Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN, re-elected in a Texas district -not honest, not your friend!

This place is getting kind of :crazy: on the subject.

He wants out of Iraq. Big fucking deal. There are about 100 things, some just as important as Iraq, TO ME, that he'd be dead wrong in handling. Sorry, I'm not willing to sacrifice all those things for his ONE issue where he's right.

It seems to be taking over or something...

It blows my mind. I just don't get some people.

frustrated and eager for something new.

I just wish they'd look a little more carefully at these new somethings.

I will sheepishly admit I gave him a look. But when I dug DEEP, to see what the man was all about I realized that he isn't the answer.

The problem is that people are so desperate for change, they are looking for solutions and finding acceptable candidates in places that they would have laughed off as INSANE choices a few years ago.

We must be careful of the Wolves who come to us in Sheep's Clothing, proclaiming to be a savior.

This is one is nothing more than a Wolf who has struck a chord.

If you are Gay or Pro-Choice, you'd have to be crazy to think this guy is your friend.

People are getting sold on the whole "individual Liberty" thing, but they need to read between the lines.

Bush and his Cabal have taken us back to the 12th Century.

Do you really want to entrust the future of the country to someone who will only bring us back to the 17th?

They should look at his full anti-abortion, screw the schools, put up oil derricks in national parks, drill in ANWR, fuck the environment, make discrimination "OK" again, full philosophy.

And his attitude is this, actually--if the Congress had voted for WAR (not a bullshit police action) he'd have no problem with turning Iraq into a sheet of glass.

Thank you - no.

who are against the Iraq War. That doesn't mean I want them living in the white house.

What did he lie about?

Just curious...

Of Paul's legion flaws, it wouldn't occur to me to list dishonesty. I'm curious what the OP is talking about.

...bring home the bacon! That is especially so in so in Brazoria County, Pauls home area. I am in the part that got cut out of Nick LAmpsons old District which is, outside off Houston itself, the most Democratic district I think in the state. I took a look at and did some talking to some guys over Brazoria way and discovered that that area did not lack for federal grants and federal projects.

Now if ol' Ron was honest and practiced his 'religion' of smaller government, less tax dollar waste etc. That district of his would not be receiving the same amounts as other Republican districts in this state. IS that the way you are honest? It is in Texas, but it's lyin' damn near everywhere else on the planet.

I keep trying to like the guy but that R in front of his name prohibits me from doing so.

He is a wacky Libertarian that ran for Pres. once before. He couldn't get elected as Rep. running as a Libertarian so he joined the Repugs.

..libertarianism is a small minority ideology that had found a home in the small government GOP so long as it swallowed the anti-abortion line of the social conservative wing.

It's become clear to many libertarians that the GOP -- having been captured by the fundies--is no longer receptive to their position. The dems have their own libertarian sects (mostly the centered on civil liberties and marijuana) and so a few have found their way here and are now trying to convince us that Ron Paul shares our views. He does not. He's far more of a economic libertarian than a civil or social one. His governing agenda would likely focus on tax cuts and social program cuts and I doubt his appointees would reflect anything but old-school GOP for the rich politics.

Don't you?

Blow jobs by interns don't count.

Oh, and welcome to DU.

Because right now the public's sentiment towards Congress even more hostile than it is towards W. And that is why.

But span the time since the Republican party came along, and look how they have been scandelous on the national stage. I will still put trust of a Democrat over a Republican any day.

Egads, people - he's a republican! And hasn't everyone learned by now

NEVER TRUST A REPUBLICAN????

were probably not going to vote with us anyway - so I don't think we should sweat it.

because when I stopped to talk with RP supporters when I was biking to Jax Beach last friday I found a bunch of very smart, very engaged people there stumping for him. And I would not imply he is a idiot either, he may be all folksy but he is not stupid.

I am positive on him being someone who actually cares about SOMETHING over there. I didnt really say ANYTHING positive about his policies (if I did please feel free to prove me wrong). But yes I would like for him to win the nomination.

Like Martin Sheen in the American President:

Kucinich v Paul, I would like to see that race!


HOW DARE I SAY SOMETHING POSITIVE about a Republican...

Oh and since I am required by DU rules to use a derogatory and "clever" nickname:

Chimpy McCokespoon :)

Was I defensive?

Sorry if you thought I was. :)

Not.

There are other places more conducive to "saying something positive about republicans", but you could probably figure that out from the name of this website, right????

not his views, not his party, but what he is doing for political discourse.

Thanks for the info there, I would have never known that without your sage counsel.

It seems lately with the RuPaul madness we have some folks walking a very fine line.

:+

it's that you said something positive about a republican who aside from his position on the war is the antithesis of what DU stands for. Is that really so hard to grasp? People frequently said good things about Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords before he became an indy- and occasionally other repugs get a good word.

I'm starting to see a few Ron Paul bumperstickers in our area. These are not voters that Dems want.

...that 99% of DU doesn't?

Ron Paul's answers to our country's problems are wrong.

But other than DK, he's the only candidate I see actually stating what the problems are: corporate/government collusion, broken social services, imperialistic foreign policy, corporately-managed health care, and a loss as a people of a sense of who we are and where we are going.

If his candidacy gets more people to think about those issues he campaigns on, I don't see how that could be a negative thing.

I said this earlier.

What is so important about RP's candidacy is that he is asking and talking about the right questions and finding the answers to them. No one on that side is doing that.

Only our "joke" candidate, Kucinich, is talking about the fact that we have a systemic problem here.

I personally think this is a "realigning" year in American political history and that the parties as we know them won't be terribly meaningful, like the 1896 and 1932 elections. We are, I boldly predict, looking at the formation of the 6th party system in the US, and its alignment is perhaps best shown by Kucinich and Paul.

Traditionally, the conservative party doesn't survive these (though the GOP has managed at least nominally to weather the last 2; but the Federalists and Whigs did not). I could see Paul capturing a lot of the conservative imagination. And if we have an era-changer up against a non-era-changer, well, things could get tricky for those of us who want to see a progressive in the White House.

I didnt think about the parallels to 1896. My thoughts did drift to the 1932 election though and how trasnformative it was. What about 1912 too? I think that was an interesting time in political alignment.

Let's see some proof.

Whatever one thinks of Dr. Paul's political/social/economic views I don't think "dishonest" is a word that applies to him.

RON Paul


Ron Paul on Abortion
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly *life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)

Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)

*Save "snowflake babies": no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)

Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)

*Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)

*Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)

Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)

*Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Budget & Economy
Can't legislate economic fairness; so make government small. (Sep 2007)
Prioritize spending based on Constitution--and lower it too. (Sep 2007)

Voted YES on restricting bankruptcy rules. (Jan 2004)
Supports Balanced Budget Amendment & on-budget accounting. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Civil Rights

No legislation to counteract the homosexual agenda. (Sep 2007)

No affirmative action for any group. (Sep 2007)

*No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough. (Sep 2007)

*First Amendment was written for controversial speech. (Sep 2007)
Use power of presidency to restore habeas corpus. (Sep 2007)

*Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)

*Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)

*Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

Ron Paul on Corporations

*Voted NO on allowing stockholder voting on executive compensation. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks. (Jun 2004)
Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Crime
*Opposes "hate crimes" legislation. (Sep 2007)

*Don't impeach judges for decisions on legislature prayers. (Sep 2007)
***Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)

*Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)

***Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
***Guarantee parity for home school diplomas. (Sep 2007)

*Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance. (Jul 2006)

***Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006)

***Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
***Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Ron Paul on Energy & Oil
Big Oil profits ok; Big Oil subsidies are not. (Jun 2007)

Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007)

*Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)

*Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)

*Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)

***Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

***Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

***Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
Repeal the gas tax. (May 2001)

Ron Paul on Environment
Property rights are the foundation of all rights. (Sep 2007)
*Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)

*Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003)

Ron Paul on Families & Children
Let parents decide on mental health screening for kids. (Jan 2005)

*Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)
Voted YES on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Foreign Policy
No constitutional or moral authority for US action in Darfur. (Sep 2007)

*Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007)
Not US role to monitor eradication of legal slavery in Sudan. (Sep 2007)

*Avoid ratifying Law of the Sea Treaty. (Sep 2007)
Right to spread our values, but wrong to spread by force. (Aug 2007)

*Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

*Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)

Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)

Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful . (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Free Trade
No North American Union; no WTO; no UN. (Sep 2007)

***China trade not contingent on human rights & product safety. (Sep 2007)

Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)

Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)

Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)

Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

Voted YES on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)

*No restrictions on import/export; but maintain sovereignty . (Dec 2000)
End economic protectionism: let dairy compacts expire . (Aug 2001)

Ron Paul on Government Reform
*DC voting representation should be determined by Amendment. (Sep 2007)

*Disallow lawsuits that stop public officials invoking God. (Sep 2007)

***Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007)

*Voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote & vote in Congress. (Apr 2007)

Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on limiting attorney's fees in class action lawsuits. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on restricting frivolous lawsuits. (Sep 2004)

***Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

***Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

********Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Gun Control
***Let airlines make rules about passenger guns to fight terror. (Sep 2007)

Opposes the DC Gun Ban; it's not just a "collective right". (Mar 2007)

Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996)

*Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996)

Ron Paul on Health Care
Oppose mandated health insurance and universal coverage. (Sep 2007)

Insurance reward for avoiding tobacco, alcohol, obesity. (Sep 2007)

*Abolish federal Medicare entitlement; leave it to states. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Homeland Security

Protect military chaplains' right to pray in preferred faith. (Sep 2007)

*Voted YES on permitting commercial airline pilots to carry guns. (Jul 2002)

***Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)

***Federal duty to provide missile defense . (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Immigration
*No amnesty, but impractical to round up 12 million illegals. (Sep 2007)

*Immigration problem is consequence of welfare state. (Sep 2007)

***Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

*Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)

Ron Paul on Jobs

*Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)

*No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007)

***Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)

***Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)

Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)

Ron Paul on Principles & Values
***Congress should write fewer laws regarding church & state. (Jun 2007)

Ron Paul on Social Security
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one's future. (Sep 2007)

Federal government won't keep its entitlement promises. (Mar 2007)

Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)

***Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

Ron Paul on Tax Reform

Get rid of the inflation tax with sound money. (May 2007)

*Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)

***Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

*Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

*Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

*Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

*Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

Ron Paul on Technology

******No Fairness Doctrine: no equal time if morally objectionable. (Sep 2007)

******Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)

Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)

Ron Paul on War & Peace

Preemptive war is against Christian doctrine of just war. (Sep 2007)

Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)

Ron Paul on Welfare & Poverty

***Abolish federal welfare; leave it all to states. (Dec 2000)

Seems pretty consistent in how he sees the world to me.

But what would I know.

A little sensitive, aren't we?

But, actually, your childish reaction to my post is somewhat accurate.

While I do have an advanced degree from a major American public university and am fluent in one foreign language, when it comes Russian & German I can only read at about a third grade level.

A challenge, I see, you've still failed to meet.

Pretty concrete example, actually.

Now, did he lobby for those? Did he even vote for them?

RP seems pretty consistent in his views, much as I disagree with what he has to say on social issues. (For the record, he's a Libertarian but plays a Repub in Congress). And he was the first in Congress to identify the neocon threat and spell it out for everybody willing to listen, something only Kucinich -- who I support -- seems to have done. I learned about the neocons by reading RP's 2003 floor speech "Neo-conned".

I would NOT like to see Paul elected President. But he's resonating with disaffected Repubs for the same reason Kucinich resonates with disaffected Dems/liberals: they each represent the fundamentals the two parties have left behind.

and even more independents. enough to cause damage should they team up for a third party run, but hardly representing "the fundamentals" of each party.

whwn it comes to individuals' rights - the libertarian stance only applies to corporations (see #41 for confirmation)

1. We are all Americans. Haven't you had just about enough of divisive politics?
2. Ron Paul may be a bit of a nut on social stuff, but we're on the same damned page about ending this idiotic war.
3. He's a strict constitutionalist. His interpretation may not always be right, but at least he has deep respect for the document.
4. You should realize that there are a lot, a LOT of Republicans that are appalled at this administration. Therein lies victory.
4a. Find that candidate, or combination of candidates that appeal to both parties, and you're going to win this election in a walk.

THAT IS ALL.

Let's try this again; think of a republican that *doesn't* make you puke. My favorite is Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska who is a good and decent man. I've followed his career for years....

Now, you try.

I 100% agree with you that seeing everything and everybody in just black and white is wrong. ANd when it comes to politics it is also ineffective and even dangerous (also kind of dumb). "Our" side is not made up of angels, very far from that, and "their" side is not a gathering of snickering devils. I am as disgusted to hear/read blindly hateful comments coming from liberals, as I am on the rare occasions when the masochist in me makes me turn the radio to Rush on one of my long drives.

And by the way, I share your respect for Hagel, though I only started paying attention to him relatively recently, this year to be more precise, after that stunning speech in the foreign relations committee. But I think Ron Paul is kind of nutty.

divisive means no piglicons, then yes, I'm all divisive.

How many from DU wanted him on the Democratic ticket? Always said a leopard can't change his spots and neither can a republican.....

He clings to the antiwar stance and overlooks everything else. He said, "What's more important than that?" I can't convince him that a desire to gut social programs is also important. At this point I don't know if he'll vote for the Democratic nominee (especially if it's Hillary), because he thinks they're all corrupt. That may be true, but the very worst Democrat is MILES above the very best Republican (indeed, I don't believe such a thing exists). SIGH.