Ron Paul fund raising speech

[billydkid]

How do you not like this man? I have heard people say his message is simplistic. How people can say this in light of ultra-simplistic message that has gotten Dubya elected to two terms is beyond me. Some may accuse me of spamming and I apologize if anyone feels this way, but I think Mr. Paul has an important message which resonates with people who are willing to hear it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvufAJcftc8

[Pardalis]

Infowars? You do know that Alex Jones is a complete nutcase?

[Darth Rotor]

Infowars? You do know that Alex Jones is a complete nutcase?

Ron Paul is not a Truther, but the Truther's like Ron Paul because he is anti big government, and has a record to prove it. At the moment, big government is part of the truther enemy list.

DR

[mr rosewater]

I like some of what he said, perhaps a change in foreign policy, maybe reducing military size better training higher pay, personal responsibility is a home run.

[Pardalis]

Ron Paul is not a Truther, but the Truther's like Ron Paul because he is anti big government, and has a record to prove it. At the moment, big government is part of the truther enemy list.

DR

Oh, OK. It's bad publicity for him to have Alex Jones as a supporter though...

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, OK. It's bad publicity for him to have Alex Jones as a supporter though...
I see, all politicians can choose who votes for them? You're looking at this through a very narrow view finder.

Paul can't do a damned thing if he can't get votes, can he? There are a variety of political strains in America. You have to appeal to a bunch of them.

Ron Paul is running populist. He is also hoping to attract libertarian votes. He is also trying to attract anti big government votes.

He does not need to make a single campaign promise to a Troofer to get their votes. He is a symbol to them, of the common man standing up to the big government dragon.

DR

[mr rosewater]

Oh and not imposing my morality on my neighbor.

[Oliver]

Oh and not imposing my morality on my neighbor.


Like abortion or pseudo-religious "science" like creationism.

[mr rosewater]

I believe Mr Paul said something like if what my neighbor is doing doesn't hurt me, why should I care? Unless it involves Goats (Shemp).

[Oliver]

I believe Mr Paul said something like if what my neighbor is doing doesn't hurt me, why should I care?


And I guess he was right if he actually meant: "What my neighbor is doing doesn't hurt anyone, why should I care?"

[Darth Rotor]

And I guess he was right if he actually meant: "What my neighbor is doing doesn't hurt anyone, why should I care?"
He does not need your approval to hold a position.

Ron Paul is personally pro life, he delivered over 4,000 babies in his first career, as doctor, and is politically pro choice, as he feels government should not interfere with its citizens. He is also of the opinion that government interfering with such things as gay marriage is a bad idea.

Why don't you do some research on Ron Paul, if you want to understand where he is coming from? He has a page as a Congressman, and there is a page for his election campaign.

George Will calls him "a cheerful anachronism" and I think that's a pretty good descriptive. If I can find a link to Will's fine article on Ron Paul, I'll ETA for you.

ETA: Here you go. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/)

DR

[mr rosewater]

I don't have a problem with what most people do Oliver, as a matter of fact Saddam could have killed as many Iraqis as he pleased, or Iranians as well.

[Oliver]

He does not need your approval to hold a position.

Ron Paul is personally pro life, he delivered over 4,000 babies in his first career, as doctor, and is politically pro choice, as he feels government should not interfere with its citizens. He is also of the opinion that government interfering with such things as gay marriage is a bad idea.

Why don't you do some research on Ron Paul, if you want to understand where he is coming from? He has a page as a Congressman, and there is a page for his election campaign.

George Will calls him "a cheerful anachronism" and I think that's a pretty good descriptive. If I can find a link to Will's fine article on Ron Paul, I'll ETA for you.

ETA: Here you go. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200494/site/newsweek/)

DR


I understand your point - and I have to admit that I didn't research "Ron Paul" very well because I doubt that he has a chance on todays political stage. Anyway: So far he made more good than bad points - especially because he seems to be guided by his heart and experiences, not by the last polls.

[Oliver]

I don't have a problem with what most people do Oliver, as a matter of fact Saddam could have killed as many Iraqis as he pleased, or Iranians as well.


Actually that's a pretty sad argument that seems to show a lack of a neutral position on your side - and from what I can tell concerning the statements you made so far. But I still hope for some assumptions from you - unless you're mainly still learning.

[mr rosewater]

I'm a citizen of the U.S.A. no I'm not neutral what ever the h3l! that is.

[Oliver]

I'm a citizen of the U.S.A. no I'm not neutral what ever the h3l! that is.


Well, then you're a prisoner of public mind, your political agenda and the media. JREF/Politics may be a false choice of yours if you ignore other views as you suggested in your reply, wrong?

[mr rosewater]

Have you been drinking Oliver.

[Oliver]

Have you been drinking Oliver.


One Mixery (http://www.mixery.de/) - which is a Coke-Beer-Mix. But I'm not drunken if this is what you're suggesting. And it was no answer at all, was it? :p

[mr rosewater]

Well, then you're a prisoner of public mind, your political agenda and the media. JREF/Politics may be a false choice of yours if you ignore other views as you suggested in your reply, wrong?

Thank you for the pigeonhole, it's so nicely decorated.

[Oliver]

Thank you for the pigeonhole, it's so nicely decorated.


So essentially, you have no own opinion at all yet?

[mr rosewater]

Border Security and Immigration Reform (Mr. Paul)

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:



Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

I'd like to have an honest discussion on legal immigration. (Kennedy is an a$$)

[Admiral]

Illegal immigration is pretty much the only area on which I strongly disagree with Ron Paul (personally, I'd like to make becoming an American resident easier than getting a driver's license- a few hours of security checks and paperwork).

I'm also pro-choice, while Ron Paul wants to make it a state issue (by reversing Roe v. Wade).

[Darth Rotor]

Illegal immigration is pretty much the only area on which I strongly disagree with Ron Paul (personally, I'd like to make becoming an American resident easier than getting a driver's license- a few hours of security checks and paperwork).

I'm also pro-choice, while Ron Paul wants to make it a state issue (by reversing Roe v. Wade).

He wants it to go back to a state by state basis, which is consistent with his stricter Constitutionalist approach to the limitations on Federal government.

DR

[Oliver]

Border Security and Immigration Reform (Mr. Paul)

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

I'd like to have an honest discussion on legal immigration. (Kennedy is an a$$)


While I appreciate your opinion about border control - what about the efforts for an North American Union? There is a small contradiction in these two opinions if you look closely. What do you think?

[mr rosewater]

Illegal immigration is pretty much the only area on which I strongly disagree with Ron Paul (personally, I'd like to make becoming an American resident easier than getting a driver's license- a few hours of security checks and paperwork).

I'm also pro-choice, while Ron Paul wants to make it a state issue (by reversing Roe v. Wade).

I'm also pro-choice, I'm not interested in demonizing our current illegals, but I feel there's something unseemly about such a large number of people. It's like an unarmed army. Unchecked immigration does have an adverse effect on the tax paying citizen. The Heritage Foundation estimates the cost of the current crop of illegals made legal will be -2.5 trillion for SS, medicare, medicaid, who will pay this bill. ( If these numbers are true.) Legal immigration is fine can we discuss increasing the number? Guest workers? What about education levels of new arrivals?

[mr rosewater]

While I appreciate your opinion about border control - what about the efforts for an North American Union? There is a small contradiction in these two opinions if you look closely. What do you think?

Mr. Paul
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.


A single nation would be a bad idea now, maybe if Mexico gets it's act together, say 40 years from now, maybe.

[mr rosewater]

Mr. Paul,

Property Rights and Eminent Domain
We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches.

Our country’s founders would roll over in their graves if they saw the takings clause in the Fifth Amendment used to justify booting people out of their homes for the profit of private developers and tax-hungry local governments. The Supreme Court’s Kelo decision said government power could be used to condemn private homes and churches to benefit a huge pharmaceutical corporation and a large property developer.


I agree with this but should it be handled at the state level.

[Oliver]

Mr. Paul
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

A single nation would be a bad idea now, maybe if Mexico gets it's act together, say 40 years from now, maybe.


I think the North American Union is a pretty boring issue - but I missed the Idea that this is meant to build up a single Government. I highly assume that it's meant to keep up with the EU - which also isn't an European Government. The basic Idea is to make trading much easier and to gain from that fact. Strange that Ron twisted it this way to make a political point.

Where did he say that?

[mr rosewater]

Where did he say that?

google up his web site.

[WildCat]

Ron Paul is not a Truther, but the Truther's like Ron Paul because he is anti big government, and has a record to prove it. At the moment, big government is part of the truther enemy list.

DR
Not really. Troofers like Ron Paul because there's never been a conspiracy theory they didn't swallow hook, line, and sinker. And one of these is that the Federal Resertve System is some sort of Illuminati plot to... do something. And Ron Paul shares that idiocy, and wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and go back to the gold standard.

Also, many troofers are also of the "show me the law that says I have to pay income tax" persuasion. Ron Paul also wants to abolish the income tax.

I predict that Ron Paul will get 100% of the idiot vote in the Republican primaries.

eta: also the NAFTA Superhighway nonsense pointed out above.

[mr rosewater]

WildCat,
I predict that Ron Paul will get 100% of the idiot vote in the Republican primaries.


I live in New Jersey the democrat is a lock. I might just vote for him.

[WildCat]

I only vote for nutjobs in the general election, just as a protest vote. There's usually someone presentable in the primaries, even if they never win the nomination.

[mr rosewater]

I only vote for nutjobs in the general election, just as a protest vote. There's usually someone presentable in the primaries, even if they never win the nomination.

Ah key word primary, went right past me.

[Oliver]

WildCat,
I predict that Ron Paul will get 100% of the idiot vote in the Republican primaries.


Even if he wins, what I really doubt, the first thing some Twoofers will do is to scream: "He's NWO now, burn him!".

[WildCat]

Even if he wins, what I really doubt, the first thing some Twoofers will do is to scream: "He's NWO now, burn him!".
Don't be silly. They'll at least tie him up and throw him in a pond first to see if he floats.

[Darth Rotor]

Not really. Troofers like Ron Paul because there's never been a conspiracy theory they didn't swallow hook, line, and sinker. And one of these is that the Federal Resertve System is some sort of Illuminati plot to... do something. And Ron Paul shares that idiocy, and wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and go back to the gold standard.

Also, many troofers are also of the "show me the law that says I have to pay income tax" persuasion. Ron Paul also wants to abolish the income tax.


I agree with you disagreeing with him on the Gold Standard, which if President he could not get through a Congress that does not support it. Not to worry on that score.

Abolishing the income tax (to be replaced with some other revenue stream, most likely a consumption tax) would still most likely create loopholes, so no matter the method, the soaking of those with means to earn and spend would be found. It is the nature of government.

DR

[Admiral]

I'm not interested in demonizing our current illegals, but I feel there's something unseemly about such a large number of people. It's like an unarmed army. Unchecked immigration does have an adverse effect on the tax paying citizen. The Heritage Foundation estimates the cost of the current crop of illegals made legal will be -2.5 trillion for SS, medicare, medicaid, who will pay this bill.

And therein lies the rub!

This is actually a pet argument of mine- that increases in government size and power justify OTHER increases. Here, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc justify keeping people out of the country. This is an unintended side effect of programs meant to be helpful- they justify unjust restrictions on innocent people. Here are some other examples of the same "government justifying more government" phenomenon:

-Medicaid justifies helmet laws- since we're proving people with hospital care if they get into an accident, we save taxpayers money by requiring all motorcycle drivers to wear helmets.
-Unemployment insurance and welfare justify drug criminalization- since we're paying for people when they're unproductive, we have to make sure they're not being made more unproductive through drugs (I've actually heard this argument, though it sounds kind of silly to me)
-Drug criminalization justifies vast expansions in police power and invasions of privacy
-Tariffs and trade restrictions that prevent jobs from moving overseas to poor countries justify giving foreign aid to those countries

My point is, government just keeps expanding, and as it does, it just keeps infringing more and more into people's liberties.

In short, my answer would be- cut down Medicare and Medicaid, and phase out Social Security over a few decades. They were created with the best of intentions, to help the weak and provide for the needy, but they're doing the exact opposite by forcing out people who want jobs in America. (Obviously, there are many other reasons I want to get rid of those programs- they're inefficient and monopolistic, and Social Security is little more than a Ponzi scheme).

After getting rid of those programs, we could welcome any immigrants who'd like to move to America- though it would be clear to them that they, along with every other American, would have to make it on their own without help from the government.

One last thought- what exactly do you mean by "unseemly"? It seemed almost racist, though I'm sure that's not what you intended. If people want to come to America and work honestly, I have no idea why we should degrade them- I have no problem with a growing Hispanic population in this country. My only problem is when idiotic quotas and regulations force them into lives of off-the-book housing and under-the-table salaries. Why can't we accept as our equals anyone who wants to get a chance in America?

[corplinx]

Repeat after me, Ron Paul will never be president.

Remember the original Gingrich budget? Remember the flagrant demonization, distortion, propaganda, and the stoic press who repeated it all (which in turn spurned the creation of Fox News which instead of getting it fair and balanced, just acted as a counterweight)

Ron Paul wants to axe the department of education. He's on record. Hillary, Obama, Edward, or whoever will _lie_ and say that Ron Paul doesn't want your child to have an education, he wants to take away school lunches, he wants only the wealthy and privileged to receive education. The playbook is already written.

Just as republicans played to dumb Americans by portraying democrats as being permissive of global terrorism, the democrats have a field day distorting something as simple as an out-of-context "wither on the vine".

Ron Paul won't be president. This country isn't smart enough to elect someone with ideas that radical. I am not saying they would be dumb to vote for someone else. I am saying they don't understand what the federal bureaucracy is and what it does or doesn't do and hence Ron Paul's ideas are easily distorted.

Just put away the Ron Paul posters because it ain't gonna happen. Gingrich wasn't anywhere near as radical as Ron Paul and look what they turned 2 percent cuts in the rate of growth into.

[Admiral]

Corplinx- I'm very well aware that Ron Paul will never be president- I'd be surprised if he comes in the top THREE in a SINGLE state in the Republican primaries.

(On the other hand, I've already made a solemn vow that if he does somehow get nominated against all odds, I'm taking a semester off from school to volunteer for his campaign- a pretty safe vow, all things considered).

[mr rosewater]

One last thought- what exactly do you mean by "unseemly"? It seemed almost racist, though I'm sure that's not what you intended. If people want to come to America and work honestly, I have no idea why we should degrade them- I have no problem with a growing Hispanic population in this country. My only problem is when idiotic quotas and regulations force them into lives of off-the-book housing and under-the-table salaries. Why can't we accept as our equals anyone who wants to get a chance in America?

"unseemly" in the way the Mexican government treats their people. The reports if true say the majority have no high school education, why? There are also reports that their government encourages them to head north in a sense exporting their responsibility.

[hgc]

Remember the original Gingrich budget? Remember the flagrant demonization, distortion, propaganda, and the stoic press who repeated it all (which in turn spurned the creation of Fox News which instead of getting it fair and balanced, just acted as a counterweight)


In other words: The devil made them do it. File under Hilarity, Unintentional.