Ron Paul vs. Any Other Candidate

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

And thankfully Ron Paul won't make it to office in order to wreak even more havoc than you state is going on now. I don't bitch about Ron Paul...I bitch about the bandwagoners touting bullshit as success and as evidence he's going to win this election.

Contrary to your opinion, Ron Paul is IN office as a member of the House of Representatives and has been elected to said office for the last 10 terms.

Secondly, it is both the Left and the Right that have "wreak"ed havoc. Ron Paul is trying to do something about it. If nothing is done then we can expect the same said havoc and evenutal bankruptcy of America via a vis a worthless dollar.

Thirdly, I'm not going to say he's going to win like some who support him, but I am going to do everything in my power to help his cause of Liberty and to expose the Left and the Right for what they really are....both Evil.

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't know that I agree with that really, having moved from state to state and having to deal with differences in the education systems, I think there needs to be a nationalized standard for public education..

ED doesn't standardize the curriculum. Paul's position would only change funding.

When I moved here the school wouldn't accept many of my credits because they were "half credits" and they didn't do that here.. letting states that disagree on so much already set different standards seems to penalize students who might have to move..

The states are already setting the standards. Removing the federal government would not adjust anything as far as standards go. If I'm reading you right, you're saying that you think the education system needs more government involvement in order to set and enforce nationwide standards. Is that correct?

I also think if you leave it to the local level and abandon any federal funding you wind up with a situation that has the children of the rich get a far better education while the children of the poor are left behind.. even moreso than what happens now.

One big difference is that each state would be competing for better education systems as a means of drawing in more taxpayers. Right now that is unnecessary because everyone is grabbing from the same pot no matter what State they're in.

What does he think about things like Pell Grants, etc.. which help pay for many people to go to college?

He's against them.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Click on "When Life Begins" - unless you think all these people with Doctor degrees are wrong...



Remember, the Supreme Court ruled that black people are not persons. They changed that didn't they?

When I say "When Life Begins," I am not talking when humans came into existence. I'm talking about the beginning of life at conception. Geesh....

Eventually those 9 people under my name will have to decide this issue and the next President of the United States will choose who will take the place of any Supreme Court Justice that dies or retires during their tenure. As such, I want to see a pro-life candidate elected...like Ron Paul who has personally delivered over 4,000 babies.

Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade tells her side of the story: National Catholic Register: Won By Love - Norma McCorvy's Story

Any other conversation on this issue is moot, but I'll let you have the last word since you seemed to have hijacked my thread...

Fed Up

You are derailing your own thread by discussing the merits of abortion. It was merely being discussed where Ron Paul actually stands on the issue. I believe it is in support of states banning, rather than just taking a 'not the feds job' position.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

You are derailing your own thread by discussing the merits of abortion. It was merely being discussed where Ron Paul actually stands on the issue. I believe it is in support of states banning, rather than just taking a 'not the feds job' position.

I'm derailing it? Give me a break...THE ENTIRE THREAD WAS DERAILED FROM THE BEGINNING! But I did reply to some of the comments...

I tried several times to get it back on topic and it continued to be an abortion thread....so I responded to the posts and in almost every post you will see I made a comment about how the thread was hijacked.

Still, after 62 posts, not one of them on the topic of the original post.

If people want to discuss how Ron Paul looks at an issue, they should start their own thread. That just didn't happen despite my repeated comments.

So basically, not one person out there can put up a candidate issue versus issue against Ron Paul. And the real purpose of this thread was to point this fact out.

We can close this thread now and someone can start a new one on Ron Paul's issues...which I and many other of his supporters here would be glad to address.

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I'm derailing it? Give me a break...THE ENTIRE THREAD WAS DERAILED FROM THE BEGINNING! But I did reply to some of the comments...

I tried several times to get it back on topic and it continued to be an abortion thread....so I responded to the posts and in almost every post you will see I made a comment about how the thread was hijacked.

Still, after 62 posts, not one of them on the topic of the original post.

If people want to discuss how Ron Paul looks at an issue, they should start their own thread. That just didn't happen despite my repeated comments.

So basically, not one person out there can put up a candidate issue versus issue against Ron Paul. And the real purpose of this thread was to point this fact out.

We can close this thread now and someone can start a new one on Ron Paul's issues...which I and many other of his supporters here would be glad to address.

Fed Up

Alright, lets say I take Joe Biden's stance and experience on Sudan over Ron Paul's. He feels that quick decisive minor action can do a great deal of good there. I don't feel it is America's responsibility per say to save or police the world, but the righteousness of foreign intervention can be balanced with with realism. Ron Paul's personal beliefs may not be relativistic but when you when you refuse to use governments to do deeds that only large or collaborated governments can accomplish you are establishing amoral behavior. He says we should lead by example but I think part of that is acting responsibly when true need arises.

So now you may answer as you originally intended.

That sufficient

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Alright, lets say I take Joe Biden's stance and experience on Sudan over Ron Paul's. He feels that quick decisive minor action can do a great deal of good there. I don't feel it is America's responsibility per say to save or police the world, but the righteousness of foreign intervention can be balanced with with realism. Ron Paul's personal beliefs may not be relativistic but when you when you refuse to use governments to do deeds that only large or collaborated governments can accomplish you are establishing amoral behavior. He says we should lead by example but I think part of that is acting responsibly when true need arises.

So now you may answer as you originally intended.

That sufficient

Not really as you are mocking the intent of this thread as you aren't really voting for Biden.....when you say, "Let's say I take Joe Biden's stance." Also, I hardly feel you would vote for a candidate based on their stance on the issue of what is happening in Sudan.

I appreciate the attempt in answering the question though.

That said....

Ron Paul was/is against sending U.S. soliders to foreign land to fight their wars (Biden's choice). The Sudanese government is against the UN sending troops, what makes one think that they would allow the U.S. in with open arms? Obviously they wouldn't and if the U.S. would attempt to go in and solve their problems, things would just get worse (Think Iraq, Vietnam here).

Sudan's ambassador to the United States, John Ukec Lueth has said that "arms and troops will never solve anything."

The U.S. is currently working with other countries to get them to impose sanctions against Sudan. China, a major player in Sudan, is slowly coming along. They need to step up and pressure and dialogue should be increased to them.

Sudan needs to clean up their own mess rather than let the (worthless) UN or the U.S. intervene. The sanctions are against companies (30) and individuals (3) responsible for the funding of the rebels involved and were just proposed earlier this year.

The other issue, as Ron Paul has pointed out in a 2004 speech, is that we would be spreading ourselves too thin. If you've ever played the game of Risk, you know what he means by this. While people are walking across our borders, we are protecting borders across the world. Our nations defense should protect our Country first and then go where its necessary and we are wanted to help other countries. We are not wanted in Sudan. The Sanctions, although slow in coming, are a good strategic move. Again, China needs to be a team player.

Lastly, I wouldn't want my child to go fight a war with rebels and die doing so. Would he have died serving our national interest? What business do we have in Sudan? Let the Sudanese government work out their own problems and continue the dialect and sanctions. Biden is wrong here.

As far as humanitarian aid for the 2 million refugees, I do see a need to help those in need and am happy charities and individual efforts (Pitt, Clooney, Green Day etc.) are doing what they can to help the situation.

Fed Up

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

But his writings and opinions on subjects are relevant unless those opinions have changed, regardless of how long ago it was..

I know one of his writings about the race riots awhile back came off sounding pretty racist, for example.. I don't think that'd fly very well in today's uber PC political climate..

That wasn't one of his writings.

[motivez]

Really? It was a fraud? Who wrote it?

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Not really as you are mocking the intent of this thread as you aren't really voting for Biden.....when you say, "Let's say I take Joe Biden's stance." Also, I hardly feel you would vote for a candidate based on their stance on the issue of what is happening in Sudan.

I appreciate the attempt in answering the question though.

That said....

Ron Paul was/is against sending U.S. soliders to foreign land to fight their wars (Biden's choice). The Sudanese government is against the UN sending troops, what makes one think that they would allow the U.S. in with open arms? Obviously they wouldn't and if the U.S. would attempt to go in and solve their problems, things would just get worse (Think Iraq, Vietnam here).

Sudan's ambassador to the United States, John Ukec Lueth has said that "arms and troops will never solve anything."

The U.S. is currently working with other countries to get them to impose sanctions against Sudan. China, a major player in Sudan, is slowly coming along. They need to step up and pressure and dialogue should be increased to them.

Sudan needs to clean up their own mess rather than let the (worthless) UN or the U.S. intervene. The sanctions are against companies (30) and individuals (3) responsible for the funding of the rebels involved and were just proposed earlier this year.

The other issue, as Ron Paul has pointed out in a 2004 speech, is that we would be spreading ourselves too thin. If you've ever played the game of Risk, you know what he means by this. While people are walking across our borders, we are protecting borders across the world. Our nations defense should protect our Country first and then go where its necessary and we are wanted to help other countries. We are not wanted in Sudan. The Sanctions, although slow in coming, are a good strategic move. Again, China needs to be a team player.

Lastly, I wouldn't want my child to go fight a war with rebels and die doing so. Would he have died serving our national interest? What business do we have in Sudan? Let the Sudanese government work out their own problems and continue the dialect and sanctions. Biden is wrong here.

As far as humanitarian aid for the 2 million refugees, I do see a need to help those in need and am happy charities and individual efforts (Pitt, Clooney, Green Day etc.) are doing what they can to help the situation.

Fed Up

Well I have to be honest, I don't know who I am voting for yet, so thats why I am tossing out Biden as an example.

As to the issue at hand, the militias are not going to be reigned in by the Sudanese government because they do not care to. Hoping Sudan will work out its problems on its own would be similar to hoping Hitler decides to stop killing the Jews.

Also I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't support sanctions on anyone.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Well I have to be honest, I don't know who I am voting for yet, so thats why I am tossing out Biden as an example.

As to the issue at hand, the militias are not going to be reigned in by the Sudanese government because they do not care to. Hoping Sudan will work out its problems on its own would be similar to hoping Hitler decides to stop killing the Jews.

Also I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't support sanctions on anyone.

Good luck on your decision making as to whom to vote for...

Some thoughts on the issue we are discussing....

How do you suppose the Sudanese government would react if U.S. troops went into Darfur? How would the surrounding governments react? What would be the consequences around the world? How would China react?

Comparing what Hitler did to the Jews to what the Sudanese government is not doing by refusing to interfere between two warring factions is a stretch IMO. I don't see eugenics as the issue.

Perhaps Sudan's govt. doesn't care because they want to reduce population, I don't know. But they should take some sort of action rather than sit on their hands. To send U.S. soldiers to do their work doesn't make sense from a U.S. National interest let alone a Constitutionally backed objective.

Paul is against brutal embargoes that affecft the lives of individuals in a country, but I haven't seen where he is against sanctions that cut to the heart of the matter (funding of rebels in this case). Of course he is against sending our sons and daughters to fight unnecessary wars. Not sure if I can speak for him on this in its entirety, however he can as he has in the past with similar situations:

US should stop meddling in foreign wars, Dr. Ron Paul, March 16, 1998

"Last week it was Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis. This week's devil is Slobodon Milosevic and the Serbs. Next week, who knows? Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans? Next year, who will it be, the Ayatollah and the Iranians? Every week we must find a foreign infidel to slay; and, of course, keep the military-industrial complex humming. It is telling that while Congress cannot find a way to make serious tax cuts or reforms to the IRS, reduce spending or erase the bureaucratic red tape, our national leaders can daily find new hot-spots around the world to send our military and our money."

"All our wise counsel so freely given to so many in this region fails to recognize that the country of Yugoslavia was an artificial country created by the Soviet masters, just as the borders of most Middle Eastern countries were concocted by the British and U.N. resolutions. The centuries old ethnic rivalries inherent in this region, and aggravated by persistent Western influence as far back as the Crusades, will never be resolved by arbitrary threats and use of force from the United States or the United Nations. All that is being accomplished is to further alienate the factions, festering hate, and pushing the region into a war of which we need no part."

"This is not a result of too little money by a misdirected role for our military, a role that contradicts the policy of neutrality, friendship, trade, and non-intervention in the affairs of other nations. The question we should ask is: are we entitled to, wealthy enough, or even wise enough to assume the role of world policemen and protector of the world's natural resources? Under the Constitution, there is no such authority. Under rules of morality, we have no authority to force others to behave as we believe they should, and force American citizens to pay for it not only with dollars, but with life and limb as well. And by the rules of common sense, the role of world policemen is a dangerous game and not worth playing."

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Perhaps Sudan's govt. doesn't care because they want to reduce population, I don't know. But they should take some sort of action rather than sit on their hands. To send U.S. soldiers to do their work doesn't make sense from a U.S. National interest let alone a Constitutionally backed objective.

I think you're understating the role of the Sudanese government in the genocide. A large portion of the people doing the killings are Sudanese military and the central government funds the Janjaweed. Much like every other genocide I can think of, the government carries it out while calling the victims 'rebels'.

So yes we would have to conflict, or atleast militarily intimidate the government of Sudan, but I think it is a worthy cause, and one that wouldn't be tremendously costly. Picture Kosovo, not Iraq.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

I think you understating the role of the Sudanese government in the genocide. A large portion of the people doing the killings are Sudanese military and the central government funds the Janjaweed. Much like every other genocide I can think of, the government carries it out while calling the victims 'rebels'.

So yes we would have to conflict, or atleast militarily intimidate the government of Sudan, but I think it is a worthy cause, and one that wouldn't be tremendously costly. Picture Kosovo, not Iraq.

I think you meant "misunderstanding" which is quite possible when it comes to what is happening there. I researched a years worth of my subscription to Stratfor Intelligence and they are somewhat vague on this issue. Makes me wonder what I'm paying for?

What needs to be understood is that the money to fight all these wars has to come from We The People. The other issue, is, why does the U.S. have to come to the rescue of every country in strife? I would think that through dialogue right now our efforts would be better suited if other countries stepped in (like those in Europe that have benefited from a stronger Euro) and took care of helping those in need throughout Darfur. We just can't afford it financially or militarily right now.

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I think you meant "misunderstanding" which is quite possible when it comes to what is happening there. I researched a years worth of my subscription to Stratfor Intelligence and they are somewhat vague on this issue. Makes me wonder what I'm paying for?

What needs to be understood is that the money to fight all these wars has to come from We The People. The other issue, is, why does the U.S. have to come to the rescue of every country in strife? I would think that through dialogue right now our efforts would be better suited if other countries stepped in (like those in Europe that have benefited from a stronger Euro) and took care of helping those in need throughout Darfur. We just can't afford it financially or militarily right now.

Fed Up

you mean when I said understating? I'm confused

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

you mean when I said understating? I'm confused

Nevermind, I misread it twice... because you used the word "you" rather than "you're" I misread "understating" to read "understanding"

semantics

Thanks for the discourse..

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Nevermind, I misread it twice... because you used the word "you" rather than "you're" I misread "understating" to read "understanding"

semantics

Thanks for the discourse..

Fed Up

ah sorry, edited

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

Really? It was a fraud? Who wrote it?

I haven't read through the thread, but I think you two might be talking about when there was an article in a newsletter that talked about black kids being "fleet footed" or something along those lines.

If so, that was not written by Paul. He came forward, offered an apology for those statements, and said that he doesn't stand behind them. More importantly, he explained that it was actually authored by a ghostwriter for his section in that newsletter. He said that the writer was fired, but that he would not reveal who it was.

[Quizno]

Has anyone checked the Ron Paul Library .....

I Haven't been able to find anything like this for any other candidate.

Ron Paul Library

That'll keep ya busy for a while