Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Winex and Nude,





I would love to get into a full blown debate with you about U.S. foreign policy in the past 50 years but I do not think I have the time to invest. I will just to agree to disagree with your points. Sorry for the let down.
 
wow,

isn't this the quintessential debate, being patriotic for protecting the country vs dumb war ala support the troops, you have to support the war vs we shouldn;t be there in the first place, as a foreigner, I'm still saddened by the how this country is do divided and separated from the rest of the world, democrat of republican, the S govt had not been very kind to the world in general, yes, it bailed out a lot of countries in WWI and WWII, but all the other wars against the reds is plain paranoia, subversive, and pushing the military-industrial campaign, depression? Here's the cure, WAR... America has transformed from an isolationist to a pure 'capital' imperialist. THE USA has intervened in so many foreign issues that stemmed from far right ideals of moral superiority to far left ideals of model citizen, how can we judge what other countries are doing and intervene when the fundamentals of this country is in shambles... from a foreign perspective it is really simple, america is a democratic country, so what the govt does, must be sactioned by the ppl, that is how the world sees it, that is why suicide bombers don;t see any difference btw the ppl athey blow up and the govt, yet the reality on the ground is, voter apathy is high, nobody cares cause they know they can;t make washington change...., The ppl of USA must share the blame for the hostility towards USA. nobody even dares to acknowledge it as it is purely unpatriotic, yet unpatriotic is not voting for the govt you deserve and be represented by honest politicians that care about issues and not reelections, congress gets an automatic pay raise regardless of economic conditions, now we have ron paul and obama, it really is HOPE, record turnout in the primaries and caucuses, young minds actually care!!! If this is not a revolution, I don;t know what is..... European countries are so use to demonstrations, and politicians change like the socal weather, why ppl here are not crying foul on all the injustices in this country is beyond me, has the cheap credit lull consumers into the thinking that prosperity = democracy? They is no perfect mode for governance, but they is a constitution, which is pretty good from what I understand.... we know its about oil, we know its about revenge, but what is root all the problems,a screwed up govt that does not represent the masses but a few for financial gain...., I come from a country that you know corruption is bad when u can bribe the traffic cop.... this country is heading that way as the gap btw rich and poor grows, ppl are divided on stupid issues like same sex marriage and abortion, social issues cannot be solved through legislation, if religion can;t do it, you expect a proposition xx to solve it?? I know ppl of all races and religion, and its funny how some latinos I know clap their hands when thire kids barely graduate high school yet asians will mortgage thier homes to send thier kids to college, the difference is priority they tells you that the problems are systemic within cultures, not rich or poor, good neigborhood vs bad neighborhood, in every bad neghborhood, there is always success stories and the 'accepted' degradation, yet in good suburbs, bad kids are a product of society, tv, music, bad parents is the cause of all social problems... sorry for ranting, i just think that the ppl in this country take a lot for granted and not fight for what is rightfully theirs, yet complain about other countries for the lack of 'democracy', at least they were no bombs dropping everyday when saddam was around......
 
<p><a href="http://money.aol.com/special/lifestyles-of-2008-presidential-candidates">Lifestyles of the 2008 Presidential Candidates - AOL Money & Finance</a></p>
 
<p>MSM is reporting McCain as having won the Republican nomination. Sure it would've taken more than a miracle to win due to the overwhelming success of the msm blackout. Unfortunately Paul didn't even do well in his home state and proves why I'll never understand politics.</p>

<p><strong>Intro from Paul's Op-ed in Forbes (03.04.08, 3:20 PM ET):</strong></p>

<p>"America became the greatest, most prosperous nation in history through low taxes, constitutionally limited government, personal freedom and a belief in sound money. I decided to run for president because I am deeply concerned that the conservative movement has drifted away from these principles that we once so fiercely defended. Deficits have exploded, entitlements are out of control and our personal liberties are threatened like never before."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/04/election-economy-paul-oped-cx_rp_0304ronpaul.html">http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/04/election-economy-paul-oped-cx_rp_0304ronpaul.html</a></p>

<p><strong>From the reader comments:</strong></p>

<u>Posted by GatorVol | 03/04/08 10:28 PM EST</u>

I'm surprised, really, that Corporate America and even the media want to block out his ideas. Smaller government means more freedom to do things "Your way". A sound dollar means economic strength in a global light, as well as for your business and personal financial situation. Our present Federal Reserve System is much more "radical" than Ron Paul's ideas if you really think about it.


What Ron Paul would like to see happen is for America to come back home and build its own empire back up. We are spread so thin all over the world with our military and our financial support for other country's military that our own security is now threatened. Our financial resources have been drained to the point that our own infrastructure is deteriorating, and we are in debt too much to do more than put a Band-Aid on it. We really can't help others, if we are not strong ourselves.


America used to be the country that people from other countries would have given their eyeteeth to live in. Now we face the world with the embarrassment of starting a tragic war without checking out our sources, human rights abuses and a devalued currency. Those who don't despise us are laughing at us.


Ron Paul's campaign is not about getting elected. It's about getting out a message to America. Get back to our Constitutional values. Get back to sound economic policies. Regain our respect. Encourage democracy; not by policing the world, but by being an example. Recapture our American spirit and pride.
 
Adam:



I too, am dumbfounded by what seems to me as an obvious choice for America's prosperity and a return to what is right.



What gets me is McCain's response to Dr. Paul's question about the President's Working Group on Financial Markets that no one in the media seemed to focus on, yet was a key and defining moment that showed just how clueless John McCain really is.
 
What I hate about this race is everyone dropping out. What about the states who have not voted?? I think its sad they don't get a say. What if the last states were first could the outcome be different?? I also feel the press is all about Obama. It's really has not been a fare race.
 
<p>With McCain getting the nomination, Republicans are now free to go mess with the rest of the Democratic primaries when possible. Some assclown on MSNBC claimed that is how Obama won Iowa.</p>

<p>Ron Paul may hold conservative principles near and dear to his heart, but he lacked a plan and the ability to articulate his vision. His debate answers frequently veered off into dogmatic diatribes that did nothing to clarify his position or, in most cases, even answer the question. You can't win national elections like that. And he didn't.</p>
 
<p>Back to the original post:</p>

<p><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Rk_vVaZxTno" width="425" height="355" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"></embed></p>

<p>So you say you want a revolution? Well, you know...</p>
 
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/03/09/spain.election/index.html?eref=rss_topstories">Exit polls: Socialists win in Spain - CNN.com</a>
 
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/07/ron.paul/index.html">Spokesman: Ron Paul will end presidential run - CNN.com</a>
 
"MADRID, Spain - Socialist Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero won re-election Sunday in a clear endorsement of a record of social change including the legalization of gay marriage and on-demand divorce, reforms once unthinkable in overwhelmingly Roman Catholic Spain." <em>If I lived in Spain, I'd be voting Socialist, too!</em>





<img alt="" src="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/7/7c/Gay_March_celebrating_2005_Pride_Day_and_Same-Sex_Marriage_Law_in_Spain.jpg" />
 
Gay marriage. What a novel concept.





Sheesh....even <em>Spain </em>can do it....why can't we? (and yes, I know you can in Massachusetts)
 
<p>Troop,</p>

<p>The problem is California is one of democracy; the majority said "no".</p>

<p>The mob giveth and the mob taketh away.</p>
 
It makes me sad that my citizenry voted to deny me a basic, Constitutional right. That was in 2000. It's now 2008 and the world hasn't fallen apart after the Massachusetts and Canadian decisions.....oh yeah and now Spain, The Netherlands, South Africa and Belgium too.....





I was brought up believing that you grow up, get married and buy a house. So far I have two of the three. I'd still like my American Dream....it's not different because I'm gay.





<em>In September 2004 suits challenging the constitutionality of California's heterosexual marriage laws were consolidated in a proceeding (Marriage Cases, CJC-04-004365) before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. In a March 14, 2005 <a href="http://www.sftc.org/Docs/marriage.pdf"> decision</a> Judge Kramer ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban violated the California constitution. He found that the ban violated the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," and that "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." His ruling is a "tentative decision," and must be affirmed in the appellate process before it is implemented.</em>





<a href="http://igs.berkeley.edu/library/htGayMarriage.html">Same-Sex Marriage in California</a>





Well, now I've gone and outed myself.
 
And no, I'm not trying to get into a debate. I don't express myself well enough on paper to do so..... people are going to be people and have differing viewpoints....and I respect that.
 
>It makes me sad that my citizenry voted to deny me a basic, Constitutional right.





Can you point out the part of the Constitution that mentions marriage? My copy doesn't mention even mention the word...
 
I believe that not allowing same-sex couples to marry is a denial of equal protection under the California Constitution. period.
 
<p>Troop-</p>

<p>I'm no lawyer, but I think the precedent was set in <em>Loving v. Virgina.</em> Before anyone gets the wrong idea about my views, as a man married to a woman, I have zero roblems with same-sex marriages. At the legal level, it's simply a license and depriving a license on the basis of sex is discrimination, plain and simple. I would strongly oppose forcing any private entity (i.e. Catholic Church) to perform a marriage ceremony, but that is a completely seperate legal issue. Trooper should be able to get a marriage license regardless of the sex of her partner and have the service performed by anyone who is willing to do so.</p>

<p>My point in saying the problem is "one of democracy" is that this issue fully illustrates the folly of popular referendum. In this case, a simple majority voted to deprive an entire section of the population of their constitutional rights as defined in the decision <a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html">Loving v. Virginia</a> and as codified <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/42/chapters/21/subchapters/i/sections/section_1981.html">in US law.</a> While those two examples were the result of racial discrimination, the first establishes that states cannot discriminate against a married couple, and the law established that we cannot discriminate based on sex. But this was completely over-ridden by popular vote, which is exactly what the Consitution was designed to prevent. This is the danger in allowing law and policy to be determined by a simple majority of people who can only be counted on to vote in their own selfish interests.</p>

<p>Now, I fully expect the California Supreme court to rule against gay marriage (sorry, Trooper) but that just moves it onto the Federal circuit. And that is where this issue will be resolved, most likely by the SCOTUS. I also feel that, while they may not agree morally, a court that has swung to the side of 'original intent' cannot rule that this form of discrimination is constitutionally allowed.</p>
 
Hence the end run attempt at a Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. I was very relieved to see that the effort to write discrimination into our founding document, failed.





Thank you for your thoughtful comments.
 
Back
Top