# Pres. Candidate Supports Constitution, Against War, Fascism



## ehock76

Anyone else out there heard of 2008 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul? He is libertarian running as a Republican. He is a 10-term congressman from Texas who is the champion of the Constitution. He voted against the war in Iraq, against the Patriot Act, and has written many bills trying to expose the dangers of vaccines and advocate the right to choose for our children. I believe he is our children's only hope to continue living in a free country. Anyone else out there love this man?


----------



## JessicaS

This thread has been added to Activism as the OP does not yet have access to the Politics forum.


----------



## merpk

No, I don't love him at all.

From The Daily Kos: "Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke ..."

The link has Ron Paul, in his own words. Including such gems as:

_"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."_

_"Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."_

The Kos concludes: "I understand how important, how visceral, opposition to the war is for a lot of people. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that (we) understand that, opposition to the war aside, Ron Paul is not our friend."

In the late '90s Ron Paul willingly accepted the endorsements of NeoNazi groups, the KKK and David Duke. The late '90s isn't so long ago. And is that the kind of support our president should be looking for?

Ron Paul on the issues.










Ron Paul is very scary. Can't say it emphatically enough.


----------



## Valkyrie9

I keep hearing how he's so big on always voting along with the Constitution and I have to admit that I don't understand why that is a selling point? I am in no way a Constitutional scholar (obviously) and just don't really get what that statement really *tells* me about him... Just looking for input there.


----------



## p1gg1e

I like the guy and haven't found or heard him say anything racist at least from good sources....

He has my vote


----------



## athansor

I agree with merpk. The more I learn about him, the less I like him. I think if you are opposed to the war, and want to see more social freedoms, such as everyone having the right to marry, then you should consider Kucinich.
Of course, after today's debate, I think that I want to learn more about Gravel as well.


----------



## fishface

I really love Gravel's honesty.


----------



## eco_mama

Ron Paul's quotes make me uke Sorry, but I love Kucinich.


----------



## merpk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
I like the guy and haven't found or heard him say anything racist at least from good sources....

He has my vote










Read my link. The Daily Kos is a well-respected site with internationally respected journalists.

Please. Read it.

There is no justification for the comments in his name. None. Unless you think that young Black men are particularly dangerous and scary, or that immigrants are killing this country.

I'll leave out the "life begins at conception" thing, because abortion is another issue entirely.

Please. Read the link.


----------



## p1gg1e

I did read it and feel that its taken out of context. I think the comment about black men was sarcastic in that they get blamed for things allot or highlighted more then white men. Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

Ron Paul is not a democrat or a socialist...but a conservative government Republican.

I still stand by my Vote







:


----------



## p1gg1e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Newsletter article controversy

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments.[28] The article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."[29] The newsletter article stated that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying:

_"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." And, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system', I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." ... [although] "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."_

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[16]

Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[16] Paul has separately criticized racism as a form of collectivism.[30]

[30] http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html


----------



## Peacemamalove

THE daily Kos goes around to ALL the libertarian sites just to bust them down basically they go around trying to make people believe that Libertarians are crazy radicals and bomb throwers!! Which we aren't!!

AS a Libertarian we believe:

Liberty is the right to live your life in the way you choose, so long as you do not initiate force upon any other individual!Along with liberty comes the personal responsibility to face the consequences of your actions. This respect for individual choices optimizes the incentive for people to succeed and make correct choices, and opens the door to a diversity that only freedom brings.

So we believe that government's only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.

We must remember what government is: institutionalized force. The power and politics of government makes it arrogant, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. Because of this inherent nature of government, government programs almost always fail to do what they were supposed to. And expanding government power to do what you think it should ensures that future politicians will use it in ways you think they shouldn't.

Our military's only function should be to defend the United States. Anything more would be contributing to and encouraging terrorism at home and abroad, so we should bring our troops home.

Why wouldn't you want someone who is going to uphold the constitution?? Do you like the thought of people telling you that you have NO rights...and take away the basics (Bill Of right) like freedom of speech Etc...We need someone who is going to Protect our rights and freedoms!

My VOTE will be for Ron Paul in the Primary. If you want to know more about him go to his website http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

Quote:


Originally Posted by *merpk* 
Read my link. The Daily Kos is a well-respected site with internationally respected journalists.

Please. Read it.

There is no justification for the comments in his name. None. Unless you think that young Black men are particularly dangerous and scary, or that immigrants are killing this country.

I'll leave out the "life begins at conception" thing, because abortion is another issue entirely.

Please. Read the link.


----------



## Peacemamalove

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

I still stand by my Vote







:

I agree with the poster.....If you read why Ron Paul is Pro-life you would all probably agree with him...While he was an intern he had to attend a Late term abortion...The baby was crying and the doctor threw it in a garbage pail crying and breathing.

Watch his video from the National Right to Life convention he tells the story at 3 mins ! 




NO government should have the right to tell a women,man or child what they can or can not do with there body. It is a personal choice that only the individual can make.


----------



## Meg Murry.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ehock76* 
Anyone else out there heard of 2008 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul? He is libertarian running as a Republican. He is a 10-term congressman from Texas who is the champion of the Constitution. He voted against the war in Iraq, against the Patriot Act, and has written many bills trying to expose the dangers of vaccines and advocate the right to choose for our children. I believe he is our children's only hope to continue living in a free country. Anyone else out there love this man?

Ron Paul is a scary racist.

Here are some Ron Paul quotes. The first one is from a newsletter produced by Ron Paul in 1992 called the _Ron Paul Report_.

_Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. *The professional blacks may have cowed the elites,* but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that *our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin.* This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. *Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions*, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that *95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal*.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? *We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers*.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer._

Sourcehere


----------



## Meg Murry.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
I did read it and feel that its taken out of context. I think the comment about black men was sarcastic in that they get blamed for things allot or highlighted more then white men. Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

Ron Paul is not a democrat or a socialist...but a conservative government Republican.

I still stand by my Vote







:

Then please, by all means, include the context that shifts you toward an interpretation of sarcasm there. I've quoted in my post immediately above the context in which Paul's 1992 comments appeared, and that's pretty conclusive for me.


----------



## Peacemamalove

Again I wouldn't trust the daily Kos at all people...My Dh and I belong to many groups online, and have seen the WORK OF THE KOS.... This is what they do they go around and try to make all the good people look bad.....You could do that for Every Candidate OUT THERE!!!

m Dh has run for House...and is in Contact with many people even Pres. Candidate Steve Kubby who has also Endorsed Ron Paul.

As I am sure you are all aware...Beware there are many people out there working against the good guys!!


----------



## AlexisT

I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Kos myself, bt I've seen enough stuff on Ron Paul (recently featured in the New York Times and The Economist) to make me very skeptical.


----------



## p1gg1e

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Meg Murry.* 
Then please, by all means, include the context that shifts you toward an interpretation of sarcasm there. I've quoted in my post immediately above the context in which Paul's 1992 comments appeared, and that's pretty conclusive for me.

Well IF you had read my later post you would see that he actually didn't say that that someone had used his name.....

And he states his views on race in a book and in other media publicly....


----------



## merpk

Someone used his name *in a newsletter called "The Ron Paul Report,* a newsletter of less than 10 pages. You're going to tell me that Ron Paul didn't read the entire less-than-10-pages Ron Paul Report before it went out to the Ron Paul supporters?

That's even more of a reason not to vote for him. Since obviously his racism isn't enough for you.


----------



## Meg Murry.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
Well IF you had read my later post you would see that he actually didn't say that that someone had used his name.....

And he states his views on race in a book and in other media publicly....

I think Amy said it best. If you are a political candidate putting out a publication with your name on it expressing your views, you are responsible for that publication's content.

And by the way, Piggle, if his publication "The Ron Paul Report," was somehow written by a wild-eyed maverick staffwriter determined to blacken Paul's reputation by expressing racist views under Ron Paul's name that Ron Paul himself never would espouse, then why...

...didn't Paul issue an IMMEDIATE and vociferous denial of the newsletter's contents in the media or in the next issue of "The Ron Paul Report"?

....didn't Ron Paul sue the writer who wrote these racist things and passed them off as Ron Paul's opinion? That way, when Kos dug up the racist Ron Paul Report --oh, sorry, the racist Ron Paul ReportS (there were more than one) -- Ron Paul could say, "The public record will show I filed suit for defamation of character and libel two days after this newsletter was issued..." and so on.

But he didn't. Because that's not what happened.

...do you believe that Ron Paul's "book and other media" haven't also been infiltrated by evil ghost writers bent on saying things Ron Paul doesn't mean? I mean, if "The Ron Paul Report" is suspect, isn't everything else put out by Ron Paul also suspect?

Bottom line, overt racism of the Strom Thurmond variety is not acceptable in American politics any more. I refuse to back a covert member of the "Dixiecrat" party.


----------



## p1gg1e

I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?

I think that you should not only think about reading RP's books but look at who endorses him.

I don't want you to vote for him but rather think about the strong accusations of calling someone raciest.

My Grandmother joined a cult because she didn't get a joke against the Vietnam war at church.....


----------



## athansor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?

I think that you should not only think about reading RP's books but look at who endorses him.

I don't want you to vote for him but rather think about the strong accusations of calling someone raciest.

My Grandmother joined a cult because she didn't get a joke against the Vietnam war at church.....

I'd be interested in seeing how you spin these in such a way that they aren't racist:

1. "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

2 "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action...." (Of course, by this standard, I don't have sensible political opinions either)

3. Maybe a touch of sexism here as well ? "University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

4. "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23," he once wrote. "That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such"

As has been done in this thread already, you can state that these are not and never were his positions and just put out by people running his newsletter, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

You say it's interesting that people think these quotes are racist. So, I'm guessing that you don't think they are racist, and I'd like to see how you explain them in a non-racist way.

I'm no Libertarian (well, I flirted with it a bit 20 years ago when I read Atlas Shrugged), but even if I believed in the Libertarian ideas, I couldn't support this guy. His words or not, they are racist/sexist comments published under his name, and since we've still got a long way to go to combat racism in the US (think Jana 6), electing this person to the office of the president would be a huge step backwards.

Just a note, also, there are a few good threads that discuss/debate Libertarian principles in the politics area of the board, just for general platform discussion.


----------



## Meg Murry.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I'd be interested in seeing how you spin these in such a way that they aren't racist:

1. "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

2 "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action...." (Of course, by this standard, I don't have sensible political opinions either)

3. Maybe a touch of sexism here as well ? "University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

4. "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23," he once wrote. "That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such"

As has been done in this thread already, you can state that these are not and never were his positions and just put out by people running his newsletter, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

You say it's interesting that people think these quotes are racist. So, I'm guessing that you don't think they are racist, and I'd like to see how you explain them in a non-racist way.

I'm no Libertarian (well, I flirted with it a bit 20 years ago when I read Atlas Shrugged), but even if I believed in the Libertarian ideas, I couldn't support this guy. His words or not, they are racist/sexist comments published under his name, and since we've still got a long way to go to combat racism in the US (think Jana 6), electing this person to the office of the president would be a huge step backwards.

Just a note, also, there are a few good threads that discuss/debate Libertarian principles in the politics area of the board, just for general platform discussion.

Exactly. I'd like to see that PP take even ONE of these statements above and explain (word for word) why it isn't racist.


----------



## p1gg1e

NAK Sigh,
#1 the issue I believe was about the LA riots.

He is poking fun at the polls and being sarcastic in #2 basically talking about how blacks are painted as such in the media and unfortunately thats how White America sees them with the media spinning it that way.

# 3 - Maybe she is what she is and he was expressing his opinion of her just like you are here of him .Stating that if she were a white male that she would be fired but since we have laws protecting race and sex she can do her job even if its not well.

plus as an under dog I would think the news would be all over this if he were raciest.

I have a fussy/squirmy baby so I cant write everything I want..but seems that even if I got RP up to talk about this word by word you still wouldn't care. like I said you don't have to vote for him...or like him.

Maybe you all should email the VP candidates he has and tell them that he is raciest and a sexiest...they seem to be miss informed.


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?

What is this? The ol' "I'm not a racist 'cause black people like me"?

Ron Paul is opposed to Gay Marriage. Despite the fact that he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, he still would vote in opposition to equal marriage rights. The only reason he wants the control at the state level is because he knows that's the best place to institute his personal homophobic agenda.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

Quote:

If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress's constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a "same sex" marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
....
I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court's or another state's actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree.
He is NOT FOR LIBERTY for all people. He is for "liberty" for Conservatives like himself to discriminate against whomever they wish without interference from those evil lefty states.

Quote:

Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values.


----------



## delfuego

I'm intrigued by Ron Paul... yet a more than a little nervous about how he comes across as xenophobic and isolationist. I'm not going to write him off however... I would like to read/hear more of what he has to say in context. I haven't checked out the newsletter being debated here but I plan to.

Thanks to everyone posting info and opinions!


----------



## iamama

I wrote the Ron Paul camp about those aforementioned quotes and this is what I got back-quickly I might add.

_Those comments were NOT made by Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul abhors, loathes and
condems racism.

The statements in question, however, was not written by the
congressman personally. It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then
sent out with Dr. Paul's name attached to it. The article was written
in 1992, when Dr. Paul was running his own medical practice, and was
not directly involved in politics. While the views expressed on
African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he
understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his
weekly column. He has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has
been dealing with the incident for 15 years. He hopes that he will be
judged on his 20 years of distinguished service in the United States
congress and his fight for liberty for all Americans, irrespective of
race; not on a few unfortunate comments made by a former staffer more
than a decade ago.

It is understandable that when a rare and brave politician emerges who
rewards the people at the expense of the privileged, some will being
to spread falsehood about him. The best response to falsehood is
truth.

Best,

James Carl Hendrickson
Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008_


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *iamama* 
I wrote the Ron Paul camp about those aforementioned quotes and this is what I got back-quickly I might add.

_Those comments were NOT made by Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul abhors, loathes and
condems racism.

The statements in question, however, was not written by the
congressman personally. It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then
sent out with Dr. Paul's name attached to it. The article was written
in 1992, when Dr. Paul was running his own medical practice, and was
not directly involved in politics. While the views expressed on
African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he
understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his
weekly column. He has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has
been dealing with the incident for 15 years. He hopes that he will be
judged on his 20 years of distinguished service in the United States
congress and his fight for liberty for all Americans, irrespective of
race; not on a few unfortunate comments made by a former staffer more
than a decade ago.

It is understandable that when a rare and brave politician emerges who
rewards the people at the expense of the privileged, some will being
to spread falsehood about him. The best response to falsehood is
truth.

Best,

James Carl Hendrickson
Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008_

Go ahead and ask them about his homophobia as well.


----------



## p1gg1e

Quote:

Gay equality

In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[87]

Paul believes that federal government has no right to define marriage. His political position is that recognizing or legislating marriages is not a federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the states' right.[88] For this reason, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In a 2004 speech before Congress he expressed support for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which allowed states to refuse to recognize rulings by what he refers to as "activist judges", and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act, which would bar judges from forcing states to ignore the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, as an alternative to the FMA.[88][89]

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He has stated that he "would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act" if he had been in congress at the time. Paul was an "original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act."[90] Paul considers judges and other federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage to be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[91] Paul believes "marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter" and has stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[92]

Paul is personally opposed to gay marriage, but asserts that marriage is an individual matter rather than a function of the federal government, and marriage existed before governments did.[93] He says that citizens should not look to the government for moral guidance, because morality is primarily a religious or personal matter. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[94]

In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill. The amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia. The amendment in question was not present in the final bill.[95] Paul voted against the bill, as he votes against almost all federal funding as an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...l#Gay_equality

I for one I'm against ALL marriage in terms of government (because marriage is a religious term and I'm not religious) sponsored and regret getting ours once learning the history of it. I think that in government terms they should be civil unions only and marriages through your prospective religion.

I think that in the terms Ron Paul is talking he is right that in religion, marriage is between a man and a woman in MOST cases and that its not the Governments job to redefine it...thats a whole other can of worms....

I don't think that makes him a homophobe.


----------



## boingo82

OK, again, he has voted in ways consistent with specifically limiting the rights of gays and lesbians. He contradicts himself right and left.

Quote:

I think the current policy is a decent policy.

......

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
The current policy does NOT deal only with "disruptive" "homosexual behavior". It kicks gays out of the military whether or not they have done anything remotely disruptive. We have lost a great number of linguists because of this policy.

Polls of actual service members have shown that they overwhelmingly have no problem at all serving with those who are openly gay. You cannot support liberty and also say that the current policy is a good one.

As for the marriage thing - if he's saying it's religious only then HE'S the one redefining marriage. I had myself a good ol' atheist casino marriage and it is just as valid in the eyes of the law as anyone else's. Marriage is a contract between two individuals conferring specific legal and property rights, which may have spiritual connotations as well. If he is suddenly saying it's a religious thing between a man and a woman, then he's the one redefining it AND deliberately excluding whole classes of people from a civil right.

And again - the only way gay marriages can be "hostile to liberty" is if your definition of "liberty" is "the freedom to discriminate against whomever you want without legal consequences".


----------



## rabrog

Appears to be a very scary individual.

I also think that while we are getting closer, we will not see a non-mainstream Rep. or Dem. candidate have a real shot at the White House this election. The other groups candidates get a little closer each election, but we're not there yet. This absolutely does not mean we should not be working for it; I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

Jenn


----------



## p1gg1e

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boingo82* 
OK, again, he has voted in ways consistent with specifically limiting the rights of gays and lesbians. He contradicts himself right and left.

The current policy does NOT deal only with "disruptive" "homosexual behavior". It kicks gays out of the military whether or not they have done anything remotely disruptive. We have lost a great number of linguists because of this policy.

Polls of actual service members have shown that they overwhelmingly have no problem at all serving with those who are openly gay. You cannot support liberty and also say that the current policy is a good one.

As for the marriage thing - if he's saying it's religious only then HE'S the one redefining marriage. I had myself a good ol' atheist casino marriage and it is just as valid in the eyes of the law as anyone else's. Marriage is a contract between two individuals conferring specific legal and property rights, which may have spiritual connotations as well. If he is suddenly saying it's a religious thing between a man and a woman, then he's the one redefining it AND deliberately excluding whole classes of people from a civil right.

And again - the only way gay marriages can be "hostile to liberty" is if your definition of "liberty" is "the freedom to discriminate against whomever you want without legal consequences".


Hum I'm starting to think I cant explain this anymore simply to you.

Religion defines marriage and its not the governments job to redefine it for them because well separation of church and state....

Marriage in the Governments term is really this in history:
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/marriage.html


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *p1gg1e* 
Hum I'm starting to think I cant explain this anymore simply to you.

Religion defines marriage and its not the governments job to redefine it for them because well separation of church and state....

Marriage in the Governments term is really this in history:
http://www.thinkandask.com/news/marriage.html

Yes, I'm thinking likewise. It's been pointed out repeatedly that this man is racist and anti-gay and yet you are determined to defend him. Sorry, I have no interest in having someone like THAT as our president.

Again, marriage represents a LEGAL contract between two individuals. A LEGAL union conferring certain property and other rights. The religion bit is optional. Religion did not define my marriage or the thousands of other secular marriages in this country.


----------



## p1gg1e

Yes the the TERM marriage (not union ) is a religious term and should not be used by the government. All Unions should be that Unions first ( for government). 2nd with your prospective religion ( of your choice and definition ). Thats all its all about the word used.

to add if you want to change this term used you have to re write most religious texts....but thats not the government's job...








:

He wont be president so no worries there....


----------



## boingo82

k, go ahead and send that memo back to 200 years ago, because the government has been regulating marriage, INCLUDING atheist non-spiritual MARRIAGE, for a very long time. Not unions. Note that I do not have a civil union, I am married. If you want to up and decide that marriage is religious only, you are the one changing things.

Change most religious texts? Nope. No need. There are plenty of words that mean one thing when used legally and another when used in a particular religion. No need to change it at all.


----------



## orangebird

deleted. Feel stupid for even responding to a troll/RP spammer.


----------



## sunnybear

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I think if you are opposed to the war, and want to see more social freedoms, such as everyone having the right to marry, then you should consider Kucinich.

Definitely. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate I feel I can confidently place my vote with. I'm open to researching others, but no one else so far as been as good as him.


----------



## ccasanova

I've only skimmed the other replies to the originalpost, but the more I learn about Ron Paul, the more I think he is what our country _needs_. And has needed for a long time. I have not read up on _all_ his positions on all areas, but the ones I have read seem really right on. Him wanting to cut back government's power, getting our nose out of other countries where we shouldn't be, doing what he wants to do to our schools, including homeschooling, the changes to healthcare, are all right on in my opionion. He's got my vote, and my dh's, my brother's, my dad's, etc, etc.


----------



## merpk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ccasanova* 
He's got my vote, and my dh's, my brother's, my dad's, etc, etc.


He's also got David Duke's vote, and the neoNazis at stormfront . com, and the White Supremacist vote, and the Holocaust Denier vote, and the various fascist organizations all over America's vote.

That directly contradicts the allegations of the title of this thread, BTW. The fascists in America have openly come out in support of Ron Paul.

So what is it about Ron Paul that the fascists love so?

It is clear that the rest of Ron Paul's supporters need to think about the goals of these fascist organizations and consider the reasons why fascists consider Ron Paul to be the right choice for their goals.

FWIW, if neoNazis support a candidate, I cannot ever support that candidate.

But hey, it's a free country, right?


----------



## Scribe

Ron Paul is extremely frightening. He's been nothing but frightening in Texas and I can't imagine he wouldn't be worse if he had national level power. I am really floored at how he seems to have people believing he's something positive and different.


----------



## kmeyrick

About the Ron Paul Report, here's what I hate: He was in charge of the Ron Paul Report, so the buck stops with him. Nothing would be published w/out his permission, so he gave the green light on creepy articles. That or he's grossly irresponsible with his own brainchild. So _that_ alone tells me whether I want to vote for him. Furthermore, these neo-nazis are no longer the juvenile delinquents, they are organizing and attempting to gain an "intellectual" appearance. They may gain more power this way, so we have to look at who they endorse very carefully. Any candidate who does not vocally reject their endorsement (backing it up with actions such as turning down money, of course) must be looked on with suspicion. And here's the fact of it- if you are a liberal, don't vote for someone on the republican ticket.

The late term abortion story he has, of a live baby crying while being thrown in the trash.....horrifying...but is it true? If the baby is crying outside the womb, and is killed outside the womb, then it is legally murder. If he stayed silent about that and did not blow the whistle by contacting the police and the medical examiner, then I'm more pissed at him than ever.


----------



## TwoKids

I've always felt pretty hopeless about the political situation in the world. My husband mentioned that at least we could be on the right side of history. I've staked my hopes on Ron Paul ever since. He's the only one who can be trusted with that much power because he's proven he can turn it down.

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Ron Paul


----------



## Ellien C

I'm not sure the OP is really interested in our community. Seems to be a Ron Paul marketing rep.


----------



## kmeyrick

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ellien C* 
I'm not sure the OP is really interested in our community. Seems to be a Ron Paul marketing rep.

Interesting thought. I saw that little weasel on the republican candidate Youtube debate. I am surprised and disturbed that he had enough support to join Mitt Romney, Guiliani, McCain, and Huckabee. The man is wackadoo. Oddly, nothing was brought up about his racism, even though plenty of the questioners were liberals. The Daily Kos is not the first blog to catch him being weird. Little Green Footballs has had his number a long, long time. So what hush up strategies has Ron Paul been using? And what marketing rep would come here? Why? MDC doesn't seem like a place interested in oddball racists of the pseudo-scientific/intellectual sort. No, I think P1GGLE is just enthusiastic and will reconsider once she's had enough time to think about it.


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmeyrick* 
Interesting thought. I saw that little weasel on the republican candidate Youtube debate. I am surprised and disturbed that he had enough support to join Mitt Romney, Guiliani, McCain, and Huckabee. The man is wackadoo. Oddly, nothing was brought up about his racism, even though plenty of the questioners were liberals. The Daily Kos is not the first blog to catch him being weird. Little Green Footballs has had his number a long, long time. So what hush up strategies has Ron Paul been using? And what marketing rep would come here? Why? MDC doesn't seem like a place interested in oddball racists of the pseudo-scientific/intellectual sort. No, I think P1GGLE is just enthusiastic and will reconsider once she's had enough time to think about it.

Not P1ggle, the OP. Who has 2 posts, and 100% of them are spamming Ron Paul.


----------



## kmeyrick

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boingo82* 
Not P1ggle, the OP. Who has 2 posts, and 100% of them are spamming Ron Paul.

Oops. Sorry. My apologies. Did anyone see Ron Paul on the Youtube debate last night? Wackadoo. And sinister.


----------



## Cherie2

yesterday was the first I have ever heard of Ron Paul... not that I pay much attention to republican news... all of the sudden I am noticing his name everywhere... even from supposedly progressive people... it scares me slightly. Who is this Ron Paul Character? Should I be afraid?


----------



## Denvergirlie

I love Ron Paul, he's getting my vote. He's even gotten my money, first time that I have ever donated money to a campaign.


----------



## prothyraia

Not interested in arguing about abortion, just wanted to clarify his stance on it since there appears to be some confusion.

He is actively in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade and allowing states to forbid/criminalize abortion. He introduced the Sanctity of Life Act (2005/2007) for this purpose: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1094::

He also said in an interview that he would support a Constitutional Ammendment outlawing abortion, but that the country isn't "at that point" yet. So the state's rights argument he's using a bit iffy, since he thinks the federal govenment doesn't have the ability to ALLOW abortion but does have the ability to BAN it.


----------



## Cherie2

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Denvergirlie* 
I love Ron Paul, he's getting my vote. He's even gotten my money, first time that I have ever donated money to a campaign.

why?

do you usually vote republican?


----------



## Denvergirlie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherie2* 
why?

do you usually vote republican?

Why? - Because I'm sick and tired of the government being involved in my daily life. The gov't hasn't been given 1/2 the powers they use, but have taken them. Sure some "extreme" groups support Ron Paul, but only because they too are wanting the same thing I want, freedom. I want freedom from the government taking an unfair and unauthorized income tax from my paycheck. I want freedom fromt he UA gov't telling me about "no child left behind" I want freedom from having my library records being used agaisnt me as the Patriot act has taken from me.

Sure 9-11 was awful, some 3,000 people died, but how many more people has the US killed fighting this "war on terror".

Ron Paul wants to give power back to the people. Personal responsibility, what a novel concept. There are so many reasons I would relish a president like RP.
The current system, the current canidates, they are all just their to keep the masses, you and me, fighting between ourselves over things that really have no meaning. We fight and bicker about some tax or whatever, while our country is being sold out from underneath us.

As for your second question - no I've never voted republican before and I changed my registration in order to vote in the primary for Ron Paul.


----------



## SabraMamma

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Cherie2* 
yesterday was the first I have ever heard of Ron Paul... not that I pay much attention to republican news... all of the sudden I am noticing his name everywhere... even from supposedly progressive people... it scares me slightly. Who is this Ron Paul Character? Should I be afraid?

This past Friday night the TV show NOW on PBS featured the growing movement behind Ron Paul. I had heard of him, but hadn't paid much attention before seeing the show. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html Then on Sunday (I think that was the day) he broke a 1-day fundraising record, something like $5 million in one day. There are many people like denvergirlie that have donated to him and NEVER given to a political campaign before. And he _supposedly_ isn't at the forefront of it all, but really grassroots. This post has been interesting to me- reading about his past racist remarks and whatnot. Thanks for opening up the bag of worms, so to speak.


----------



## TheTruth

Should this just be a political debate thread?
I personally hope Hilary Clinton loses. She is an idiot and in some ways a racist. Anyone who calls themselves "Hill-Dog" while in the south needs to be beaten with a shovel.


----------



## SabraMamma

THANK YOU SO MUCH to merpk for the link to the daily kos where they give the information and links to his past record- it goes so much beyong racism or abortion- but includes his extremely bad record on the environment, immigration, and so much more. Whether or not you are a liberal or have ever looked at the daily kos website, if you plan to vote for this guy, you should definitely check out his past record on all different platforms/agendas. Be informed.


----------



## holly6737

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kmeyrick* 
The late term abortion story he has, of a live baby crying while being thrown in the trash.....horrifying...but is it true? If the baby is crying outside the womb, and is killed outside the womb, then it is legally murder. If he stayed silent about that and did not blow the whistle by contacting the police and the medical examiner, then I'm more pissed at him than ever.

Those were my thoughts exactly.


----------



## moonmama22

Ron Paul does seem to be getting a lot of attention lately - even from progressives, which really scares me. I admit I don't know much about him, but from what I have heard, and read here, he seems pretty scary to me. Kucinich would get my vote, in an ideal world, where it would really be possible for him to win. Being from CT, though, I've grown fond of Chris Dodd, and would love to see him doing better than he is. He pushed for improvements to the FMLA, and to prevent Bush from granting retroactive immunity for the wiretapping. I don't, however, know his stance on all the issues, but he is a known for working well with both parties, and for taking a stand on "social welfare" issues. I'm just really concernced that we will have no good candidates to choose from.


----------



## ian'smommaya

it never occurred to me someone could imo be worse for everything environment, abortion, women's rights, constitution, immigration, war everything than bush.

then i heard ron paul. and it was like... a guaranteed one way train ticket to canada for us.


----------



## Medusa

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ian'smommaya* 
it never occurred to me someone could imo be worse for everything environment, abortion, women's rights, constitution, immigration, war everything than bush.

then i heard ron paul. and it was like... a guaranteed one way train ticket to canada for us.









:


----------



## merpk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *julieshayna* 
This past Friday night the TV show NOW on PBS featured the growing movement behind Ron Paul. I had heard of him, but hadn't paid much attention before seeing the show. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html Then on Sunday (I think that was the day) he broke a 1-day fundraising record, something like $5 million in one day. There are many people like denvergirlie that have donated to him and NEVER given to a political campaign before. And he _supposedly_ isn't at the forefront of it all, but really grassroots. This post has been interesting to me- reading about his past racist remarks and whatnot. Thanks for opening up the bag of worms, so to speak.


I watched the NOW link, thanks.







Interesting, even if slightly soft-pedaling ...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonmama22* 
Ron Paul does seem to be getting a lot of attention lately - even from progressives, which really scares me.


See, that's what scares me about him most. I wouldn't say a thing about him if he were just picking up the Republican votes, because hey, I'm not a Republican so who cares (from my perspective) what Republicans say/do/support and who cares who's supporting them ... until the general election, anyway.

But when leftists and progressives start chasing after a phantom like this ... that scares me half to death. When people who would normally complain about how the Democratic party is moving right then go about supporting/contributing to someone with policies like this ... and they do it based primarily on one issue (opposition to the war) ... that's what makes me craziest.

Yes, he's firmly against the war. But nothing that I've seen tells me (as per the thread title) that he's against fascism. And hey, the fascists all like him and support him. So he can't be that much against them, since they see it as in their interests to get him elected.

YK?


----------



## Denvergirlie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ian'smommaya* 
it never occurred to me someone could imo be worse for everything environment, abortion, women's rights, constitution, immigration, war everything than bush.

then i heard ron paul. and it was like... a guaranteed one way train ticket to canada for us.

yeah, this is a point of difference big time. I mean I really don't want to live in a socialist police state, but many on these boards apparently do want just that.

You have to understand that all of these things that RP opposes is NOT a federal responsibility, but a state issue.

Too each his own, but maintaing status quo is so not working, and a vote for the current system just isn't working.


----------



## ian'smommaya

im not voting for someone who is hmmm.. cant dicuss certain things...

i would vote for ron paul for a variety of reasons. i have a hard time believing that women would vote for him.

i think this year ill vote green or c.p.u.s.a


----------



## Periwinkle

Ewwww. Ron Paul spam.







:


----------



## mamaboobaAES

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I agree with merpk. The more I learn about him, the less I like him. I think if you are opposed to the war, and want to see more social freedoms, such as everyone having the right to marry, then you should consider Kucinich.
Of course, after today's debate, I think that I want to learn more about Gravel as well.

http://www.gravel2008.us/

He is winning the blind issues poll among military.... he wants to end the war, go green, and stop corruption


----------



## daysella

I have met and spoke directly with Dennis Kucinich a few years ago. He was a spiritual man, spoke much to me about how much the east and west can be merged both in spiritual terms and material. He is a visionary with a big sweet heart, he meditates daily, and when he held my hands and looked me in the eye I felt a rush of some of the purest energy I have felt thus far. He is a good man. I trust him. A simple man with a big spirit in a cute little body.

As far as Ron Paul, I've heard and seen that a lot of the people on myspace are voting for him... secondly it seems that yes he stands for liberty but I don't see equality for all being the same in his message. Yes he wants to get the government out of people's lives, but this also means wiping out more of the current and limited welfare for those in poverty, housing, food vouchers, insurance...etc... What he wants to do is create a liberal life for the people who can liberally afford to live.

I think it is healthy for all of us to be talking about our views. That is a true democracy to be able to freely do so. There are other countries that would have had us all in jail or murdered by even posting on a site like this. We are so blessed to have this freedom of speech, and thank god that the big corporates do not own this site to try and limit us.

Peace. Let's keep this debate going. Ask more to join!!!


----------



## daysella

Oh... how I would love this beautiful women to be first lady... please take a peek at Dennis Kucinich's wife if you truely want to know where his heart is.

http://www.dennis4president.com/meet-elizabeth/


----------



## t-elaine

I have been offline for a while and have finally gotten a chance to visit MDC again and unfortunately this thread has jumped out at me and, I fear, will take up all of the time that I right now to be here. I will admit right now that the reason it jumped out at me is beacuse I am a Dr. Ron Paul supporter.

I really do not like to debate politics. I would NEVER endeavor to tell someone else who to vote for or even think of attacking someone or name calling because of who they have chosen to vote for. It is saddening to me hat some others on this thread do not feel that way, but that has always been a bit of an issue here at MDC when people have differing beliefs. I digress.

The main reason I actually felt that I needed to post a reply here is because of an interview I just watched today with Dr. Paul. The issue of raism came up directly. Here is a link to the full interview:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch2.html

And here is the specific quote that I feel needs mentioned...I will let it speak for itself with exception of me adding emphasis:

Quote:

BILL MOYERS: No. They don't-- no, they don't. But there's just-- there's some pieces I've been reading on it that accuse you of illiberal sentiments on race, Israel and other topics. They say that you've demeaned black perhaps by some of your references, the Civil War and to slavery. And that you are always attacking the Jewish lobby-- the Israeli lobby--

RON PAUL: Oh, I think that that's completely wrong. And, you know, *libertarianism is the enemy of all racism*, because racism is a collectivist idea is that you put people in categories. You say, "Well, Blacks belong here, Whites here, and women here." Well, we don't see people in form-- or gays. You don't have rights because you're gays, or women, or minorities. You have rights because you're an individual. So, we see people strictly as individuals. And we get these individuals in a natural way. So, it's exactly opposite of all collectivism. And *it's absolutely anti-racism, because we don't see in those terms.*
I feel I must also mention a few other thougts of mine. The truth is that whether he made those statements at that time or not, and whether or not he is in any way "racist" it would truly have nothing to do with his presidency as it has already had nothing to do with his being in Congress.

His strong desire to return to a Constitutional Federal government would give ALL of us back SO MANY liberties that we have lost over the years as our government has gotten bigger and bigger. Look at howoften in the news we hear of some new crazy regulation the government has imposed on us, or is trying to impose. We are right now as you read this losing more rights to eat what we want to eat because "big daddy government" says, "it may be bad for you". I mean, come on!!! pasteurizing almonds, pasteurizing greens, limiting access to various herbs and natural treatments???? Our federal government needs to GET OUT OF OUR LIVES!!! ...and our pocketbooks!!!

He is running for a Federal office not a state one and therefore, if the constitution were being more closely followed - which it would definitely be were he in office, he would not be helping to pass any laws that would take away liberties from anyone no matter their race, creed, sexual orientation. As for gay rights, I have heard him specifically say that the federal government needs to stay out of our bedrooms.

I have not seen that any of the other candidates, Dem or Rep, truly have our freedom and liberties at the top of their priorities.

I could say so much more, but I do not believe that that would be the best thing to do.

Peace and best wishes to each of you as you consider who is the best candidate for you.

Tina


----------



## boingo82

That is not anti-racism. That is a deliberate refusal to recognize that people *are* treated differently by the color of their skin in this country, and throughout the world.


----------



## daysella

ABC and Disney are turning out to be more Powerful then Democracy itself. The reason why both Dennis and Ron Paul are out of the current debates is because their faces do not total money. If you all want to come together on something we should come together on this. Please watch this video until the end, the end has the best parts. Peace... we need our democracy back!


----------



## merpk

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
As for gay rights, I have heard him specifically say that the federal government needs to stay out of our bedrooms.


Gay rights isn't about staying out of bedrooms. Most states have done away with laws that intrude on what gay/lesbian folk do in their bedrooms.

Gay rights is about hospital rooms and who makes decisions for gay patients ... about living rooms and the rights of inheritance in gay couples' apartments ... and about back rooms and board rooms where decisions are made to fire, intimidate or otherwise make life difficult for gay employees.

Just to think about a few rooms, anyway.


----------



## Periwinkle

swoon


----------



## daysella

"I like the fact that Kucinich has seen a UFO. It's one more bit of evidence that he's a man who has the courage to explore the edges of what it is to be human. But his strong rise in polls and his tough positions on health care and other issues make him a targe for the same kind of media hit job attack that Howard Dean suffered.

I have to wonder, when Tim Russert asked Dennis Kucinich about his UFO sighting, he was aiming at pulling a Dean Scream media hit on him. After the Iowa Caucus, when Dean let out a whoop, and a videographer with a mike on Dean over amplified the sound, the three second clip was shown thousands of times to mock Dean-- at a time when he was in a position to win the election-- something none of the major networks or mainstream media wanted. Dean had threatened to re-regulate the de-regulated media, forcing them to dis-own radio and TV stations where they had a monopoly, or just too much control of the media in a given metro area.

Now, something frightening has happened with Kucinich-- frightening to the mainstream media. He's not only made it past their cut-off requirements-- the ones that cut Mike Gravel out of the debate circuit-- he's actuall pulling strong in polling-- fourth place in New Hampshire, first place in the 100,000+ vote DFA poll. He's pulled to the top of the second tier in a a number of polls and in California's latest straw poll, he came in second, after Edwards, ahead of Obama and Hillary.

Mocking, and laughing at candidates is a common strategy used by all the mainstream, lamestream media. That's how they knock down the candidates who have the character and independence to stand out. Expect to see them do it more and more as Kucinich and Ron Paul both stand out-- totally against the war, totally for the constitution.

There are huge differences between Kucinich and Paul, but they will both be facing more mocking than the other candidates."

Rob Call, Political writer


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *merpk* 
Gay rights isn't about staying out of bedrooms. Most states have done away with laws that intrude on what gay/lesbian folk do in their bedrooms.

Gay rights is about hospital rooms and who makes decisions for gay patients ... about living rooms and the rights of inheritance in gay couples' apartments ... and about back rooms and board rooms where decisions are made to fire, intimidate or otherwise make life difficult for gay employees.

Just to think about a few rooms, anyway.

It's also about the military, and Paul has already said that he *supports* Don't Ask Don't Tell.


----------



## t-elaine

I know this probably won't matter to most of you, but I still felt that it should be mentioned...again. This is a new, official statement about the articles:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

FWIW


----------



## TwoKids

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daysella* 
"...
There are huge differences between Kucinich and Paul, but they will both be facing more mocking than the other candidates."

Rob Call, Political writer

This is my family's future that's at stake. It's not funny. Whoever thinks snickering into the mic when someone's talking is smart politics must have an awful lot of money to be that confident they'll be okay after the dollar really crashes.


----------



## NewMama2007

Let's have an example, shall we?

RP's history shows that he is anti-choice. He votes anti-choice consistently. I shall repeat this in large letters. HE VOTES ANTI-CHOICE CONSISTENTLY.

If he were to believe in the the Libertarian ideals which his platform is based upon, wouldn't he simply withhold his vote on the issues which he himself believes should be left out of the governmental spectrum?

Maybe I'm wackadoo (my new favorite word, BTW







), but he doesn't seem to be living up to his label.

And according to my DH (who I just read this aloud to, to make sure it's coherent as DD didn't let us sleep much last night) - "arguing politics on a message board is never a good idea".


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Wow this thread has had over 3500 views.

I read most of the pages, but not all of them. My post is going to be long and drawn out, sorry. Not posting to be argumentative









Hello, *raises hand* I support the Good Doctor. Been following him for at least the past 6 months.

I think Kucinich is a great guy, and I respect everyone's choice.

Dr. Paul votes to get the federal government out of our lives. He votes to leave the choice up to the states. Once Congress votes on something it becomes the law of the land in Washington. He votes no so that it doesn't get that far. When Washington passes laws, then all of the states have to abide. He doesn't want that.

Dr. Paul is not an isolationist or a racist. He is a non-interventionist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism

"Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States."

He wants to do away with programs that are expensive and already bankrupt and self destructing anyway - but he would not leave people out in the cold. He has transitional programs for all of his ideas. His ideas are not new, he has been saying the same thing for years and years. The people dependent on broken programs would stay on them, but the young people would be given tools to help them be independent. The country is bankrupt, the Federal Reserve keeps printing money with nothing to back it up, and the dollar is crashing - Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard. He actually got into politics because economics fascinated him - he is a surgeon.

He does not want the power to take a woman's choice of abortion away. He believes that it should be left up to the state governments to decide the abortion laws, and we the people elect our state officials.

The state governments have their own constitutions, and they should be able to help their poor without federal oversight... just the same with everything else like education. The Dept of Ed was created around the time I was born. It seems to have all gone downhill from there... now most of the kids in school are on ADHD drugs while there is a war on drugs outside the school walls. Makes no sense.

He doesn't want to run the world. He would just like states to be able to govern their people, because they are perfectly capable of doing that.

Those racist remarks in the newsletter were not written by him, the guy who wrote them was fired - and I feel that if him not reading a newsletter that went out was the worst thing he has done, God bless him. I've seen his track record of the great things he has done in Congress, and alleged racism is the worst that has come up in smear attempts.

He's been elected for ten terms into Congress. The Ron Paul Library is an excellent resource to read all of his positions - http://ronpaullibrary.org/

There are tons of people supporting him, and they understand his message. They aren't racists or isolationists; they are people from all over... even other countries support the man and really think he is America's hope. Freedom is popular.

He supports midwives and out of hospital birth, and he recognizes that the c-section rate is out of control. He said his rate as an OB was about 15% which should be normal. Here is a video of him talking about it - 




"Here's what Ron Paul said at a political rally in Greenville, North Carolina when asked about licensing midwives: But if you can allow it with licensing, that's slightly better, [than prohibition] the ideal is that people make up their own minds. I am not in favor of government prohibiting people from making private choices. I may have a medical opinion-well, you shouldn't do this or you shouldn't do that, but politically, people should make their own choices." http://birthingwithguinever.com/2008...ion-to-choose/

One thing that I want to know about him is how he feels about nursing in public, INSIDE a private establishment. Because he is very big on private property and individual rights. If/when I find that out, I will come back and let you know! However, we must prioritize issues that are most important to us - and things like the economy, the war, NAFTA, health freedom, CODEX, national ID cards, etc are pretty important too.

He supports homeschoolers and doesn't believe that there should be a national curriculum.

He doesn't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated by the government.

If you'd like to learn more about him, you can check out the website that I made about him (looks better in IE than Firefox) - http://angelabailey.name/ron-paul.html

There are 101 reasons to vote for RP on my site.

This is the blog that I made dedicated to him too. http://iloveronpaul.blogspot.com/

I found this to be especially interesting.... historians/academics who are Constitutional scholars support Ron Paul - http://iloveronpaul.blogspot.com/200...-ron-paul.html

Politicians take the Constitution and rip it to pieces. He is a consistent man who swore to uphold the Constitution, and he still stands by his oath. I took a Constitution class in college and it really helped me see a lot of things that I didn't before.

The Republican and Democratic parties aren't even in the US Constitution. It's all organized crime anymore. So I will be Republican for couple of days to vote.

Also, please read these quotes by our Forefathers... http://iloveronpaul.blogspot.com/200...stitution.html

There is something very big happening w/Dr. Paul and grassroots, and it's energizing to people like me. We have a lot of zeal for him. He just finished 2nd in Nevada, and grassroots aren't giving up. Unfortunately, when he does become President, it will be another JFK/Bhutto situation IMO. Thankfully he is old enough and has lived a very good life should that happen.

A lot of people that I admire support him: Dr. Mercola, the Health Ranger from www.NewsTarget.com, and many more.

The blimp advertising was bought and paid for by Ron Paul supporters. Didn't have anything to do with the official campaign. The ad at the bottom of my website with the Founding Fathers was paid for by a wealthy person not affiliated with the campaign. People are donating millions of dollars to Ron Paul to try to prove that he has real support and get his name noticed.

Those new National ID cards and microchips have microscopic homing devices in them. The federal government will be able to locate anyone carrying their ID card. Yes, they could know when we are on the toilet! I'm not really happy about those cards... criminals will find ways to be criminals even with all of us losing our personal freedoms - they always do.

I will go now!







Thanks for allowing me time to discuss. Our health freedoms are in trouble too. I could go on and on but I will stop there. These are the reasons why I love Ron Paul. I'm passionate


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
Hello, *raises hand* I support the Good Doctor. Been following him for at least the past 6 months....










ME too!

BTW - you may want to jump over and post all of this in teh Ron Paul Policy thread if you get a chance. http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=833299


----------



## boingo82

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin*


Hello, *raises hand* I support the Good Doctor. Been following him for at least the past 6 months.


I always find it a teensy bit funny when folks call him "Good Doctor". Just because several of his supporters, at MDC anyway, tend to think that allopathic medicine is teh debil.

Quote:



Dr. Paul votes to get the federal government out of our lives. He votes to leave the choice up to the states. Once Congress votes on something it becomes the law of the land in Washington. He votes no so that it doesn't get that far. When Washington passes laws, then all of the states have to abide. He doesn't want that.


That's great in theory, but the net result is the same amount, or more intrusions on personal lives. Just at the state level. Only, without functioning safety net programs.

Quote:



Dr. Paul is not an isolationist or a racist. He is a non-interventionist - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism

"Non-interventionism, the diplomatic policy whereby a nation seeks to avoid alliances with other nations in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to direct territorial self-defense, has had a long history in the United States."


He is racist. He is isolationist. Unless you can come up with another explanation from his "no" vote on the Darfur divestment issue.

Quote:



He wants to do away with programs that are expensive and already bankrupt and self destructing anyway - but he would not leave people out in the cold. He has transitional programs for all of his ideas. His ideas are not new, he has been saying the same thing for years and years. The people dependent on broken programs would stay on them, but the young people would be given tools to help them be independent.


More info please. I have not heard anything about "transitional programs" so far.

Quote:



The country is bankrupt, the Federal Reserve keeps printing money with nothing to back it up, and the dollar is crashing - Ron Paul wants to go back to the gold standard.


Another nice idea that doesn't work that well in real life. First, there isn't enough gold in the world. Second, well...read this link: http://www.calicocat.com/2004/06/lib...-standard.html

Then there's the fact that the Gold Standard played a big role in causing and furthering the great depression.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...22/default.htm

Quote:



He does not want the power to take a woman's choice of abortion away. He believes that it should be left up to the state governments to decide the abortion laws, and we the people elect our state officials.


He wants the power to take a woman's right to abortion away, and give the decision to the states. Regardless of whether it's him personally doing it, or the states doing it, end result is the same. Lots of women with no access to abortion. Lots of unwanted babies. And eliminating or reducing social programs at the same time. GREAT idea.

Quote:



The state governments have their own constitutions, and they should be able to help their poor without federal oversight... just the same with everything else like education. The Dept of Ed was created around the time I was born. It seems to have all gone downhill from there...


Except "helping the poor" works better when done on a national level, as the cost can be spread over the widest group of people.

Quote:



now most of the kids in school are on ADHD drugs


This is a very inaccurate generalization. Link to stats, or you made it up.

Quote:



Those racist remarks in the newsletter were not written by him, the guy who wrote them was fired - and I feel that if him not reading a newsletter that went out was the worst thing he has done, God bless him. I've seen his track record of the great things he has done in Congress, and alleged racism is the worst that has come up in smear attempts.


How about not reading several newspapers over a 10 year period? While making racist remarks himself? Including this month? 

Quote:



He's been elected for ten terms into Congress. The Ron Paul Library is an excellent resource to read all of his positions - http://ronpaullibrary.org/

There are tons of people supporting him, and they understand his message. They aren't racists or isolationists; they are people from all over... even other countries support the man and really think he is America's hope. Freedom is popular.


This is an appeal to numbers fallacy. And for the record, freedom? I'm against it.

Quote:



He supports homeschoolers and doesn't believe that there should be a national curriculum.


Don't you mean "national education system"?

Quote:



He doesn't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated by the government.


Nobody's forced to NOW. By the feds anyway. However there are plenty of states that require it. State's rights!

Quote:



If you'd like to learn more about him, you can check out the website that I made about him (looks better in IE than Firefox) - http://angelabailey.name/ron-paul.html

There are 101 reasons to vote for RP on my site.


Many of them are just silly. 
*33. He Is Not Married To Hillary.*
Um, what? Are any of the candidates married to her? Nope.

Quote:



Politicians take the Constitution and rip it to pieces. He is a consistent man who swore to uphold the Constitution, and he still stands by his oath. I took a Constitution class in college and it really helped me see a lot of things that I didn't before.


Do you happen to know WHICH Constitution he supports? Like, current constitution, original constitution, post-2nd-amendment-but-pre-3rd-amendment constitution?

Quote:



There is something very big happening w/Dr. Paul and grassroots, and it's energizing to people like me. *We have a lot of zeal for him.* He just finished 2nd in Nevada, and grassroots aren't giving up.


Boy have I noticed that.

Quote:



A lot of people that I admire support him: Dr. Mercola, the Health Ranger from www.NewsTarget.com, and many more.


What is your point naming all the names throughout this post? Who cares who else supports him? I don't care if God himself is a Ron Paul supporter. I vote for a candidate based on his/her merits and based on the effects of his/her policies. So should everyone else.

Quote:



Those new National ID cards and microchips have *microscopic homing devices* in them. The federal government will be able to locate anyone carrying their ID card. Yes, they could know when we are on the toilet! I'm not really happy about those cards... criminals will find ways to be criminals even with all of us losing our personal freedoms - they always do.


LOLOLOLLERSKATESROFLMAOBBQROFLCOPTER!!!!!!!!

Oh, you were serious?


----------



## tropicalpunkin

I understand that you are cynical, but I don't think you have to be rude and insulting to people who are trying to have a good discussion.

Ok... you want evidenced based information, so I will try to help you. It's nice that you are seeking more information on this candidate and asking questions. That means you are noticing him and want to know more about him and his ideas, and that is great.

If you would like to talk to many more supporters, you can ask some questions on the Ron Paul Forums.

I don't find humor in a good surgeon that practices good allopathic medicine to help people that truly benefit by it, and it is wonderful to have that choice available when someone wants it. Dr. Paul would like to protect people's rights to choose homeopathy which are at great risk right now. I am thankful for both options, and use them both. Allopathic medicine has it's problems, for sure, but it's nice that for now we have the choice to choose. I think it is very important to note certain people's name who support Dr. Paul, because it gets people to look into it. That was my point. Dr. Mercola is a very good reference for many MDC'ers and people that dislike Allopathy.

The Federal Reserve is not a site of reference that I would rely on for a couple of reasons. It's part of the organized crime in Washington, and it's a private banking institution. Our Forefathers warned us against private banks controlling America's money.

The FTC, FCC, FDA, and EPA have failed us miserably. Ever hear of the story about Libby, Montana? It really shocked me and proved to me further that we can't expect the federal government to keep us safe. It really is up to us. I think we could get a better handle on things if the feds didn't micromanage us.

Research the RFID and then laugh about homing devices in our ID cards - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID

Some cellular telephones are already homing devices, and the FEDS can locate people through them. They can even activate the phones when they are powered down. Research E911 tracking.

ADHD and our children on medication - http://www.education-world.com/a_iss...sues148a.shtml

Highlights of Research on Increases in Drug Treatment for Childhood ADHD
The following are statistics detailed in the story.

*The number of preschool children being treated with medication for ADHD tripled between 1990 and 1995.

*The number of children ages 15 to 19 taking medication for ADHD has increased by 311 percent over 15 years.

*The use of medication to treat children between the ages of 5 and 14 also increased by approximately 170 percent.

*White, suburban elementary children are given medication to treat ADHD at more than twice the rate of African American students.

*Methylphenidate (commonly known as Ritalin) is manufactured at two and a half times the rate of a decade ago.

*The majority of children and adolescents who receive stimulants for ADHD do not fully meet the criteria for ADHD.

Someone asked me once what Dr. Paul would do to help autistic families. The CDC has already failed us miserably, so do we really want them to do more damage? Private nonprofit organizations have a better chance to help than the FEDS. Do we really want their help? They seem to constantly do more damage than anything.

If you look at what Grassroots has accomplished for Ron Paul this past year or so, think of what we could all accomplish without the help of the nanny state and corporatism.

Regarding Sudan, noninterventionism is not the answer you are looking for, so I have a feeling that unless someone agrees that he is an isolationist (which he isn't), you won't be satisfied. Someone that is an isolationist doesn't support free trade.

There are terrible, horrible things going on around the world, yes. We cannot save the world. There is no money to fund anything to do with Darfur, or any other country that has a civil war.

And I meant national curriculum, not national education system. Right now, the states build their curriculum based on the national subject groups. http://hnn.us/articles/22591.html

How many of us follow our state and local politics as closely as we follow the presidental election and federal programs?

I really have to go, but I am sure there are thousands of people on the Ron Paul Forums who will be happy to help answer further questions until I can get back. Have a nice day.


----------



## boingo82

I didn't ask about spending money on Darfur. I asked about the Darfur Divestment act.

And you're not allowed to link to other forums here.

I'll get to the rest of it later. When the forum actually, you know, works.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Ok I edited my post to fix the link that you pointed out. My mistake.

It goes back to noninterventionism with Darfur. I don't know what else to tell you. You aren't getting the answer you want to hear. Here is his personal statement about what you are asking if you are interested - http://www.askthecandidates.org/candidate/reports/356


----------



## Periwinkle

You said you were going to offer evidence. Most of your post talked a lot about how great homeopathy is or what is wrong with over-diagnosing ADHD, neither of which have ANYTHING to do with Ron Paul, the current administration, or even the president of the U.S. in general.









Here were your two specific statements about Paul...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
Dr. Paul would like to protect people's rights to choose homeopathy which are at great risk right now.

Who told you this? This is silly. The U.S. Government has almost no power over the supplements and home remedies industry with no plans in the works to increase that. Even when they have discussed it in the past, they have been a lot more worried about actual supplements (vitamins and such) than homeopathy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
Someone asked me once what Dr. Paul would do to help autistic families.

Do tell. You started talking about the CDC but again, this operating division and its missteps in the past have nothing to do with Ron Paul's agenda.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
There are terrible, horrible things going on around the world, yes. We cannot save the world. There is no money to fund anything to do with Darfur, or any other country that has a civil war.











Those who can, should.


----------



## boingo82

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
Ok I edited my post to fix the link that you pointed out. My mistake.

It goes back to noninterventionism with Darfur. I don't know what else to tell you. You aren't getting the answer you want to hear. Here is his personal statement about what you are asking if you are interested - http://www.askthecandidates.org/candidate/reports/356

His answer and yours show a basic misunderstanding of this act. I'd encourage you to read more about it and consider what harm there could possibly be in it.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Periwinkle - I will try to be more clear. There have been too many conflicts of interest with the CDC and autism studies. They haven't found a link between vaccines and autism, and the studies are incomplete. Ron Paul, I believe, would leave it up to private people and organizations to fund autism research. There is no federal money to put towards autism research anyway. I don't know where people expect the government to get the money for autism from - there is no money to get.

This bill did not pass which was supposed to sever conflicts of interest ties between the CDC and big pharma - 
Some links:

http://www.nncb.org/codex/codex-homeopathy.html

http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

http://www.newstarget.com/022137.html
Thursday, October 18, 2007 by: Mike Adams

That article is again here - http://www.organicconsumers.org/arti...ticle_7785.cfm
FDA Seizes $71k in Herbal Tea Products as Campaign of Censorship Against Nutritional Supplements Continues

Many chriopractors support Ron Paul because of the assault on health freedoms too - http://blog.planetc1.com/2007/10/15/...port-ron-paul/

Regarding vaccinations - the states pass legislature regarding vaccination based on the schedule that the CDC recommends. People need to pay more attention to their particular state and work on their legislators. And I hope the day does not come when the federal government will force smallpox vaccines, or other vaccines on people.

If you have any more questions about what I've posted, I will try to answer, but I cannot spend much more time here.

BTW - here is a big list of people who endorse Ron Paul, and I'm not saying you should because they do, but maybe it will make you wonder more of why they do... you might come to find out that you agree with them.... or you might not. Doesn't hurt to share the information.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/endorsements

Again, I mention people's names because it makes sense. It is going to take a so-called revolution (movement) to save America, and that takes people coming together. And it's happening! This extends beyond Dr. Paul and the election and we're not going to take it anymore.

As for Darfur - You are clearly a passionate activist for Darfur and genocide, and I am for things as well. However, I am not expecting our federal government to police the world and stomp out all the boogymen while we lose our freedoms in exchange. There are too many conflicts of interest, and it's only getting worse.

The Act puts financial squeeze on Sudan from what I understand, and it's an act of war (without troops sent it.) He explains more here - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...lementm45m0m0m

Please read the link above - notably, he said, "To the extent that divestment effected change in South Africa, it was brought about by private individuals working through the market to influence others." I think that Ron Paul encourages private individuals to bring about the change in Darfur just by that statement.

I had said that people in other countries support Ron Paul, and I was asked to prove it I think. There is an International forum on the RP Forums. Here is a video that might help explain what I mean. 




We need more time to focus on our state legislature because it affects us more (at least it should.) I can't keep up with all the issues that the Feds involve us in that are bankrupting us.


----------



## Denvergirlie

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NewMama2007* 
Let's have an example, shall we?

RP's history shows that he is anti-choice. He votes anti-choice consistently. I shall repeat this in large letters. HE VOTES ANTI-CHOICE CONSISTENTLY.



Ron Paul is a constitulionalist and he votes against things that are not in he consistution. No where in the constitution is it stated that abortion is a right.

RP has consitantly said that if you want these things to be true laws of the land then change the consistution, but until it's a consistutional right then it's an illegal law.

It's a really basic and easy view point to be coming from, if it's not in the consistution then it's an illegal law. Case closed.


----------



## NewMama2007

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Denvergirlie* 
Ron Paul is a constitulionalist and he votes against things that are not in he consistution. No where in the constitution is it stated that abortion is a right.

RP has consitantly said that if you want these things to be true laws of the land then change the consistution, but until it's a consistutional right then it's an illegal law.

It's a really basic and easy view point to be coming from, if it's not in the consistution then it's an illegal law. Case closed.

ConSTITution. Constitution.

There are no specific laws in the Constitution.

Case closed.

According to RP himself, and quoted by Wikipedia (good source, I know) he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution". He votes anti-choice. It is not expressly authorized by the Constitution, and yet he continues to vote on it...

And that's my point. If he doesn't believe that you should be voting on something because it's not in the Constitution...then don't vote on it!

Case closed.


----------



## Periwinkle

Tropicalpunkin while I appreciate the effort and energy you went towards providing links, it's the fundamental assertion that Ron Paul will help prescribing behavior or how drugs and vaccines are marketed etc. that I find just... flat-out baseless.

Complaining about the CDC is not a solution to the problem. Identifying how things work now is not a solution to the problem offered by the candidate.

This poor guy... everyone who supports him seems to think they can identify all the wrongs in this country and in their states and his presence on Pennsylvania Avenue will magically make them all go poof.

I bet if I went on some pro-Ron Paul website and typed out a long meandering post saying things like "And another thing... the trash men sometimes spill trash in my driveway and don't clean it up.... elect Ron Paul!!!" I'd get a thousand







replies.

For example....

Quote:

Regarding vaccinations - the states pass legislature regarding vaccination based on the schedule that the CDC recommends. People need to pay more attention to their particular state and work on their legislators. And I hope the day does not come when the federal government will force smallpox vaccines, or other vaccines on people.
What. Are. You. Talking. About. ?????

What do you see as the problem here?

And what is Ron Paul's proposed solution. And no fair saying "everyone likes him and he's a good person and anti-big goverment"







. I mean, actual proposed solution.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Free market.


----------



## athansor

I know it's been asked in the numerous Ron Paul threads in Politics, but can you provide an actual example of the free market solving any of these problems? For instance, what is the free market going to do with regards to Autism? With regard to issues like Ephedra and other dangerous supplements (especially as promoted for weight loss?)? False claims made by manufacturers?


----------



## tropicalpunkin

How does all this pertain to the President and Ron Paul? The President can approve or disapprove (veto) legislation given to him or her. There are also a good number of people lined up to run for Congress that support Dr. Paul. Those people will represent our states, and grassroots is working to get them to Washington. It also pertains to Dr. Paul because he has introduced legislation to Congress over the years that is along the lines of what I've been talking about.

I am not fully understanding people's replies here, so I'm not sure how to answer. There are conflicts of interest directly relating big pharma and our politicians and government agencies.

The solution: Get them out of there. Get rid of the FDA.

The FDA approves the vaccines, the CDC recommends them, and state legislators enforce the actions.

The FDA said Ephedra was safe... actually, the FDA says many things are safe that really aren't. People die all the time from FDA approved drugs. What good is the FDA? They make our food safe? Oh really? All the GM foods, the high fructose corn syrup, the aspartame, the splenda, homogenized milk... safe? The FDA is the king of promoting false claims...

The guy down at my local health food store is about as brainy as my medical doctor when it comes to prescribing "medicine." I don't trust either one more than the other, they can both only make recommendations... I view the remedies at the health food store as safe or as dangerous as I do pharmaceuticals. The FDA doesn't guarantee squat. It's a monopoly, only difference is that the FDA is much more powerful than my health food store. Organized crime is what it is.

"The thing that bugs me is that people think the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is protecting them - it isn't. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day."
Dr. Herbert L. Ley, former Commissioner of the FDA

Lots more FDA quotes here that should help answer questions about how no FDA and free market would help autism - if they don't help, don't know what to tell ya. http://www.*********/vaccine/fda2.html

The current government setup is not helping... they need to step aside, remove the restrictions, and let people who really care make a difference.

The Autism Epidemic
A true free market in health care would not have led to the deadly combinations of state mandates in vaccines, state-licensed providers who are protected and the denial by the guilty parties of any damage that they have inflicted. - Randall Schultz, January 30, 2002 [Strike-the-root.com]

BTW, speaking of autism - a new show airs soon on ABC. It's caused the AAP to attempt to censor ABC, in turn causing Generation Rescue to declare war today...


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
There are conflicts of interest directly relating big pharma and our politicians and government agencies.

*The solution: Get them out of there. Get rid of the FDA*....

To this and everything else you said here....







:


----------



## athansor

I guess I don't see the answer to my question in there. Exactly how does the free market accomplish all these amazing things, and what are some examples from past history of the free market having this sort of effect?


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I guess I don't see the answer to my question in there. Exactly how does the free market accomplish all these amazing things, and what are some examples from past history of the free market having this sort of effect?

Hi Athansor, this is the best example I can come up with - http://www.mercola.com/2004/may/19/f...t_medicine.htm


----------



## athansor

I can't read that article (I can see bits of it in the background but not the whole article). I even tried to subscribe, just to read it, even though I am no fan of Dr. Mercola as he is quite anti-veg*n.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

The article is derived from this - http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...rket-medicine/

The entire page reads:

Low-Cost, No-Insurance Health Clinic Shows Benefits of Free Market Medicine

Dr. Ron Paul describes the courageous actions of one doctor from rural Tennessee in the following essay. The doctor, Dr. Robert Berry, opened the doors to a low-cost health clinic that doesn't accept any form of insurance including Medicare and Medicaid. By doing so Berry has been able to keep treatment costs down due to no interference from third-party government or dealings with HMO administrators.

Berry's type of practice gives his patients the opportunity to decide what kind of care is right for them.

The average charge to his customers for a routine visit is $35, which is considered to be much lower than other doctors. While several liberals spend hours upon hours discussing possible solutions about medical insurance for the lower-income families, Berry is making a difference by helping uninsured people every day.

Years ago when there was much less government involvement, the U.S. health care system was the envy of the world. Costs of medical care were kept down because most Americans paid for their care with cash and used insurance only in catastrophic situations.

The creation of HMOs is the result of government mandates, not free-market demand. HMOs and more government involvement don't hold the answer to the health care crisis.

The best medical care would be one delivered by the *free market, which would keep costs down by deterring competition and financial incentives.* Patients who pay for their own health care service out of pocket hold the power to negotiate lower costs with their doctors.

May 5, 2004

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

I commend Dr. Berry for taking these admirable actions to see people without any involvement from insurance companies.

In a past article I wrote about how the devastating costs of health insurance have left 75 million people without health coverage. There is clearly no question that we have an ever-increasing medical insurance crisis in this country.

Until a radical change in the paradigm occurs, health care costs will continue to escalate.

The traditional media will, of course, claim that the solution is to levy some new tax to provide these health care benefits to those who cannot afford them. This is a prescription for disaster. Another socialized medical system will only repeat the Medicare catastrophe we already have.

The solution is to change the entire system.

Unless we change the system, drug companies will continue to extract hundreds of billions of dollars from our economy while providing virtually no benefit--other than making themselves richer.

Our country will become increasingly unable to support such an expense without major sacrifices by millions of people. The solution is to redirect the spending to care that will build the health of the country and provide people with the energy to be more productive. The extra productivity would theoretically create more than enough additional wealth to pay for all the health care that we would need.

When our nation is focused on health achievement, rather than disease treatment, the total cost of providing medical care would dramatically decline, because healthy people require fewer medical resources.


----------



## athansor

Just a note, I think you need to get rid of the Lew Rockwell link, it's against MDC policy to link to that site because of its racist commentary.
With regard to the actual article, what happens when you walk into the clinic and need an organ transplant, care for an extremely premature baby or long-term cancer treatment? How do people pay for that out of pocket? Can we really recude those costs so much that everyone, regardless of income, can afford them with a little savings?


----------



## tropicalpunkin

I have replaced it with the original text from RP's site... same thing.

...inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses...

Last week the congressional Joint Economic committee on which I serve held a hearing featuring two courageous medical doctors. I had the pleasure of meeting with one of the witnesses, Dr. Robert Berry, who opened a low-cost health clinic in rural Tennessee. His clinic does not accept insurance, Medicare, or Medicaid, which allows Dr. Berry to treat patients without interference from third-party government bureaucrats or HMO administrators. In other words, Dr. Berry practices medicine as most doctors did 40 years ago, when patients paid cash for ordinary services and had inexpensive catastrophic insurance for serious injuries or illnesses. As a result, Dr. Berry and his patients decide for themselves what treatment is appropriate. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...rket-medicine/


----------



## athansor

How much does this inexpensive catastrophic insurance actually cost, and how does one go about getting it? The article isn't clear on whether or not this insurance exists today or whether it existed in this model from 40 years ago.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

I believe that means major medical catastrophic insurance. It does exist today. They have low premiums and high deductibles now, though I don't know how the catastrophic insurance was 40 years ago. From what I see, the list of things that disqualify people from getting this insurance right now is longer than traditional coverage.

High cost of drugs these days cause the choice of catastrophic insurance to be a bad one for many. Big pharma has a hold on us and we have to break free of it.

_One of the reasons prescription drug prices are high is government policies which give a few powerful companies a monopoly position in the prescription drug market, such as those restricting the importation of quality pharmaceuticals. Therefore, all members of Congress who are serious about lowering prescription drug prices should have supported these amendments._ - Rep. Paul http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...armaceuticals/


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
How much does this inexpensive catastrophic insurance actually cost, and how does one go about getting it? The article isn't clear on whether or not this insurance exists today or whether it existed in this model from 40 years ago.

We had considered and looked into this for ourselves as we choose not to get the regular medical insurance offered by my husband's work since the cost was so high and we never use it unless there is a pretty major emergency (I treat us all here at home). We decided not to get this either, right now...but anyways, here is a link to more info about this type of insurance http://www.insurance.com/quotes/Arti...ance_/artid/43


----------



## athansor

I think that these kinds of plans could be a good idea for a number of people, especially the self employed and working people with a decent income but no company provided health insurance. However, I don't think it will do much for the uninsured right now who can't afford any kind of health care, especially uninsured children.


----------



## t-elaine

I thought I had sent this reply, but do not see it here, so if this doubles up at all, please forgive me.

Quote:

I think that these kinds of plans could be a good idea for a number of people, especially the self employed and working people with a decent income but no company provided health insurance. However, I don't think it will do much for the uninsured right now who can't afford any kind of health care, especially uninsured children.
I do agree with who these plans are best for. But I also wanted to mention that the two states that I have lived in since I have had children (IL and AL) as well as other states that friends of mine live in (and possible all states) do have a state form of insurance for children as well as pregnant women in families that are low income. So that would take care of the children.

Plus most areas have options for adults and others too. In both areas where I have lived there were either clinics that were for people with no insurance and had either low cost services or calculated what you paid by what you made OR there were the FREE clinics.

These are NOT run through the federal government at all.

I, for one, absolutely DO NOT want socialized medicine in this country. The more of the government's money that goes into something, the more control they take. I believe that it is the government that has caused us to have the problems we have today in regards to health care AND are the cause for the high prices of that care (including prescriptions).

The government ALREADY takes too much control of OUR health care (by limiting what we have access to in the way of food and medicines - including natural ones). If they decide that WE ALL should be doing something or not doing something, they can and will use force to make us. They already do in SO MANY areas!


----------



## Periwinkle

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
I, for one, absolutely DO NOT want socialized medicine in this country. The more of the government's money that goes into something, the more control they take. I believe that it is the government that has caused us to have the problems we have today in regards to health care AND are the cause for the high prices of that care (including prescriptions).

The government ALREADY takes too much control of OUR health care (by limiting what we have access to in the way of food and medicines - including natural ones). If they decide that WE ALL should be doing something or not doing something, they can and will use force to make us. They already do in SO MANY areas!

I agree with this completely. I also have no intention of waiting for 6 months to see a specialist.







:


----------



## princesstutu

I'll admit to not reading every single post here, but the two things that pop out at me about Ron Paul are:

1- He's not a racist, but he allowed racist comments to be published under his name. His reaction to this fact? "I have to keep answering to this. *sigh* I should have paid better attention when I was younger, yes, but I have a moral obligation to these words." and "Libertarianism is inherently non-racist."

Those aren't definitive enough sentiments for me to give him the benefit of the doubt on his potential for racism. Esp. given the second thing that stands out about him...

2- He's a Libertarian, but he wants to run on the _Republican_ ticket.

I'm sorry, but his credibility is loose, loose, loose and practically non-existent, IMO, based on those 2 points alone, never mind the fact that he votes "no" on all bills that come up that aren't "constitutional." I'd like to know his opinion on constitutional amendments, given this "simple" stance of his.


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *princesstutu* 
2- He's a Libertarian, but he wants to run on the _Republican_ ticket.

I'm sorry, but his credibility is loose, loose, loose and practically non-existent, IMO, based on those 2 points alone, never mind the fact that he votes "no" on all bills that come up that aren't "constitutional." I'd like to know his opinion on constitutional amendments, given this "simple" stance of his.

He is not "defnitively" a Libertarian. He does hold many Libertarian views, but he has been a Republican congressman for a total of 20 years. No, he does not appear the same as any of the other Republicans, but THEY are nothing like Republicans of old. He IS a Republican.

As for Constitutional Ammendments, they ARE Constitutional. He even says that if you don't like what the Constitution says, then AMMEND it, but do not go against it. (not in those exact words, but that IS the point he makes)

Why should ANY Congressman or Senator be allowed to vote for something that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL??? When they are sworn the say:

Quote:

, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that *I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same*; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
If they are voting for a bill that goes AGAINST the Constitution in ANY way, how are they upholding this oath??? To me this makes ALL other Congressmen's credibility "loose, loose, loose and COMPLETELY non-existent" Ron Paul is the only one being true to this oath.

HEre is a statement from here http://www.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp
about this oath:

Quote:

As Federal civil servants, we take an oath of office by which we swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. *The Constitution not only establishes our system of government, it actually defines the work role for Federal employees* - "to establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty."

The history of the Oath for Federal employees can be traced to the Constitution, where Article II includes the specific oath the President takes - to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." *Article VI requires an oath by all other government officials from all three branches, the military, and the States. It simply states that they "shall be bound by oath of affirmation to support the Constitution."*


----------



## t-elaine

I forgot to mention. If he is NOT a Republican, then why would a whole state Republican Assembly endorse him for President?

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080126/20080126005021.html?.v=1

Quote:

The Alabama Republican Assembly (ALRA) has announced its endorsement of Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul for President.
The ALRA is an affiliate of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), known as the Republican Wing of the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan once referred to the NFRA as "the conscience of the Republican Party."


----------



## tropicalpunkin

The movie Freedom to Fascism is on YouTube and/or Google. A great example of how the Federal Reserve and IRS have gone made up their own Constitution.


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
The movie Freedom to Fascism is on YouTube and/or Google. A great example of how the Federal Reserve and IRS have gone made up their own Constitution.

What an EYE-OPENING film! My dh and I watched it a couple of weeks ago.

WOW!!!


----------



## Mo Croi

Quote:


Originally Posted by *t-elaine* 
I do agree with who these plans are best for. But I also wanted to mention that the two states that I have lived in since I have had children (IL and AL) as well as other states that friends of mine live in (and possible all states) do have a state form of insurance for children as well as pregnant women in families that are low income. So that would take care of the children.

Plus most areas have options for adults and others too. In both areas where I have lived there were either clinics that were for people with no insurance and had either low cost services or calculated what you paid by what you made OR there were the FREE clinics.

These are NOT run through the federal government at all.

I, for one, absolutely DO NOT want socialized medicine in this country. The more of the government's money that goes into something, the more control they take. I believe that it is the government that has caused us to have the problems we have today in regards to health care AND are the cause for the high prices of that care (including prescriptions).


Where do you think the funding for these clinics comes from? Whether it's the society of the country or the society of the state ------ it's from the society - which makes it "socialized"

CHIP is struggling in every state -------- state's are struggling. The programs you have used will be or are greatly scaled back, if not gone entirely!

Currently, out of every $1 you pay in taxes, .19 goes to Medicaid. You are already paying for socialized medicine, they just don't call it that. This cost is only rising...........................

Where do our Income Tax Dollars go?

Many of the plans floated by candidates are trying to eliminate this cost ---- we MUST *DO* something.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Here is an excerpt from the PBS NOW show when Dr. Paul was on it:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...aul_10-12.html

JUDY WOODRUFF: Another question back here at home, you're an obstetrician. You've delivered, what, 4,000 babies over the course of your career in medicine. *You did not, as I understand it, take Medicare and Medicaid payments from your patients. You either took nothing at all or you negotiated down.* Are these programs you would do away with, Medicare, Medicaid? And if so, what would you...

REP. RON PAUL: No, but I would -- *I would have a transition period, like I said before. I'd cut money from overseas and allow people who are totally dependent to have this care.*

But I'd let young people get out of Social Security and have them get options to have their own medical care, because *I was raised at a time when medical care was provided by a lot of people. And they had no government programs. And I never saw anybody out in the streets.*

I worked in a hospital in San Antonio. It was a church hospital. It was always the lowest charge or nothing, and everybody was taken care of. Today everything is the maximum charge, because everybody is on third-party payments. The government has to pay, and nobody says, "Who's the government?" But the government can pay, so everybody gets the biggest bill possible. Everybody gets extra tests.

*So we have a system now that just encourages very, very expensive medicine, and it diminishes the chances of the poor people to have medical care.*

JUDY WOODRUFF: So get the federal government out of medical payments altogether?

REP. RON PAUL: Eventually that is the case, but certainly, in the transition period, that's not my goal is to attack those programs. As a matter of fact, I'm the only one that offers a way to pay for it. Right now, they just add on.

*The Republicans gives us prescription drug programs, and the Democrats gives you S-CHIP, and they don't have any money. They're going to print that money; that's all they're going to do. They can't even tax anymore, because taxes -- we're taxed to the hilt, so they're going to print the money, create the inflation, and cause the cost of medicine to go up. We're on a foolhardy course that has to be changed.*


----------



## saturnfire16

Too tired to comment on the posts here, but just wanted to say I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Here's an interesting website... votechooser.com. And watch Freedom to Facism. Also, check out Talk by Naomi Wolf- The End of America on youtube.com


----------



## tropicalpunkin

We talked about Darfur a bit in this thread. Would like to turn focus to something similar except it's happening right here, on our soil. American Indians - specifically Di'neh Navajo.

Short History of Big Mountain - http://www.aics.org/BM/bm.html

----------------------------------------

Here are the links to the documentary about this called "Vanishing Prayer"

PART 1 - 




PART 2 - 




Indigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 1) - 




The Elders talk about corporations and having he** to pay for things going on now.

----------------------------

Native Americans: Navajo Indians are the targets of brutal genocide right here in Arizona, USA ...by Sen. John McCain & the help of a few greedy Senators. *A very hypocritical group of Senators, McCain, Reed, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry and others along with Bill Clinton were also investigated.*

http://www.blackmesais.org/McCain_bill0805.htm

------------------------------

"McCain helped exploiting coal companies force relocation of Arizona Navahos to Church's Hill Nevada, a Nuclear Waste Dump, leading to deaths of thousands of elders & mass radiation-based deformities among the newborn, & many other brutalizing atrocities."

"SYNOPSIS: A Massachusetts / West Virginia coal company working directly with John McCain displaced thousands of Navaho onto a Nuclear Waste Dump to live after brutalizing them for two decades. McCain assembled (Navaho Resettlement Act and Navaho Accommodation Agreement) illegal enactments designed to force Native American Navaho of the Dineh Band off their Arizona lands, moving them onto Church's Hill in Nevada, depriving them of lands they've owned since 1500 AD. so that a Coal Company can exploit their lands for personal gain. In exchange, three Presidential runs by McCain have been backed by that company and its Nevada Casino clients, and McCain's wife has been granted huge Beer distribution contracts at her company.

The Navaho Resettlement led to the deaths of thousands of elders and mass radiation based deformities among newborn Navaho children and youngsters. The accompanying thuggery and theft of property, fencing out of rangelands, cattle seizures, water well cappings and beatings and other indignity has led to the death of thousands of elder grandfathers and mothers of the Navaho Di'neh Nation, a birth defect rate twice the national average has led to UN & EU condemnations! Navaho are full US citizens!

Over the past decade, McCain's illegal activities against the Dineh Navaho led to the issuance of the very first UN Human Rights condemnation of the USA: an official condemnation that held John McCain and his peers responsible for spearheading this illegal land seizure, coal seizure without payment of licensing rights, and rape of the land. A very hypocritical group of Senators, Reed, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Kerry and others along with Bill Clinton were also investigated. However, McCain was cited as the principal party responsible for the Human Rights Violations! A paid media blackout followed that prevented coverage of the events that displaced and killed the Dineh Navaho by the US Press! We must keep this story alive! "
http://www.acsa2000.com/cain2004.org/home.html

-------------------------------

"...there is no word in the Dineh language for "relocation". To them, it means you disappear and are never seen again. These old people who speak no English and have hardly ever touched money, they've herded sheep and traded for whatever they needed, and lived in log/sod hogans with coal or wood stoves all their lives, suddenly are forcibly removed into shoddy tract homes and given a cash payoff, and are expected to know how to budget for utility bills, property taxes and so forth, and they quickly lose the homes and end up living in cardboard boxes under a freeway overpass in Gallup, NM drinking themselves to death, while their traditional homeland is being stripmined. I can attest to the radioactivity problems, I have seen the piles of tailings, they're not even covered with tarps, the dust blows everywhere, and believe me, there is a LOT of wind up there on those mesas. We used to haul water from a spring that is so radioactive you have to filter the dust out of the water before you can drink it. That is the only water left up there since Peabody Coal is pumping out the aquifer to supply electricity to keep Vegas all lit up, all the springs and wells are going dry, very few left, and what water still runs, is contaminated very badly. The people do not have electricity or indoor plumbing, all water is hauled from springs. Same things going on in the Black Hills of South Dakota for decades, too." - Suzu

--------------------------------

February 5, 2008 PRESS RELEASE
http://www.acsa.net/cain2004.org/Din...essRelease.htm
*The ACSA challenges Senator McCain on his legislative history of Human Rights Violations: "a Skeleton in his closet: UNFIT to hold public office!"*

-------------------------------

QuestionAuthority on Ron Paul & Native Americans -

I asked him a question about Native American issues on Friday when he visited University of NH. I described a documentary I had seen about a reservation in one of the Dakotas, where a family was trying to grow hemp because it was the only crop that would grow on that land and it was the only way this reservation could become self-sufficient. But the Feds kept raiding and destroying their crops.

(more info: http://www.prairiedustfilms.com/ssn.html )

I asked if he would make the feds back off (I knew the answer but I wanted the large number of undecideds in the room to hear it) and asked what the government's relationship would be with native american tribes if he were president...he did say that his positions were pretty radical and that he did not have time to get into it there, but that we should stop treating the NAtive Americans like prisoners on the reservations, and we should allow them to live their lives as they see fit, etc.


----------



## TwoKids

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I guess I don't see the answer to my question in there. Exactly how does the free market accomplish all these amazing things, and what are some examples from past history of the free market having this sort of effect?

When has government ever done better?


----------



## TwoKids

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
I have replaced it with the original text from RP's site... same thing.
...http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/...rket-medicine/

This has been bothering me today. I understand why you would want to change the link no questions asked since it is the same content on both sites, but the fact that you didn't say you were just changing it to avoid a conflict, not as a confirmation of what was claimed to be on Lew Rockwell's site, makes it sound like what was claimed about the site it true. People who aren't familiar with Lew Rockwell's site would take your silence as confirmation that the claim was true. I don't want to redirect the thread, but silence is a way of condoning wrong.


----------



## athansor

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoKids* 
When has government ever done better?

A few things that come to mind
Civil rights legistlation
EOE/AA (Equal opportunity - affirmitive action)
ADA (Americans with disabilities act)
Welfare
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Minimum wage
New Deal

You may not agree with all parts or even all of the above programs, but I think that they have all helped people, including minorities, in this country.

So, now, the free market examples?

(Just FYI, I was asked about why we aren't to link to the Lew Rockwell site by another poster, so I actually went there, and after a few quick searches, found a number of articles and posts of a racist/sexist nature. I am glad we don't link to that site, and don't want to ever visit it again. I probably have the PM I sent in response to the first question and could forward it to you)


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TwoKids* 
This has been bothering me today. I understand why you would want to change the link no questions asked since it is the same content on both sites, but the fact that you didn't say you were just changing it to avoid a conflict, not as a confirmation of what was claimed to be on Lew Rockwell's site, makes it sound like what was claimed about the site it true. People who aren't familiar with Lew Rockwell's site would take your silence as confirmation that the claim was true. I don't want to redirect the thread, but silence is a way of condoning wrong.

Notice: Link was changed to avoid conflict. Nothing to do with affirming the other poster's ideas regarding the Lew Rockwell website.


----------



## TwoKids

Quote:


Originally Posted by *athansor* 
I guess I don't see the answer to my question in there. Exactly how does the free market accomplish all these amazing things, and what are some examples from past history of the free market having this sort of effect?

Your examples of government action:
A few things that come to mind
Civil rights legistlation
EOE/AA (Equal opportunity - affirmitive action)
ADA (Americans with disabilities act)
Welfare
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Minimum wage
New Deal

You'd need a free market of comparable size to the U.S. to make an oranges for oranges comparison.

Civil rights/ADA-type legislation only came about when society demanded it. The free market started the demand (the bus boycotts were a free market action, for example). The way people think nowadays is that America = federal government so whatever we want to do as Americans should be done through government. Civil rights legislation came about because Americans demanded it. This is where it is difficult to make an extrapolation of what would have happened next if Civil Rights legislation had not been enforced at the point of a federal gun. We already know the free market was demanding change in America, but the free market was not allowed to play out to its natural conclusion which would have been an improvement. People who may have joined in demanding change in America or at least stayed out of the way may have been turned off by federal guns in their towns and may have been hardened to making a positive change in their own attitude.

The Civil Rights Era also saw the use of government force to try to put down peaceful marches. The government was used to try to squelch that expression. This was an example of government being used as a tool to enforce the will of the politically powerful. In a society where government is only used to protect our safety and our property, it becomes irrelevant if these uses of government violence are the will of the politically powerful because government does not have the authority to act in that way.

EOE/ADA legislation can cause employers to hesitate to hire protected individuals at all for fear that they won't be able to deal with performance issues. I know someone who's job it was was to secure jobs for individuals with disabilities. With this supposed government protection, the underemployment for this group of people is ENORMOUS. The free market may not have perfect solutions for the underemployment of individuals with disabilities, but the ADA has not even scratched the surfaced, either.

Whatever the government does, the free market can do for cheaper and with higher quality. That includes "welfare". Free market charities can do a much better job caring for the less fortunate. If only the government didn't take so much of people's pay, these charities could be better funded and could also cover what medicare and medicaid do, only better. Currently, if a patient receiving medicare doesn't receive approval for a procedure, any doctor that does the procedure on the free market cannot take medicare for two years.

Social Security pays back less than what free market uses of disability insurance and retirement accounts would pay.

Minimum wage has a harmful side, too. Minimum wage jobs are only supposed to be starter jobs. Employers who struggle to pay minimum wage will have to hire fewer workers resulting in less starter jobs being available. The momentum a small business would need to expand would be more so it creates a disincentive for entrepreneurs. The higher paying jobs may have been in the near future for business, but they wouldn't be able to see that future. Currently, if an employer decides to suddenly decrease your pay to minimum wage, but doesn't tell you until pay day, you may not be able to recover the difference. This is an example where the implied contracts between citizens that would be enforced in a free market are replaced with a ridiculous idea that the government has set the implied minimum rate for work.

The government caused the crash of the late '20's by creating the Federal Reserve, which mismanaged the economy. The New Deal was implemented during the recovery and the New Deal took credit.

Anything the government does also involves the violence necessary to separate people from their money.

I just saw something on Glenn Beck about a man who started an organization to mentor foster kids who are being emancipated. This is the free market. Charities who can do better than the government.

I forget where the quote comes from, but I'm paraphrasing anyway. If you spend your own money on yourself, you care about cost and quality. If you spend someone else's money on yourself, you care about quality only. If you spend your own money on someone else, you care about cost only. If you spend someone else's money on someone else, you care about neither. This last category is what government does.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

CHART IMAGE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USACPI1800.png

This line going UP is NOT GOOD.

Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

Milestone dates:
1933 - Partial removal of gold standard
1945 - New Bretton Woods Agreement
1971 - Going off gold standard fully

Criticisms of the Federal Reserve System - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...tem#Criticisms

"Under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation." -- Greenspan, Alan; Gold and Economic Freedom, 1966


----------



## t-elaine

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tropicalpunkin* 
CHART IMAGE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USACPI1800.png

This line going UP is NOT GOOD.


Thank you so much for sharing this link.
That really puts it into perspective, doesn't it?


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Here are two more pretty charts (I like charts.)

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/m3-vs-cpi.gif

http://mwhodges.home.att.net/inflation.gif


----------



## boingo82

As we talked about in another thread, being tied to a Gold Standard meant that the US and several other nations suffered far worse during the great depression. Also, it is IMPOSSIBLE to go back to a gold standard now, so fantasizing about it is nothing more than a waste of time.


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Sound money.

Return Value to Our Money. Legalize gold and silver as a competing currency.

* Level the long-term boom and bust business cycle by passing H.R. 4683, which would repeal provisions of the federal criminal code relating to issuing coins of gold, silver, or other metal for use as current money and making or possessing likenesses of such coins.

Edited to add:

Videos:

Milton Friedman: The Purpose of the Federal Reserve





Milton Friedman explains role of gold in Great Depression.





However - http://www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp

But by the mid 1980s, Friedman had second thoughts about whether government could be trusted ever to follow the necessary restraint to provide this supposedly superior paper money system. He began to regularly quote a sentence from Irving Fisher's 1911 book, The Purchasing Power of Money : "Irredeemable paper money has almost invariably proved a curse to the country employing it."

"Let me emphasize that this note is not a plea for a return to a gold standard.... I regard a return to a gold standard as neither desirable nor feasible - with the one exception that it might become feasible if the doomsday predictions of hyperinflation under our present system should prove correct."

See this link doesn't talk about what happened in the 80's and what he said - http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...22/default.htm

http://www.coinflation.com/

http://goldmoney.com

http://monex.com/prods/silver.html#1-year

http://www.apmex.com/

http://www.bullionvault.com/

http://www.amark.com/


----------



## tropicalpunkin

Did you all see that YouTube of Lou Dobbs announcing the NWO?


----------



## t-elaine

Just in case:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=5248994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA...eature=related


----------



## MommyHawk

I just read that Ron Paul used to be an OB doctor...what are his views on the birth in America? I see what he feels about HS so maybe he has natural views also towards birth??? just wondering


----------



## t-elaine

Ron Paul on midwives/birth options:

If you view the video link in the second link here, it is difficult to hear what he is saying. This first link I have posted gives more details from the woman who is speaking iwth Ron Paul in the clip:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=99533

http://birthingwithguinever.com/2008...ion-to-choose/


----------

