Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Ron Paul information and happenings
C-Span sucks community > The Satellite of Liberty > The Satellite of Liberty forums
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
NotSarcasticOrCynical
IPB Image


Official Web Sites

Ron Paul 2008 Website

Contribute to the campaign

Campaign blog with daily updates

Myspace Page

U.S. House Site

Campaign Calender (Myspace account required)

Campaign Videos


Television Appearances

The Colbert Report on Comedy Central Wednesday June 13th

MSNBC's Tucker interview (6/6/07) (8 minutes)

Third GOP Primary debate televised by CNN (6/5/07) (7 minutes)

Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (6/4/07) (8 minutes)

CNN's Sunday Night, Sunday Spotlight (5/27/07) (6 minutes)

HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher (5/25/07) (7 minutes)

CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer (5/20/07) (7 minutes)

Second GOP Primary Debate televised on Fox News Channel (5/15/07) (9 minutes)

First GOP Primary Debate televised on MSNBC (5/3/07) (8 minutes)

Tucker interview on MSNBC (5/3/07) (5 minutes)

CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight (4/23/07) (5 minutes)

Fox News program Red Eye (4/20/07) (12 minutes): (Part 1), (Part 2)

HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher (3/30/07) (6 minutes)

Fox News Because You Asked with Bill Hemmer (3/21/07) (3 minutes)

Announcement of bid for US President on C-SPAN's Washington Journal (03/12/07) (33 minutes)
RealPlayer: rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/c08/c08_wj031207_paul.rm
YouTube: (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3), (Part 4)

CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight (02/26/07) (5 minutes)


In the News

Google News Search

Google Blog Search


Voting Record


Project Vote Smart

On The Issues

Washington Post Votes Database


Related Sites

Ron Paul Library

Watch Ron Paul

Myspace group

BuddyMapping

Wikipedia

Article archives

Ron Paul HQ NH Blog

Friends of Ron Paul blog

Ron Paul for President blog

"A Foreign Policy of Freedom"

Opensecrets.org 2008 Presidential Fundraising


If anyone has more links, or any suggestions feel free to post it below or PM me. I like to have a lot of information on his campaign instantly available to me and others. I want to keep this page up to date.

Thanks. smile.gif

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Updates:

May 2: Added Tucker Carlson interview
May 6: Added debate footage, and date and time for next one
May 14: Added RonPaulHQ.com link and Tucker video
May 16: Added Fox debate video and CNN date
May 19: Added Late Edition interview date and time
May 25: Added Late Edition video and Bill Maher interview time plus 2 links
May 26: Added Bill Maher interview
May 28: Added CNN video, and Daily Show and Colbert dates
June 8: Added a few videos
Samuel Adams
Nicely done. Keep up the good work.
NotSarcasticOrCynical
I want to keep it updated people. Any past speeches, tv appearances I should post? I have slow internet so I appreciate anything you guys got that should be here. I want it to be the one stop ron paul information post.
Arturo_Vandelay
Ron's latest

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul372.html

The Coming Entitlement Meltdown

by Ron Paul

David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, appeared on the show "60 Minutes" last evening to discuss the federal budget outlook. If you saw the show, you know that he painted a very sobering picture regarding the federal government's ability to meet its future obligations.

If you didn't see the show, Mr. Walker's theme was simple: government entitlement spending is like a runaway freight train headed straight at American taxpayers. He singled out the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003, as "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."

When it comes to Social Security and Medicare, the federal government simply won't be able to keep its promises in the future. That is the reality every American should get used to, despite the grand promises of Washington reformers. Our entitlement system can't be reformed – it's too late. And the Medicare prescription drug bill is the final nail in the coffin.

The financial impact of the drug bill cannot be overstated. Government projections that the program would cost $400 billion over the next decade were a joke, as everyone in Congress knew even as they voted for the bill. The real cost will be at least $1 trillion in the first decade alone, and much more in following decades as the American population grows older.

The Medicare "trust fund" is already badly in the red, and the only solution will be a dramatic increase in payroll taxes for younger workers. The National Taxpayers Union reports that Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation's GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That's not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40% of the nation's entire private sector output!

The politicians who get reelected by passing such incredibly shortsighted legislation will never have to answer to future generations saddled with huge federal deficits. Those generations are the real victims, as they cannot object to the debts being incurred today in their names.

The official national debt figure, now approaching $9 trillion, reflects only what the federal government owes in current debts on money already borrowed. It does not reflect what the federal government has promised to pay millions of Americans in entitlement benefits down the road. Those future obligations put our real debt figure at roughly fifty trillion dollars – a staggering sum that is about as large as the total household net worth of the entire United States. Your share of this fifty trillion amounts to about $175,000.

Don't believe for a second that we can grow our way out of the problem through a prosperous economy that yields higher future tax revenues. If present trends continue, by 2040 the entire federal budget will be consumed by Social Security and Medicare alone. The only options for balancing the budget would be cutting total federal spending by about 60%, or doubling federal taxes. To close the long-term entitlement gap, the U.S. economy would have to grow by double digits every year for the next 75 years.

The answer to these critical financial realities is simple, but not easy: We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or "reform," won't cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill.

March 6, 2007

Tom Servo
Good thread, NSoC! smile.gif
NotSarcasticOrCynical
I'm looking for a YouTube or non real player video of Ron Pauls appearance on C-SPAN. The one on YouTube is supposedly anti-Paul and edited to make him look loony and it's only 10 minutes, not 33.
Arturo_Vandelay
I figure most people will think he's loony and third of the time anyway. Pick the right 2/3 to market to different groups and you might get some interest going.
Tom Servo
QUOTE(NotSarcasticOrCynical @ Mar 12 2007, 10:23 PM) [snapback]288899[/snapback]

I'm looking for a YouTube or non real player video of Ron Pauls appearance on C-SPAN. The one on YouTube is supposedly anti-Paul and edited to make him look loony and it's only 10 minutes, not 33.

If you can find Google video that'd help. I have a glitch that won't let me play YouTube stuff.
Arturo_Vandelay
Those Barbie Dream House computers do tend to have some problems.
Tom Servo
Barbie's dream house ain't in orbit. biggrin.gif
NotSarcasticOrCynical
Ron Paul was the first Presidential candidate to sign the American Freedom Agenda's Freedom Pledge:

http://www.americanfreedomagenda.org/about/freedompledge.htm
Arturo_Vandelay
That's all well and good, but it's a fairly narrow pledge. I'd like to hear him discuss some real world security issues and possible scenarios should he take the Presidency. He needs to get some NATIONAL exposure. Some Meet the Press, or even cable talk. Signing pledges and making speeches just isn't enough. He needs some major PR behind him.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 20 2007, 11:19 PM) [snapback]290291[/snapback]

That's all well and good, but it's a fairly narrow pledge. I'd like to hear him discuss some real world security issues and possible scenarios should he take the Presidency. He needs to get some NATIONAL exposure. Some Meet the Press, or even cable talk. Signing pledges and making speeches just isn't enough. He needs some major PR behind him.

Yup.

If he isn't being invited on the national press shows, he needs to start volunteering and making some noise about it.
Arturo_Vandelay
Just perusing the links above they're all small, separate web based efforts. I saw Nader on Russert the other night, Paul needs to get that kind of exposure. Even Pat Paulsen could get on network TV.
Tom Servo
He was on Faux News for a few minutes this morning, with Bill Hemmer.
Arturo_Vandelay
So far he's a faux candidate. I suppose it could be worse, say being on MSNBC.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Mar 21 2007, 11:51 PM) [snapback]290412[/snapback]

He was on Faux News for a few minutes this morning, with Bill Hemmer.

That's a start.

Arturo_Vandelay
QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Mar 21 2007, 09:59 PM) [snapback]290416[/snapback]

That's a start.



I've looked around at his supporter's sales technique and I don't see it bringing in many new voters. Like Nader I think there's a limit to his upside.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Mar 22 2007, 12:14 AM) [snapback]290417[/snapback]

I've looked around at his supporter's sales technique and I don't see it bringing in many new voters. Like Nader I think there's a limit to his upside.

He needs to create some news, and a message.
SRX
He has a message. A republican that doesn't support the war, and doesn't like taxes and government programs enough to lure any democrats in.

All take it or leave it.

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/03/21/fo...-interview.aspx


(Video) FOX NEWS Because You Asked -Ron Pual Interview


Maybe when they can spell their own candidate's name right.
Nomarchy
QUOTE(SRX @ Mar 21 2007, 11:34 PM) [snapback]290430[/snapback]

He has a message. A republican that doesn't support the war, and doesn't like taxes and government programs enough to lure any democrats in.

All take it or leave it.

http://ronpaul.rescue-us.org/2007/03/21/fo...-interview.aspx
(Video) FOX NEWS Because You Asked -Ron Pual Interview


Maybe when they can spell their own candidate's name right.


How does he manage to get re-elected if he's actually against 'bringing home the bacon'? I gotta find out more about his Congressional District. I suppose his districts ends up getting federal government largesse 'despite' his votes.
Arturo_Vandelay
Our Senators voted against pork and got re-elected on principle, but it did cost us some federal cash for state projects.
NotSarcasticOrCynical
I've seen different statements on his page will he will fight for his "bacon" and get it. If his district is supposed to get something, he will fight for it.
Arturo_Vandelay
What lawmaker doesn't think their district is "supposed to get something"? I can't blame him, but I don't believe he has any special integrity over other legislators.
NotSarcasticOrCynical
That isn't what I meant. If his district has funds in a bill, even if Paul didn't put it in there or vote for the bill, he will fight for that funding.
Tom Servo
As he should.

The feds do derive a portion of their loot from his district.
SpaceCowboy
Nine Candidates Agree to GOP Debate

By: David Mark
April 3, 2007 09:17 AM EST

Nine GOP White House hopefuls will participate in a May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, an event hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, in conjunction with MSNBC and The Politico.

Accepting former first lady Nancy Reagan's invitation are Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson.

(more) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3390.html

There's your start.

Congrats!
beasty
The more the merrier. At the rate candidates are raising money he better have some generous benefactors. Money may not decide the winner, but you need enough to get your name out, travel, pay staff and do at least the basics of creating a buzz. Paul has some dedicated backers, but they sure aren't selling him here. I suppose we're too small to put much of an effort into, but it would have been nice if the SOL members had tried to do a little bit of PR here.
Tom Servo
What would you like to hear....that Dr. Paul is willing to use OPM to buy your vote with a new gubmint program that you favor?

QUOTE(SpaceCowboy @ Apr 3 2007, 09:48 AM) [snapback]293065[/snapback]

Nine Candidates Agree to GOP Debate

By: David Mark
April 3, 2007 09:17 AM EST

Nine GOP White House hopefuls will participate in a May 3 debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, an event hosted by the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation, in conjunction with MSNBC and The Politico.

Accepting former first lady Nancy Reagan's invitation are Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and former Wisconsin governor Tommy G. Thompson.

(more) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3390.html

There's your start.

Congrats!

Great deal!
Arturo_Vandelay

QUOTE
What would you like to hear....that Dr. Paul is willing to use OPM to buy your vote with a new gubmint program that you favor?


I'd prefer cash. Nothing bigger than a $20, as the Circle-K won't take big stuff.
NotSarcasticOrCynical
Bump. (update)
Bart Katz
I don't see no update.
SpaceCowboy
Update!


This news just in...


No hope for Ron Paul in presidential bid.


Tom Servo
Well then, you certainly can't be harmed by voting for Dr. Paul in the primary....can you?
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Apr 16 2007, 01:54 AM) [snapback]296116[/snapback]

Well then, you certainly can't be harmed by voting for Dr. Paul in the primary....can you?

I plan to do just that.

I went out of my way to go hear him speak at a local venue last year.
Tom Servo
Then welcome aboard!! smile.gif
Arturo_Vandelay
Grab an oar or bail. Your choice.
Tom Servo
The cabin boy job is still open too. biggrin.gif
NotSarcasticOrCynical
Just a reminder. His appearance on Lou Dobbs scheduled for last night got moved to tomarrow due to the VT massacre.
Tom Servo
Thanks for the update, dude! smile.gif
Arturo_Vandelay
At least a lot of democrats and protectionists will get to see him.
NotSarcasticOrCynical
QUOTE(Tom Servo)
Thanks for the update, dude! smile.gif


It got moved again to monday. This appearance has officially been delayed 3 times now, once due to Imus, twice to the VT shooting. He should get an entire hour, but that won't happen.
Arturo_Vandelay
Better hope there's no big news over the weekend. Cheney gets gas, Pelosi has a facelift, or Edwards gets another $400 haircut, and Paul will get pushed back yet again.
SpaceCowboy
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 18 2007, 11:12 PM) [snapback]296646[/snapback]

Better hope there's no big news over the weekend. Cheney gets gas, Pelosi has a facelift, or Edwards gets another $400 haircut, and Paul will get pushed back yet again.

It's a very small matter, but I would have thought that Edwards would be smarter than to charge a $400 haircut to his campaign where the expense would be reported for the press.

Dumb.
Arturo_Vandelay
Maybe Edwards was trying to misdirect people from the $500 spa treatments.

At least it isn't as bad as Hillary's $3000 hairdo.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3582.html

Ron Paul Interview Excerpts

By: Josh Kraushaar
April 18, 2007 04:32 PM EST


WHY HE'S RUNNING:

I am arguing that (Republicans) have lost their way. Right now, on the surface, a lot of Republicans in Washington will be critical of my positions, saying "I don't support the president or the party," but if you look at our platform, our state platforms, our policy positions, I would say we have lost our way. And quite frankly, I have not seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that's actually offering to stand up and stand for the principals the Republican Party has been built on.

In the past six years, when the foreign policy really changed, when we accepted the notion of pre-emptive war, a strong violation of our personal civil liberties, (we) at the same time (became) the party of entitlements, doubling the size of the Department of Education, McCain-Feingold. These are all things that Republicans used to criticize and not support, and all of a sudden we accept them. In essence, we have accepted what has traditionally been the Democratic platform -- increase entitlements and foreign intervention, getting involved in quagmires abroad.

IRAQ:

The president, if we are attacked or there is an imminent threat, has the authority to go to war. That's been clearly understood since the Constitution. ... The president, as commander in chief, can defend his country in times of emergency. But you know what? That has never happened in all these years. Even with the Soviet threat. ... Under today's conditions, the policy has significantly changed for the worse. That is, we now have established that our policy is to pre-emptively strike a country that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us. We just want to go in and have regime change.

We ought to look to the Constitution. ... We should only fight when there is a declaration of war, when there is an extreme circumstance. We should not have all options on the table to attack Iran when they don't have a weapon.

We shouldn't finance bad policy or unconstitutional war.

IMMIGRATION:

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the top issues in this country. ... People are really, really disgusted with it. I think the immigration problem is in some ways a symptom. And my position is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we subsidize and encourage illegal immigration. It started in the 1980s when amnesty was given after illegals came here.

Amnesty, ... I don't like that idea; I don't want to reward those who are already here. I don't think anybody has an easy answer about what to do with those who are already here. I think we ought to enforce the law, but what kind of an army would you need to round them up?

I also don't support a pathway to citizenship. They cannot get in the front of the line; I would not reward them in any way whatsoever.

I would also get rid of all the mandates from the federal government that say the states must provide free education, medical care and benefits to illegals. That is another reason they bring their families over here.

I believe we should beef up the borders, and I believe it should be civilian, not military. I believe we shouldn't be worried about the border between North and South Korea after 50 years or about the border between Iraq and Syria. I mean, that's where all our money and personnel is going. I think we should bring the troops home and getting them out of the war mode and probably be using the resources … to beef up our borders without adding any cost to the budget.

SPENDING:

I don't think there is one single budget you can't cut. Politically, the easiest budget to cut is the overseas expenditures. And then you deal with other problems as time goes on. I certainly would not be signing a bill that would double the size of the DOE or increase the size of the entitlement system or a drug company-promoted prescription drug program. That's where we as Republicans have fallen down, and that is the reason our base was very unhappy last September.

TAXES:

We lived in this country a long time without income tax, but then we had limited government. I don't think we need an income tax. I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position. My slogan at home has always been "the taxpayers' best friend," and most people like that regardless of what party they are in.

CAMPAIGN STRATEGY:

I felt good about every trip I have taken. We always pick up support and enthusiasm, … and the reception has been good. We don't have $100 million in the bank; we are not supported by wealthy special interests, so we are not polling. ... We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four or five early states, but the pressure is to have everybody together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever.

Republicans sometimes get intimidated that they have to follow the party instead of the platform and our promises in the Constitution. My job … is to make conservatives feel comfortable on any number of issues for really following through on what they believe in.

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

GOLD STANDARD:

I don't exactly say, 'Let's go back to the gold standard,' and you may chuckle a little bit, … but the question has to be turned around. What is it that possesses anybody to think that governments, which (are) not trusted by anybody, should have the power to create money out of thin air and create runaway spending and allow the politicians to not worry about deficits in order to buy reelection? And allow them to police the world and allow them to provide all these big benefits? ... That is the most astounding philosophy in the world, and it has never worked, … and now we are in the process of a failing dollar. ... So, yes, I want to restore integrity to the money, not be a counterfeiter. My proposal is not to close the Federal Reserve down and go back to the 19th century, it's just to legalize that which the founders consider(ed) very important.
BrooklynBill
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 19 2007, 05:12 AM) [snapback]296661[/snapback]

Maybe Edwards was trying to misdirect people from the $500 spa treatments.

At least it isn't as bad as Hillary's $3000 hairdo.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3582.html

Ron Paul Interview Excerpts

By: Josh Kraushaar
April 18, 2007 04:32 PM EST
WHY HE'S RUNNING:

I am arguing that (Republicans) have lost their way. Right now, on the surface, a lot of Republicans in Washington will be critical of my positions, saying "I don't support the president or the party," but if you look at our platform, our state platforms, our policy positions, I would say we have lost our way. And quite frankly, I have not seen anybody running for the presidency on the Republican ticket that's actually offering to stand up and stand for the principals the Republican Party has been built on.

In the past six years, when the foreign policy really changed, when we accepted the notion of pre-emptive war, a strong violation of our personal civil liberties, (we) at the same time (became) the party of entitlements, doubling the size of the Department of Education, McCain-Feingold. These are all things that Republicans used to criticize and not support, and all of a sudden we accept them. In essence, we have accepted what has traditionally been the Democratic platform -- increase entitlements and foreign intervention, getting involved in quagmires abroad.

IRAQ:

The president, if we are attacked or there is an imminent threat, has the authority to go to war. That's been clearly understood since the Constitution. ... The president, as commander in chief, can defend his country in times of emergency. But you know what? That has never happened in all these years. Even with the Soviet threat. ... Under today's conditions, the policy has significantly changed for the worse. That is, we now have established that our policy is to pre-emptively strike a country that has not attacked us and is not a threat to us. We just want to go in and have regime change.

We ought to look to the Constitution. ... We should only fight when there is a declaration of war, when there is an extreme circumstance. We should not have all options on the table to attack Iran when they don't have a weapon.

We shouldn't finance bad policy or unconstitutional war.

IMMIGRATION:

The problem of illegal immigration is one of the top issues in this country. ... People are really, really disgusted with it. I think the immigration problem is in some ways a symptom. And my position is that if you subsidize something, you get more of it. And we subsidize and encourage illegal immigration. It started in the 1980s when amnesty was given after illegals came here.

Amnesty, ... I don't like that idea; I don't want to reward those who are already here. I don't think anybody has an easy answer about what to do with those who are already here. I think we ought to enforce the law, but what kind of an army would you need to round them up?

I also don't support a pathway to citizenship. They cannot get in the front of the line; I would not reward them in any way whatsoever.

I would also get rid of all the mandates from the federal government that say the states must provide free education, medical care and benefits to illegals. That is another reason they bring their families over here.

I believe we should beef up the borders, and I believe it should be civilian, not military. I believe we shouldn't be worried about the border between North and South Korea after 50 years or about the border between Iraq and Syria. I mean, that's where all our money and personnel is going. I think we should bring the troops home and getting them out of the war mode and probably be using the resources … to beef up our borders without adding any cost to the budget.

SPENDING:

I don't think there is one single budget you can't cut. Politically, the easiest budget to cut is the overseas expenditures. And then you deal with other problems as time goes on. I certainly would not be signing a bill that would double the size of the DOE or increase the size of the entitlement system or a drug company-promoted prescription drug program. That's where we as Republicans have fallen down, and that is the reason our base was very unhappy last September.

TAXES:

We lived in this country a long time without income tax, but then we had limited government. I don't think we need an income tax. I promised my people I would do anything and everything I can to get rid of the income tax, to repeal the 16th Amendment, never vote to raise taxes and always vote to lower taxes. And it's been a popular position. My slogan at home has always been "the taxpayers' best friend," and most people like that regardless of what party they are in.

CAMPAIGN STRATEGY:

I felt good about every trip I have taken. We always pick up support and enthusiasm, … and the reception has been good. We don't have $100 million in the bank; we are not supported by wealthy special interests, so we are not polling. ... We actually wanted to limit the campaign to four or five early states, but the pressure is to have everybody together, so small candidates like myself are cut off before we get any traction whatsoever.

Republicans sometimes get intimidated that they have to follow the party instead of the platform and our promises in the Constitution. My job … is to make conservatives feel comfortable on any number of issues for really following through on what they believe in.

STEM CELL RESEARCH:

I think stem cell research is crucial and is very, very important. Medically, it has a great future. The answers aren't in yet, completely. Politicians and bureaucrats and the FDA don't know either. I don't think that's where it should be determined. I think it should be determined in the marketplace. In Washington, we've only had two choices. Either prohibit it or finance it. My position is we shouldn't do either. ... It should be up to the states to devise the rules and laws of what you can or can't do. ...

I am strongly pro-life, and the worst thing I can think of is to manufacture babies to be used for research. But as an obstetrician, I have on quite a few cases had to do surgery on a woman who had a pregnancy in the fallopian tube. The fetus is small and alive, but if you don't operate on them, the fetus dies and the patient dies. ... I don't see any reason why you can't use that fetal tissue for research.

GOLD STANDARD:

I don't exactly say, 'Let's go back to the gold standard,' and you may chuckle a little bit, … but the question has to be turned around. What is it that possesses anybody to think that governments, which (are) not trusted by anybody, should have the power to create money out of thin air and create runaway spending and allow the politicians to not worry about deficits in order to buy reelection? And allow them to police the world and allow them to provide all these big benefits? ... That is the most astounding philosophy in the world, and it has never worked, … and now we are in the process of a failing dollar. ... So, yes, I want to restore integrity to the money, not be a counterfeiter. My proposal is not to close the Federal Reserve down and go back to the 19th century, it's just to legalize that which the founders consider(ed) very important.


I pretty much agree with all of Dr. Pauls' positions. So do most Americans, if you sit down and listen to them. I find it amazing that some Kool-Aid GOPers actually despise this guy.
Arturo_Vandelay
Welcome to the community. If there's anything I can do to make things better don't hesitate to ask. All are welcome, and unlike some places contempt of host is no crime. smile.gif In fact it's almost expected.

I agree with some of Paul's positions, and disagree with some. Generally I'm all for personal freedom and smaller government, but I can't quite buy into the idea of dismantling all the programs we have in some haphazard fashion. Also I've always been interventionist in my foreign policy views. I know it rubs liberals and libertarians the wrong way, but I figure there will always be world leaders, and I figure an American hegemon beats a Nazi, Soviet, Chinese or Islamic Imperialist. (just to name a few historical possibilities)
BrooklynBill
QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Apr 19 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]296724[/snapback]

Welcome to the community. If there's anything I can do to make things better don't hesitate to ask. All are welcome, and unlike some places contempt of host is no crime. smile.gif In fact it's almost expected.

I agree with some of Paul's positions, and disagree with some. Generally I'm all for personal freedom and smaller government, but I can't quite buy into the idea of dismantling all the programs we have in some haphazard fashion. Also I've always been interventionist in my foreign policy views. I know it rubs liberals and libertarians the wrong way, but I figure there will always be world leaders, and I figure an American hegemon beats a Nazi, Soviet, Chinese or Islamic Imperialist. (just to name a few historical possibilities)


Good points....

I see things somewhat differently.There aren't any nation state hegemons. There are, in point of fact, international banking cartels and transnational corporations,which grew up around them, that threaten Americans and most other nations. The name of the game is globalism and the surrender of sovereignty as we know it. This whole thing boils down to oligarchy and consolidation of resources and power, which, in my opinion, is antithetical to our founding principles.

I always say 'follow the money'.


beasty
QUOTE(TruthTrekker @ Apr 19 2007, 11:06 AM) [snapback]296725[/snapback]

Good points....

I see things somewhat differently.There aren't any nation state hegemons. There are, in point of fact, international banking cartels and transnational corporations,which grew up around them, that threaten Americans and most other nations. The name of the game is globalism and the surrender of sovereignty as we know it. This whole thing boils down to oligarchy and consolidation of resources and power, which, in my opinion, is antithetical to our founding principles.

I always say 'follow the money'.


The world has gotten a lot smaller. Business is going to be international, and governments are going to try and get their mitts on every dime of revenue they can. It's all about profit at every level. The upside is that as long as war is unprofitable nobody will want to go that route.
BrooklynBill
QUOTE(beasty @ Apr 19 2007, 06:14 PM) [snapback]296726[/snapback]

The world has gotten a lot smaller. Business is going to be international, and governments are going to try and get their mitts on every dime of revenue they can. It's all about profit at every level. The upside is that as long as war is unprofitable nobody will want to go that route.


Also, the US is becoming a fascist state, literally. We have huge government bureaucracies, which exist solely for the benefit of transnationals. I see a merging of sorts taking place. I am all for free trade and free enterprise, but this is multigenerational cronyism on a global scale.

Unfortunately, the US is in receivership as we speak, and we are witnessing the death agony of the dollar.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.