Presidential Candidate Ron Paul's Official Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well it has to be asked. Ron Paul's son is named "Rand" Paul. Is it safe to assume "Rand" came from Ayn Rand? Or is it every safe to assume?

:P
 
Xdrive05 said:
Well it has to be asked. Ron Paul's son is named "Rand" Paul. Is it safe to assume "Rand" came from Ayn Rand? Or is it every safe to assume?

:P
Click to expand...

Considering a direct comparison of the politics of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand would indicate that the two of them stuck in a room together would likely end in bloodshed if not for the fact that they both decry aggression...

I'll go with "No."
 
JayDubya said:
Considering a direct comparison of the politics of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand would indicate that the two of them stuck in a room together would likely end in bloodshed if not for the fact that they both decry aggression...

I'll go with "No."
Click to expand...
Rand would declare the most rational outcome is Paul performing oral sex on her, making him storm out in disgust. ;)
 
JayDubya said:
Considering a direct comparison of the politics of Ron Paul and Ayn Rand would indicate that the two of them stuck in a room together would likely end in bloodshed if not for the fact that they both decry aggression...

I'll go with "No."
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Rand who said something like Libertarians are the hippies of the right?

:)
 
Found this little gem from the distinguished opposition. Speech given in NYC in 1994.

'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime

...

We constantly present the false impression that government can solve problems that government in America was designed not to solve. Families are significantly less important in the development of children today than they were 30 or 40 years ago. Religion has less influence than it did 30 or 40 years ago. Communities don't mean what they meant 30 or 40 years ago.

As Americans, we're not sure we share values. We're sometimes even afraid to use the word values. We talk about teaching ethics in schools -- people say, "What ethics? Whose ethics? Maybe we can't." And they confuse that with teaching of religion. And we are afraid to reaffirm the basics upon which a lawful and a decent society are based. We're almost embarrassed by it.

We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.

[ Interruption by someone in the audience. ]

You have free speech so I can be heard.

[ Another interruption. ]

At the core the struggle is philosophical. There are many, many things that can be done in law enforcement to protect us better. There are many things that can done to create a government that is more responsive and more helpful. The fact is that we're fooling people if we suggest to them the solutions to these very, very deep-seated problems are going to be found in government. . . .

The solutions are going to be found when we figure out as a society what our families are going to be like in the next century, and how maybe they are going to be different. They are going to have to be just as solid and just as strong in teaching every single youngster their responsibility for citizenship. We're going to find the answer when schools once again train citizens. Schools exist in America and have always existed to train responsible citizens of the United States of America.

If they don't do that, it's very hard to hold us together as a country, because it's shared values that hold us together. We're going to come through this when we realize that it's all about, ultimately, individual responsibility. That in fact the criminal act is about individual responsibility and the building of the respect for the law and ethics is also a matter of individual responsibility.
Click to expand...

The worst thing about it is that if you read it all in context it almost sounds okay. But when you look at the rotten core with scrutiny...

I hate it when GAFfers and other left-wingers 'round the net unfairly use the term "fascist."

But that... that ****ing sounds fascist.

Freedom is liberty, and liberty is freedom. Freedom does not mean that people can do anything they want, it means that they can do anything they want as long as they don't do harm to the liberty of others. Freedom is protected by lawful authority empowered to remove from society those that would do harm to the liberty of others.

This is the social contract. This is what the social contract means. This is all it means. It does not make you a slave. It does not give lawful authority discretion to invade your privacy. It merely means you will not do harm to others while living in the society, they will not do harm to you, and IF they do harm to you, they will be removed.

If said lawful authority were to itself do harm to the liberty of its citizenry, then in the spirit of great men like Jefferson and Franklin, it would be time to remove that authority and start over.
 
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
Click to expand...

how the **** did this guy ever get anywhere saying things like this? holy shit

i am appalled
 
Stoney Mason said:
Meh you people are always Rudy bashing :D


It sounds like Rudy is essentially talking about Hobbes Leviathan without some of the intellectual weight behind it.
Click to expand...

Nope, it sounds like Rudy is applying his perception of liberty ceding to authority only to New York City, which in 1994 was quite a mess of drug dealers, violent crime, homelessness and organized crime.

Rudy was exactly what the city needed at that time - in essence, an iron dictator who refused to give in or bend to the whim of civil rights groups or special interests. Unfortunately, he went too far with the "police state" mentality and ended up becoming a crazed lunatic following 9/11.
 
adamsappel said:
Okay, say Ron Paul did get the Republican nomination. Who would he pick as his Vice President?
Click to expand...

041218_GiulianiKerik_vl.widec.jpg
 
Giuliani: Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
Click to expand...

What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds crazy.
 
Ether_Snake said:
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds crazy.
Click to expand...


I think it means "Give us your internet history. We want to see what porn sites you visit. And how often you visit them. If you don't give us your history, you are a traitor."
 
Ether_Snake said:
What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds crazy.
Click to expand...

lol.

Is that a joke?

That sounds like out of a sketch on SNL. Basically he is saying that in order to be free, you should succumb to whatever measures the government deems necessary? GTFO.
 
Freedom is about authority. War is Peace.

I don't approve of torture, I just think my interrogators should do everything that's possible. Like "enhanced interrogation techniques." HEY LOOK AT THE BUNNY RABBIT. LOOK AT THE SILLY RABBIT, AIN'T HE FUNNY? What were we talking about? lol isolationism is bad, what are you hoover lol? *laugh track* I'm Super 9/11 Man, Bitch!

Lovers of freedom, get your lachrymal glands ready because they're going to be working overtime. Clinton is one front runner and the other is Gules. You've literally got someone making communist-like speeches and you've literally got the other making fascist-like speeches. And both are getting praised and rewarded for it from their respective parties. Madness. Absolute madness.
 
Oh right, so he is saying the exact opposite of what Freedom is.

Freedom, according to Dictionary.com:

• The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint.
• The power to determine action without restraint.
• Political or national independence.
• Personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.
• Civil liberty, as opposed to subjection to an arbitrary or despotic government.

Freedom according to Giuliani:

• Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.


And man is he a bad speaker. "Every human being" "about what you do". WTF, did he finish high school?
 
JayDubya said:
You've literally got someone making communist-like speeches and you've literally got the other making fascist-like speeches. And both are getting praised and rewarded for it from their respective parties. Madness. Absolute madness.
Click to expand...

Seriously, it is.
 
^ ^ ^

Heh, Congressional Medals. Paul votes 'em all down. Voted down one for Rosa Parks, too, got a lot of guff for it. :lol

But seriously, I love it when he does that Davy Crockett shit.

* * *

Random aside...

For those not in the know, Crockett famously did something very, very similar as a Congressman.

wiki said:
Political career

On September 17, 1821, Crockett was elected to the Committee of Propositions and Grievances. In 1826 and 1828 he was elected to the United States House of Representatives. As a Congressman, Crockett supported the rights of squatters, who were barred from buying land in the West without already owning property. He also opposed President Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Act, and his opposition to Jackson caused his defeat when he ran for re-election in 1830; however, he won when he ran again in 1832.

Crockett was a staunch opponent of wasteful government spending. In his speech entitled "Not Yours to Give" [3], he was critical of his Congressional colleagues who were willing to spend taxpayer dollars to help a widow of a U.S. Navy man who had lived beyond his naval service, but would not contribute their own salary for a week to the cause. He described the spending as "unconstitutional" and the once popular proposal died in the Congress largely as a result of his speech:

“ Mr. Speaker--I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks. ”

In 1834, his autobiography, titled A Narrative of the Life of David Crockett, was published. Crockett went east to promote the book and was narrowly defeated for re-election. In 1835, he suffered yet another defeat. He said, "I told the people of my district that I would serve them as faithfully as I had done; but if not ... you may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas". Following his defeat, he did just that.
Click to expand...
 
My god, his foreign policy is perfect. Even his position on privacy, to a point. But he is a libertarian who wants no regulation, a full free market economy with no protections. I just can't back that. Also, his personal stance on social issues leaves me unwilling to support him as president, with my vote.

Having said that, he's the best Republican candidate by far, and I would not mind him as President, if a Republican had to win. Better than some scary ass authoritarian like Giuliani.
 
bob_arctor said:
Man. You know Giuliani is bad when JayDubya starts with the fascist card.
Click to expand...

He deserves it! That's the only area of Republicanism he can aspire to / claim to represent, and he's pushing that agenda, the worst part of the Republican party - the main reason why I needed to bail out(.gif) - as his sole focus.

He represents, in every way, the moral low ground.
 
I come from the future with a Rudy quote from an upcoming debate.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
 
That would be ironic, of course, considering that was Jefferson's suggestion of how the country should handle Presidents that say things like "freedom is authority."
 
I have read several profiles of Guiliani recently, and one of them described him as the most economically libertarian major candidate since Goldwater. And of course his record on social issues is very well known. I would think pragmatic libertarians would be attracted to him, even accounting for his foreign policy rhetoric, except for civil liberties absolutists of course. Though I think the civil liberties absolutist camp makes up the most vocal branch of the libertarian movement.

And if you're a self-described libertarian, you have already conceded the desire to compete in national elections and govern in favor of ideological purity so perhaps the pragmatic libertarian does not exist in large numbers.
 
Guileless said:
I have read several profiles of Guiliani recently, and one of them described him as the most economically libertarian major candidate since Goldwater. And of course his record on social issues is very well known. I would think pragmatic libertarians would be attracted to him, even accounting for his foreign policy rhetoric, except for civil liberties absolutists of course. Though I think the civil liberties absolutist camp makes up the most vocal branch of the libertarian movement.

And if you're a self-described libertarian, you have already conceded the desire to compete in national elections and govern in favor of ideological purity so perhaps the pragmatic libertarian does not exist in large numbers.
Click to expand...

Please tell me you aren't serious with this post.
 
Sorry, Guileless, but I don't see free market principles anywhere in Giuliani's political history.

If any of these profiles are online, by all means, submit them for scrutiny. I don't think any of it is going to make up for him saying on camera that poor people have a right to a wholly elective and unneccessary surgery.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a socialist, it's probably... wait... let me start over...
 
Sorry Jay, they're both behind subscriber firewalls at The New Republic and The Weekly Standard. The articles weren't about his substantive policy positions, they were profile pieces trying to come to explain how someone as socially liberal as Rudy is could be the favorite for the Republican nomination. I haven't read anything about his economic policy platform specifically, but I know he has a lot of support from Wall Street so that's an indication of how he would govern in that area.
 
Not to knock either of those two publications, and not to be too crass, but my kneejerk opinion is that the Weekly Standard would have a hard-on for Rudy anyway because of the red meat provided by his highly aggressive foreign policy stance.

Knowing how nanny state New York is, and reading about many of the decisions Rudy made as mayor, I can't see free market rightism thriving under a Giuliani presidency unless he's significantly changed his tune.

To feel comfortable with this one aspect of Giuliani, if not the whole package, I'd have to have some specifics of the economic platform, and I'm sure he'll talk about them eventually as the primaries come closer.

Of course, you realize that a president having ANY economic platform means you don't have a "free market." A truly free market would have a separation of market and state, and this is one of many reasons I praise Paul so highly. He believes deeply in the free market.
 
If economic conservatism is your top priority, then Rudy is a viable choice. Nobody who served two terms as mayor of NYC is going to pass a libertarian litmus test, but he would govern according to the strictures of Wall Street with low taxes and low regulation. Even if he doesn't believe in it, he would have to in order to keep a governing majority in the Republican party because the social conservatives will be gone.
 
JayDubya: I'm sure you've come across these claims before, and I'd like to know what your opinion is...or anyone's for that matter.

This is the second time I've come across a blog entry about Ron Paul supposedly being a racist--my first encounter, an entry from DailyKOS. I don't read these blogs, but links to these entries were posted in a forum I visit from time to time.

http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/21528/
Let me start by saying Ron Paul is a racist. There is just no way around that fact. Ron Paul used to write a newsletter back in the '80s and '90s called the Ron Paul Political Report. The name was changed to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993 due to the fact that the newsletter was becoming so popular with the many lunatic militia groups around the country. It was around the time the survivalist movement was peaking.
The report had around 7,000 subscribers and was eight pages long. The mainstream media has yet to be able to track down a copy of the newsletter because it was largely only sent to nut jobs. Ron Paul still has copies, but he refuses to make them public because of the horrifying words contained in those pages. One of his supporters did, however, post a copy of a newsletter to a newsgroup in 1993. To say Paul has a demented racist view would be an understatement. Here’s a sample:

"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."
Click to expand...

Although "we are 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."
Click to expand...

"Black males age 13 that 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."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Whoo boy. I'm really surprised that none of the mainstream news outlets have tried to run with any of these stories. I do, after all, believe that channels like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC are doing their best to marginalize Ron Paul by deleting polls, deleting the comments and accounts of his supporters, not including him as a choice in polls, preceding his name with descriptions such as "fringe candidate", "long shot" in surveys and OP to affect public opinion, etc. Of course nobody has any hard copies of the newsletter piece that Ron Paul has denied authoring which contain some of the quotes above on his alleged views on black males.

While it's true that Ron Paul cannot help getting the unabashed support (mostly--from what I can tell--due to his views on immigration, foreign policy, limited government, taxes, etc) from well known racist figures like Pat Buchanan, David Duke and members from sites like Storm Front, he has made guest appearances for organizations like the John Birch Society, and a group of secessionists; has been interviewed by Alex Jones (believes in conspiracies like the truth about 9/11, New World Order and the role of ZOG or Zionist Occupied Government(s)), and the Council of Conservative Citizens' radio show, The Political Cesspool, which has Prussian Blue just below Ron Paul on the the guest list.

I don't know how I feel about all this. Somebody hold me :p
 
That article has already been debunked. Essentially those comments weren't stated by Ron Paul but instead by one of his emeployees who was then fired immediately after it was released.

If there was a legitimacy to those claims then Fox News would have been all over it already.
 
Lv99 Slacker said:
Whoo boy. I'm really surprised that none of the mainstream news outlets have tried to run with any of these stories.
Click to expand...

They don't need to. He isn't a factor. If he was the stories would get more play. When you're at 1 to 3 percent in the polls, you're going to be ignored. On the positive and the negative.
 
Karma Kramer said:
That article has already been debunked. Essentially those comments weren't stated by Ron Paul but instead by one of his emeployees who was then fired immediately after it was released.

If there was a legitimacy to those claims then Fox News would have been all over it already.
Click to expand...

When has legitimacy stopped Fox News from reporting bullshit as fact? This goes for all other majory news organizations.
 
reilo said:
When has legitimacy stopped Fox News from reporting bullshit as fact? This goes for all other majory news organizations.
Click to expand...

Well I don't know of any time Fox News has lied or made something up. I know they spin things and they focus on certain things to make the left seem weak and stupid... but even Fox News can't run a story about Ron Paul being a racist.

It would simply be debunked and dis-proven the next day and Fox News would look idiotic for even bringing it up.
 
Something actually written by Ron Paul.

Ron Paul said:
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, what you're quoting went out in a newsletter falsely attributed to Paul in the mid 90's. He publicly disavowed the publication when it came to his attention that someone was putting that tripe out. Democrats that run against him like to keep whipping that nonsense out each time like it's new.

Paul doesn't write about how he's sure Clinton's on cocaine either, but "Ron Paul" apparently did.

Just rumormongering crap to sully a good man's name, really.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Well I don't know of any time Fox News has lied or made something up..
Click to expand...

You're not looking hard enough


Karma Kramer said:
I know they spin things and they focus on certain things to make the left seem weak and stupid... but even Fox News can't run a story about Ron Paul being a racist.
Click to expand...

Yes they can. There is simply no reason to bear the heavy guns as I mentioned for specific reasons.


Karma Kramer said:
It would simply be debunked and dis-proven the next day and Fox News would look idiotic for even bringing it up.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't stop them. They don't care.
 
Karma Kramer said:
Well I don't know of any time Fox News has lied or made something up. I know they spin things and they focus on certain things to make the left seem weak and stupid... but even Fox News can't run a story about Ron Paul being a racist.

It would simply be debunked and dis-proven the next day and Fox News would look idiotic for even bringing it up.
Click to expand...

Joke post?
 
Lv99 Slacker said:
JayDubya: I'm sure you've come across these claims before, and I'd like to know what your opinion is...or anyone's for that matter.

This is the second time I've come across a blog entry about Ron Paul supposedly being a racist--my first encounter, an entry from DailyKOS. I don't read these blogs, but links to these entries were posted in a forum I visit from time to time.

http://suicidegirls.com/news/politics/21528/


Whoo boy. I'm really surprised that none of the mainstream news outlets have tried to run with any of these stories. I do, after all, believe that channels like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC are doing their best to marginalize Ron Paul by deleting polls, deleting the comments and accounts of his supporters, not including him as a choice in polls, preceding his name with descriptions such as "fringe candidate", "long shot" in surveys and OP to affect public opinion, etc. Of course nobody has any hard copies of the newsletter piece that Ron Paul has denied authoring which contain some of the quotes above on his alleged views on black males.

While it's true that Ron Paul cannot help getting the unabashed support (mostly--from what I can tell--due to his views on immigration, foreign policy, limited government, taxes, etc) from well known racist figures like Pat Buchanan, David Duke and members from sites like Storm Front, he has made guest appearances for organizations like the John Birch Society, and a group of secessionists; has been interviewed by Alex Jones (believes in conspiracies like the truth about 9/11, New World Order and the role of ZOG or Zionist Occupied Government(s)), and the Council of Conservative Citizens' radio show, The Political Cesspool, which has Prussian Blue just below Ron Paul on the the guest list.

I don't know how I feel about all this. Somebody hold me :p
Click to expand...

LOL, what a joke. Bullshit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wednesday: Season 2 | Official Trailer
2
54
poppabk replied
WEAPONS | Official Trailer
40
1K
Nocty replied
Iron Heart official Trailer
2 3 4 5 6
292
3K
YCoCg replied
The Smashing Machine - Official Trailer
20
750
kpopSuperstar replied
Tron: Ares | Official Trailer
2
75
3K
Miyazaki’s Slave replied
Top Bottom