing federal powers - restoring state powers. Bringing the troops home and spending the trillions saved on improving America for americans via better education and public programs etc. is all a viable solution to the problems America and the western world faces, something still twitches my suspicions.

could this be a Hegalian dialectic in operation?
could this be the system's solution to the system generated problems?

i may have this very wrong - what with being on the outside of this issue but i can't help but notice that many responses seem caught up in the pantomime of; i hope Ron wins - he'll fix things, and thus temporally forgetting this is a pantomime - nothing in politics happens by surprise, after all, are not the presidents supposedly preselected years in advance amongst the grove of bohemian redwood trees and a giant stone owl?

i wonder if the inherent wish for a good guy to win, and the long game played by elite(Ron Paul has been singing like this for decades) is allowing you to trick yourself into believing "this time could be it, the good guy might win".

if Ron is legit i hope he doesn't win, he has more effect now publicizing issues as an excepted thorn in the elites side, than he will as president with his head jerking "back and to the left".

Apologies if i offend anyone.

reply to post by BobbyShaftoe

I have to agree I suported Dr. Ron last time until he caved.
But I'm by nature suspicious of politicians in general. I don't want to be caught up in a wave of awe("ahhhh...?") and fooled like the "Obamabots" "yes we can!".
I believe Dr. Pauls voting record speaks for itself,and is widely available. Nary a "present" anywhere.

Ron Paul is strong medicine for this country,but people faulted him as not being the best choice for foreign affairs.Today; we could use alot of focus on the home front. to get our house in order. the economy;Govt spending gone wild...Executive orders and unilateral powers run wild..
I'll be holding my nose if I have to register repub to vote in the primary but...

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by Crimelab
Ron Paul : "On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

"I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“


Good thing we know that Dr. Paul's concern for individual liberty ends when a brood mare (woman) is involved.

And it's real 'scientific' to claim that dead, lifeless sperm

Uh.. sperm are quite active as they wriggle and "swim" their way to the egg...

That is called sarcasm. How does life "begin" at conception if the sperm and egg are already "alive"? I am pointing out that nothing magical happens when a bunch of sperm attack an egg and one makes it through.

If I crashed in to you drunk and destroyed your kidneys, and I was the only genetic match to be a donor to save your life, could I be compelled to do so in a court of law? Can my bodily resources be used to sustain your existence, even if *I* was the cause of your predicament? Of course not, but anti-choicers are more than willing to apply the same standard to pregnant women.

None of this detracts from the fact that Dr. Paul thinks the federal government should enforce what he wants and should stand aside for the things he doesn't. Just like every other politician.

reply to post by anon102

...Afterall, voting doesn't matter, what harm can it do? ...

The best way to "make voting matter" is to get rid of the Rigged Diebold Voting Machines and replace them with paper ballets. This MUST be followed up by honest citizens volunteering/demanding a place at the polling stations.


The second part is to make it clear to the Rebooblicans we want Ron Paul and will vote for him no matter what. This should be a massage sent direct AND sent to the MSM and internet.

Isn't it time "We the People" TELL the parties who WE want instead of sitting back like a bump on a log and waiting for them to serve up their manchurian candidate???

If nothing else a large voter turn out for Ron Paul will send a message that at least some of us are now awake.

For those unaware of what our"welfare state's" real goals are:

Note: The London School of Economics turns out the world's Central bankers and was started by the Fabian Society. The Rhodes Scholarship program is also under Fabian/Rothschild control LINK

...Consider this quote from George Bernard Shaw, one of the founders of the Fabian Society:

"Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not the character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well."

[sounds like slavery to me -CV

]

...Fabian Society?

... get beyond the title and this is what you find:

The Fabian Society began in England in 1887 by a very small group of elitist socialist that sought to reform society gradually into one of socialism instead of through violent revolution. At first their purpose was to be an alternative in Britain for the more dominate Marxist Social-Democratic Federation, but their true goal was to accomplish socialism through a very gradual process using the voting booth and representative democracy as their instrument of change. In fact, one of their symbols is a Turtle with the motto: "When I Strike, I Strike Hard". Another symbol is the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing and the Globe on an Anvil being hammered into the Fabian model.

And there is this:

One stroke of genius was that instead of advocating a Socialist State, they assisted in the implementation of the Welfare State, which as we should all know is merely a few steps away from a purely Socialistic State. It was, of course, implemented gradually, and played upon the weaknesses of human nature to gain popularity. Unlike the usual Socialist points of views, the Fabians didn't advocate complete State ownership of businesses, industry, agriculture or land, instead they sought to involve the State into very specific areas of importance such as electric power production, transportation, precious metals and of course, credit. The remaining balance of economic systems would be left to the private sector however; it would be highly regulated by the State and operated according to the wishes of the State.

A gradual take over by moving the country to a welfare state and government control of power production, transportation, precious metals, and credit.

...One more thing from the THE MILITANT JEFFERSONIAN site:

In 1942, Stuart Chase, in his book "The Road We Are Traveling" spelled out the system of planning the Fabians had in mind; the interesting thing is to look at that plan in comparison to 2008 America.

1. Strong, centralized government. - [CHECK-CV

]

2. Powerful Executive at the expense of Congress and the Judicial. - [CHECK-CV

]

3. Government controlled banking, credit and securities exchange. - [CHECK-CV

banker controlled]

4. Government control over employment.

5. Unemployment insurance, old age pensions. - [CHECK-CV

]

6. Universal medical care, food and housing programs. - [CHECK-CV

]

7. Access to unlimited government borrowing. - [CHECK-CV

]

8. A managed monetary system.

9. Government control over foreign trade. - [CHECK-CV

under the control of WTO]

10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production.

11. Government regulation of labor.

12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities.

13. Heavy progressive taxation. - [CHECK-CV

]

I see eight of the thirteen already accomplished, with strong movement toward the rest.
angam.blogspot.com...

Since this has been written we can see that "10. Government control over natural energy sources, transportation and agricultural production." is being implemented with the Grope-N-fly program, the passage of the "Food Safety Modernization Act" and the EPA's stance on Global Warming/CO2 as a "hazardous gas"

Also "12. Youth camps devoted to health discipline, community service and ideological teaching consistent with those of the authorities." has certainly been floated.

As the new administration takes shape, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will call on Americans from every walk of life to serve. President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden will expand national service programs...

Obama and Biden will call on citizens of all ages to serve. They'll set a goal that all middle school and high school students engage in 50 hours of community service a year, and develop a plan for all college students who engage in 100 hours of community service to receive a fully-refundable tax credit of $4,000 for their education. Obama and Biden will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.... change.gov...

prospect.org...

The question is simple SLAVERY or FREEDOM?

reply to post by restlessbrainsyndrome

Think he will push for the legalization of marijuana? Can't really be a "freedom" president without doing that right? If so, let's get the ball rolling, tax it to all hell, and get us out of debt!!!

Yes and no. He does not personally use or advocate use of MJ or other 'drugs', but would seek to end the *federal* prohibition on drugs and let states deal with these issues accordingly, as well as having promised to pardon non-violent drug offenders.

He DOES effectively advocate industrial hemp, though, and has previously authored two bills excluding hemp from federal definitions of marijuana to allow farmers to get back into growing for industrial purposes.

Thanks!

reply to post by Crimelab
Oh goodness, if you're going to be a single issue voter (or one-trick pony, take your pick)...

Of course not, but anti-choicers are more than willing to apply the same standard to pregnant women.

There is a slight difference between being pro-life and being anti-choice. We are not against a person's right to choose whether or not to have sex - to choose whether or not to have unprotected sex - to choose whether or not to use some other form of contraception - to choose whether or not to use a morning-after pill (speaking for myself personally) or to use a spermicide after the fact - to choose whether or not to put an infant up for adoption or to utilize state 'safe haven' laws to obviate their responsibility for said child.

We ARE opposed to the very slippery slope of acting irresponsibly or not weighing other alternatives to instead opt for an invasive medical procedure that former rape victims have on occasion likened to being raped yet again, can cause PTSD-like symptoms, and kills an embryo that can be viable for self-sustaining life at shockingly early times and can be handled otherwise.

Sorry we push for such a lack of options, but until all die-hard abortion supporters buck up and actively defend everyone else's right to choose on a variety of issues including drug use and various other liberties (such as federal funding for planned parenthood, 'universal' health care, social security, medicare - things that MY money is taken to fund, money that I earned through the work of MY body - where's MY right to choose what to do with MY body, or the fruit thereof?), I could really care less as there are a PROFUSION of choices for them to make.

None of this detracts from the fact that Dr. Paul thinks the federal government should enforce what he wants and should stand aside for the things he doesn't. Just like every other politician.

Wrong - show me one issue where Dr. Paul's stance is not constitutionally justified and correct. What does he say the government SHOULD enforce, that the constitution does not also state is the government's job to enforce?

If you can't name one (and I really can't even think of much of anything the constitution or Ron Paul say the government should enforce on the people other than some apportioned taxes, tariffs, etc.), then you should be trying to organize a national coalition to push for constitutional amendment either through congress or constitutional convention, instead of making false allegations.

Be well.

reply to post by Praetorius


I took a look at that, and from what I understand of No Child Left Behind (I'm not American) it seems like an absolutely horrible idea, and if I understand it right I support removing it. Ron Paul also mentions that the quality of education has declined since it was changed from being a state to a federal responsibility. Why this should be I am not sure, and I'm not sure it is related, but it seems pretty clear that there needs to be some kind of educational reform.

reply to post by DragonsDemesne


Perhaps the 9th & 10th amendments to the US constitituion may shed some insight.
The Federal government has no authority on the matter, therefore, it is indeed up to the individual states.

reply to post by Praetorius


Here Here! States Authority vs. Federal Authority as outline in our Constitution.
Again, 9th & 10th.
BTW - why did nobody even give the slightest attention to Gary Johnson in the "Debate"?
After 8 years of him, my state was in great shape.
Then, 8 of Bill Richardson, the guy who gave China all the nuke tech they wanted under the Clinton years.
Crony capitalism under him, at BEST, & a deficit rather than a surplus.
I love R. Paul, but Gary still deserves to be heard, and not asked asinine questions on what's supposed to be a
"debate". I will concede, however, that Cain did show well. Makes me nervous that he's just another puppet, like the last "at least" three, and probably all since JFK. But i digress, & no, i'm not a Reagan Kool-aid drinker, but despite his rather Large(Iran-Contra for example, or GHWB as VP) mistakes, he sureley wasn't as big a puppet as the rest.
But I admit that's open to debate too.
(paraphrasing R.A.W.) -"belief leads one to stop asking questions"

reply to post by ISeeTheFnords


Hey Fnords,

I was disappointed by what happened to Gary in the debate as well. He got "Ron Pauled", honestly, with the marginal treatment and silly questions. He seemed very nervous too, though, and I don't think came across well - sad, because I really like a lot of what he says. He's got a great record and there's only a few things I have strong disagreement with him on (still a much better choice than pretty much everyone but Ron in my opinion).

I'd like to see more from Cain, but he seems to be a big-government guy, former fed chairman, supported TARP and so forth - and I didn't get a whole lot out of him beyond "You've got to have a plan, 1,2,3,4...and I would surround myself with advisors who know these things!" ...and we've all seen what happens then, because it's pretty much always the same advisors in Washington if you don't know these things for yourself (as Ron seems to).

Also is a funny youtube video I saw the other day with Cain apparently admitting his plan for the economy wouldn't work now because the government waited too long to try it. "So, uhh...sir, what plan DO you have for the economy that you think WOULD work at this point, exactly?"

Oy vey.

Thanks and take care

Originally posted by Schkeptick
I wonder if he can be elected.

I mean, where is the charm? The good looks? The inspiring (empty) rhetoric? The soaring speech?

This is nothing but logic and straight-forward-ness.

Presidential Candidate Fail.

Why use logic and straigth-forward-ness when you can use namecalling and blaming everyone else for you own incompetence.

Originally posted by Crimelab
Ron Paul : "On the right-to-life issue, I believe, I’m a real stickler for civil liberties. It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you are going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well."

"I have a Bill in congress I certainly would promote and push as president, called the Sanctity of Life Amendment. We establish the principle that life begins at conception. And someone says, ‘oh why are you saying that?’ and I say, ‘well, that’s not a political statement -- that’s a scientific statement that I’m making!“


Good thing we know that Dr. Paul's concern for individual liberty ends when a brood mare (woman) is involved.

And it's real 'scientific' to claim that dead, lifeless sperm and eggs somehow become infused with "life" when they bump in to each other in the night.

If you take such perverted logic to its obvious end... any woman who engages in a sex act which MIGHT cause pregnancy should be immediately placed on bedrest and constant medical monitoring for the rest of the gestation. Anything less is a abrogation of the rights of the Individual residing in her womb.

Oh wait. The fetus has no individual rights because it isn't recognized as INDIVIDUAL until birth.

Ron Paul is no different than any other politician. Government is great when it is enforcing what he wants enforced. And being a rabid pro-life freak hiding behind small government propaganda is not revolutionary. It's legislating morality which should be anathema to a Libertarian.

Pretty convenient to not give them any rights until they literally come out of the womb, with the definition of 'birth' not applying when they are medically extracted via caesarean birth... Therefore such children would not be classed as 'Individuals' and therefore would not be granted rights but rather as chattel or research subjects.

reply to post by Scytherius


Where you spend your money is your vote. Where you bank is your vote. That is freedom. The last thing banks want is a run, the last thing corporations want is an end to business. They would be forced to change or face dieing out if such a mass organized event happened amongst the people. This is how a market economy is supposed to work. It has far more power than electoral politics but we are all ignorant of it.