Posted on 10/09/2007 7:06:32 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Anti-war presidential candidate Ron Paul says his campaign is about "restoring the vanishing American dream." And he is criticizing what he calls "the cartel controlling the banking and monetary system" in the United States.
Fresh off his third-quarter fundraising surprise of $5 million, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul says the libertarian "revolution" he has started is growing across America. Paul told conservative activists at the "Defending the American Dream Summit" in Washington, DC, that the conference would be more aptly called the "Defending the Vanishing American Dream Summit."
The Texas congressman said his Republican rivals often talk about a "flat tax" or a "fair tax," but his program is not that complicated -- he wants to completely get rid of the income tax.
"We have devised a government that has endorsed principles contrary to the Constitution [and] to conservative principles," exclaimed Paul. "[W]e've endorsed the concept that we are to run an empire around the world and a welfare state here at home -- and it's nothing but trouble."
According to Paul, the Constitution was written for the purpose of restraining government, not restraining people. But under the current philosophy, he argued, individuals' personal liberties have been neglected. "And that is the purpose of government," he stated: "to protect liberty, not to promote war and welfare."
Paul explained that he is a part of the "old right" of the Republican Party that opposes nation-building and "policing the world." He called it "an irony" that "we currently ... cannot even afford to pay [for] the war or our welfare system without borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day from foreigners, a lot of it coming from China."
It is no wonder, he added, that the U.S. dollar is weak on the markets. "And it's going to get a lot weaker," he added. "So no matter how much spending you want on policing the world, or how much money you spend for more entitlement programs -- even if they are Republican entitlement programs -- it will come to an end, and the American dream will end."
According to Paul, as president, he would have to eventually do what Presidents Jefferson and Jackson did -- get rid of the national bank.
It's really too bad I cannot vote for Paul, considering his positions on Iraq and the WOT. It would be wise for the other candidates to consider some of his non-national-security-related ideas, however. And maybe Rooty-Root should do us all a favor and bow out.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
See, you need us to support Dr Paul. We have no reason to support Dr Paul. So please explain to us WHAT and HOW a Paul Administration would do anything. Do that with OUT sliming any one. No name calling, no hysteric hyper emotive rhetoric. None of the usual Paulite personal attacks in place of reason argument. No cut and pasting of sound bite statements from Paul speeches. NO statements of what YOU think Paul means. REAL plans with documented links so we can read them for ourselves.
His jihad against the banking system just makes him look like a kook. He obviously doesn’t understand basic economics.
When is he expected to drop out of the race with his lack of numbers?
We can only hope Paul goes 3rd Party, and draws the moonbats and anti-war pinko’s to his side, bleeding the votes from the Hildabeast.
Also why doesn’t Ron Paul propose this while his in Congress. Since that is his job..
Many of Paul’s ideas are simply not feasible, especially not quickly (like leaving Iraq, gold standard, elimination of the income tax, etc). However, the general idea of a much smaller federal gov’t is an extremely refreshing breath of air in Washington that has seen both major parties increase the size and scope of the federal government dramatically. I’d much rather see Paul as chair of the house appropriations committee though than President. I don’t think he’d make a very good commander in chief but I do think he’s the best man for the job to think of the taxpayer first. I will be voting for Duncan Hunter in the primary and most likely Fred Thompson in the general election but we need more people with Paul’s reference of mind in Washington (that is, to have a smaller federal government)
You mean that he behave rationally?
Don’t hold your breath.
No Democrats would vote for Paul, Libertarians who are either stubborn, foolish, leftists or immature would fall for voting for Paul or others as a third party.
All that gets you is a Presidente Hillary.
Hillary would pay Paul to run as a third party candidate.
Hillary would pay Libertarians to do her the biggest favor by voting third party or not at all. That is a vote for HILLARY and she loves third party voters.
Yeah, Paul looks like he’s off the deep end in the debates.
He does actually introduce bills. As to if they ever go anywhere besides the trash can and paper shredder is another question. Anyway, his Texas constituents love him and he usually runs unopposed.
unfortunately he won’t get leftists but all the mercantilists, perotists, rothbardians and neo-confederates
There are enough private equity funds, banks, etc. that have enough money that they can lend it to any business that has a decent plan going forward.
There doesn't need to be someone like Bernanke setting some official interest rate.
Every person/business that has money can lend it to whomever they wish at whatever interest rate the market lets them command.
The U.S. Treasury can just print money and keep track of the money supply so as to make sure there is enough around to manage all of the transactions without triggering inflation.
No need for a gold standard as far as I can see.
I must confess that the iead of repealing the 16th is very attractive and a reduced size of government, I become nervous about the literally millions of now unemployed former federal workers.
Getting rid of the national bank/fed reserve too is very appealing but not without considerable risk for monetary chaos.
labor chaos, monetary chaos....yep, sounds like a great plan!
Ron Paul is NOT a Conservative. Ron Paul is a lunatic. Based on his OWN statements, he would of opposed Regan’s engagement in Central American, Europe, the Caribbean and Libya. Are you saying Reagan was not a Conservative?
America has NOT had a “Non Interventionists” Foreign Policy ever. The Founders fought an undeclared Naval war with France and fought the Barbary Pirates. During the 1st half of the 20th Century we fought banana wars all over Central America and the Caribbeans. Fought in Mexico and the Philippines. Paul’s “vision” is based wholly on an overly emotive, arrogant ignorance of all factual reality.
Paul is stuck in a serious case of denial. Because he lacks the intellectual, and moral, courage to deal with the world as it is, he has simply put his hands over his ears and screamed “no no no no no” rather then try to deal with the world as it IS.
Like it or not the USA, and the West, is dependent on the free flow of oil from the ME. Our Economic, and thus our Military, security depend on it.
The USA has NEVER been able to stick it head in the sand and simply ignore the rest of the world. It couldn’t in the 1790s when it fought France, it cannot now. Paul is an ignorant demagogue who screams nice sounding rhetoric's that the cowardly and the ignorant mindlessly lap up.
The world is not going to go way no matter how loud, or long, you Paulbots scream your ignorant drivel.
More to the my point is that I do not dislike the current system of progressive taxes.
What I resent is the rates at which those taxes are applied and the capricious manner in which the the rates are chosen.
All I said is that we need more people in Congress who WANT a SMALLER GOVERNMENT. I said directly in my post that R Paul would make a terrible commander in chief. The Republican party for YEARS stood for smaller federal government and scaling back largess and is why they were ushered into a huge majority in congress in '94. When Bush got elected it was like it all went away. With more healthcare entitlements, huge increases in spending for public schools, etc. The federal budget, excluding the military, has still ballooned under Bush.
Look I think Ron Paul is as loonie as it comes to some of our foreign policy but this bashing some of you all have on him is stupid. I want an honest answer from you. Which is worse in the long run for national security--cutting and running in Iraq or not securing the borders? Bush has failed miserably at the latter which I'm more partial to believing in the long run is far more vital to the security of the US than Iraq is.
You go right ahead and hide under your bed with Ron Paul and wish the bad men would just go away. The rest of us will get on with the job of defending the USA.
Why Iraq
One of the really infuriating things in modern politics is the level of disinformation, misinformation, demagoguery and out right lying going on about the mission in Iraq. Democrats have spent the last 3+ years lying about Iraq out of a political calculation. The assumption is that the natural isolationist mindset of the average American voter, linked to the inherent Anti Americanism (what is misnamed the “Anti War movement”) of the more feverish Democrat activists (especially those running the US’s National “News” media) would restore them to national political dominance. The truth is the Democrat Party Leadership has simply lacked the courage to speak truth to whiners. The truth is that even if Al Gore won the 2000 election and 09-11 still happened we would be doing the EXACT same things in Iraq we are doing now.
Based on the political situation in the region left over from the 1991 Gulf War plus the domestic political consensus built up in BOTH parties since 1991 as well as fundamental military strategic laws, there was NO viable strategic choice for the US but to take out Iraq after finishing the initial operations in Afghanistan.
To start with Saddam’s Iraq was our most immediate threat. We could NOT commit significant military forces to another battle with Saddam hovering undefeated on our flank nor could we leave significant forces watching Saddam. The political containment of Iraq was breaking down. That what Oil for Food was all about. Oil for Food was an attempt by Iraq to break out of it’s diplomatic isolation and slip the shackles the UN Sanctions put on it’s military. There there was the US Strategic position to consider.
The War on Islamic Fascism is different sort of war. in facing this Asymmetrical threat, we have a hidden foe, spread out across a geographically diverse area, with covert sources of supply. Since we cannot go everywhere they hide out, in fact often cannot even locate them until the engage us, we need to draw them out of hiding into a kill zone.
Iraq is that kill zone. That is the true brilliance of the Iraq strategy. We draw the terrorists out of their world wide hiding places onto a battlefield they have to fight on for political reasons (The “Holy” soil of the Arabian peninsula) where they have to pit their weakest ability (Conventional Military combat power) against our greatest strength (ability to call down unbelievable amounts of firepower) where they will primarily have to fight other forces (the Iraqi Security forces) in a battlefield that is mostly neutral in terms of guerrilla warfare. (Iraqi-mostly open terrain as opposed to guerrilla friendly areas like the mountains of Afghanistan or the jungles of SE Asia).
Did any of the critics of liberating Iraq ever look at a map? Iraq, for which we had the political, legal and moral justifications to attack, is the strategic high ground of the Middle East. A Geographic barrier that severs ground communication between Iran and Syria apart as well as providing another front of attack in either state or into Saudi Arabia if needed.
There were other reasons to do Iraq but here is the strategic military reason we are in Iraq. We have taken, an maintain the initiative from the Terrorists. They are playing OUR game on ground of OUR choosing.
Problem is Counter Insurgency is SLOW and painful. Often a case of 3 steps forward, two steps back. One has to wonder if the American people have either the emotional maturity, nor the intellect” to understand. It’s so much easier to spew made for TV slogans like “No Blood for Oil” or “We support the Troops, bring them home” or dumbest of all “We are creating terrorists” then to actually THINK.
Westerners in general, and the US citizens in particular seem to have trouble grasping the fundamental fact of this foe. These Islamic Fascists have NO desire to co-exist with them. The extremists see all this PC posturing by the Hysteric Left as a sign that we are weak. Since they want us dead, weakness encourages them. There is simply no way to coexist with people who completely believe their “god” will reward them for killing us.
So we can covert to Islam, die or kill them. Iraq is about killing enough of them to make the rest of the Jihadists realize we are serious. They same way killing enough Germans, Italians and Japanese eliminated the ideologies of Nazism, Fascism and Bushido.
Americans need to understand how Bin Laden and his ilk view us. In the Arab world the USA is considered a big wimp. We have run away so many times. Lebanon, the Kurds, the Iraqis in 1991, the Iranians, Somalia, Clinton all thru the 1990s etc etc etc. The Jihadists think we will run again. In fact they are counting on it. That way they can run around screaming “We beat the American just like the Russians, come join us in Jihad” and recruit the next round of “holy warriors”. Iraq is also a show place where we show the Muslim world that there are a lines they cannot cross. On 9-11-01 they crossed that line and we can, and will, destroy them for it -
If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Winston Churchill
1) Cutting & Running in Iraq and returning the US Military all over the globe back to the US (Ron Paul's Nuttiness)
OR
2) Not securing the borders with a very strict immigration policy (Bush' Nuttiness).
I'd personally argue that #2 is more important. Our very culture and economic system is being attacked, to say nothing of how much easier it is for a terrorist to get into this country with #2. Yeah, this site at the moment wants to bash on Ron Paul all the time--go ahead! The man has no, zero, zilch, nada chance of ever being president. So I don't really even care to debate him on a presidential scale. George Bush is in office right now and failing to do #2. Are you as angry at Bush as you are at Paul? If not, I really don't care what you think.
Go back and actually READ what I sent you. Don’t just flame out with a knee jerk hysteric response because the truth is to painful for you to cope with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.