*OFFICIAL* Ask Ron Paul a question

[Dumpy Dooby]

I emailed his campaign and asked if I could compile a list of questions for Dr. Paul based on what is submitted from the people here on LibertyLounge.net, and I got the following reply:

Yes, you may submit the questions to me, though I can give no guarantees on a specific deadline you may have. With the early primaries approaching, Dr. Paul's schedule is extremely packed, and your flexibility with the questions would best help us. The easiest option would be to submit a variety of questions and allow Dr. Paul to answer a selection of them.

Note: I had told them that I would screen questions like, "y r u such an isolationist?!" But they are asking me not to do that. So I guess anything goes.


Cliffs:
Post any questions you have for Ron Paul.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Here are the questions I have for Dr. Paul, for those that are interested.

• You say that you advocate the Founders' view that we need to "stay out of entangling alliances," yet the Founders also created an "entangling alliance" with France during the War of Independence (see: Franco-American Alliance). Do you support that alliance? If so, can you give the conditions under which you support military alliances with other nations?
• You have advocated time and time again that you support a States' privilege to decide on the matter of abortion. On that note, you authored the Sanctity of Life Act (twice). I understand that the bill states that SCOTUS will not review any cases that involve protecting human life "between conception and birth," and that the States will have complete governance over the issue of abortion if your bill were to pass. However, the bill also attempts to redefine "Person" as human life beginning at conception. If you want the fed out of the issue of abortion, then why did you author the bill that specifically redefines "Person," knowing full well that it would force abortion to be considered murder in all States?
• You have said multiple times that if we cut back spending to 2000 levels, we would be able to get rid of the IRS. This is factually incorrect, as I'm sure you know (2000 spending levels less 2006 receipts, sans individual income, yields a 381 billion dollar deficit). But this is not what interests me.
  
  Going by the FY2007 estimates, if we abrogate individual income tax, we would have $1.39 trillion to spend. Also, going by FY2007 estimates, Medicare, Social Security, and Debt Interest are $1.255 trillion. Ergo, that leaves us with $135 billion for everything else, including federal law enforcement and military spending. Getting rid of indivudal income tax and replacing it with nothing would BARELY yield a sufficient amount of funds to pay our debts. How do you respond to this?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

• You say that you advocate the Founders' view that we need to "stay out of entangling alliances," yet the Founders also created an "entangling alliance" with France during the War of Independence (see: Franco-American Alliance). Do you support that alliance? If so, can you give the conditions under which you support military alliances with other nations?

Brilliant!

If France thumbed their nose at us we probably would have lost and been subject to the British National Health system to this day!

Prince William could be out next King!

[hsmith]

Would he support a constitutional amendment banning or allowing abortion.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

You say that you advocate the Founders' view that we need to "stay out of entangling alliances," yet the Founders also created an "entangling alliance" with France during the War of Independence (see: Franco-American Alliance). Do you support that alliance? If so, can you give the conditions under which you support military alliances with other nations?

DD,

I'm a little confused on this question. If the "Franco-American Alliance" started in 1798, the constitution wasn't ratified till after this alliance and it wasn't until 1801, after the Franco-American alliance ended, that Jefferson, "summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.""

If the above is true, then Paul's words here ring true do they not?: A Court of No Authority

(I don't claim to have the answer, just discussing with you)

Thanks,

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

My point was that Paul says that he "agrees with the Founders" on the subject of foreign policy. Obviously the Founders didn't have a problem with establishing an "entangling alliance" with another country because they did it.

The date on which the Constitution was ratified is irrelevant as far as my question is concerned. The alliance was still created by the Founders with whom he says he agrees.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

My point was that Paul says that he "agrees with the Founders" on the subject of foreign policy. Obviously the Founders didn't have a problem with establishing an "entangling alliance" with another country because they did it.

The date on which the Constitution was ratified is irrelevant as far as my question is concerned. The alliance was still created by the Founders with whom he says he agrees.

I thought the timing was relevant in your example in that The Founders came to their senses after that date of entanglement which preceded the Constitituion and Jeferson's words.

Just giving you my 2 cents just in case Paul doesn't answer...

You have to admit, entanglement hasn't worked too well since that example.

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

Hell, entanglement didn't even work well with that example. I mean .... we got our country, but we sure didn't get along with France for a while.

[motivez]

1) How is his campaign actively working to turn online support into feet on the ground in important primary states?

2) Will he pledge not to run as an Independent if he doesn't receive the Republican nomination?

3) What books would he recommend for people who might support his anti-war position, but not his economic policies?

4) Does he frequent any blogs or websites (that aren't Ron Paul related)?

5) What is his position on net neutrality?

6) What was his MCAT score?

I'm sure I'll think of more. I can't believe this thread isn't bigger with as many supporters as we have on this site.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

1) How is his campaign actively working to turn online support into feet on the ground in important primary states?

2) Will he pledge not to run as an Independent if he doesn't receive the Republican nomination?

3) What books would he recommend for people who might support his anti-war position, but not his economic policies?

4) Does he frequent any blogs or websites (that aren't Ron Paul related)?

5) What is his position on net neutrality?

6) What was his MCAT score?

I'm sure I'll think of more. I can't believe this thread isn't bigger with as many supporters as we have on this site.

Dumpy has also posted this on OT so some of the questions have been asked over there, that could be a reason

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

I can't believe this thread isn't bigger with as many supporters as we have on this site.

Hi Motivez...

My only response to this question, as a supporter of Ron Paul, is he hasn't changed his position on things since he wrote his book, "Freedom Under Siege" The U.S. Constitution After 200-Plus Years in 1987, along with his writings as a House member over the years.

I've read all the books: See Foreign Policy of Freedom, A (scroll down to see additional) he has written and his writings here:Ron Paul Library - and I thought about what question to ask him, but really can't think of any as he's covered them all in his above writings. I've also tried to debate those who oppose him here on this site (those whom might disagree with his point of view), but get no takers. To me, this is quite telling. I do this on other sites too with the same affect...even Michelle Malkin's site, where I did get one taker, but after the debate began, we couldn't come to agreements on rules: Posts #208 - #230:Michelle Malkin » Liveblogging the CNN/YouTube debate: “Edginess,” “elbows, “eh.” Update: Romney’s the Energizer candidate; Update: PLANT ALERT; The biggest stumble of the night award goes to…CNN; Update: The


I met Ron Paul at the FreedomFest in Las Vegas in July and had him sign one of the books he wrote Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View. His comment to me; "I was heavily influenced by them." I told him that "maybe you can have our Universities start teaching it once you become President."

Perhaps my question to him would be "Why don't you bring up Austrian Economics at the Presidential Debate (like he did on Leno) and school everyone else when it comes to Economic Policy."

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

I recently read that a Congressman has told California that it needs to fix its prison system. While this wasn't legislative, he made an interesting point. In his complaints, he noted that California has 160k+ inmates occupying space intended for 100k people. One function of maximum occupancy notices is to prevent fire and safety hazards. Having too many people occupying a single space can be dangerous, especially if, for example, an upper level of a building has not been tested to withstand the long-term weight of maximum occupancy + 60% and their belongings.

Is there a point at which Ron Paul would be OK with the federal government stepping in to remedy this situation?

[Rouger2]

How big a threat to our country does he think the giant and growing trade deficit is and what would he do about it.
Does he think that the slowly lowing of the value of the dollor will help in erasing the trade deficit.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I recently read that a Congressman has told California that it needs to fix its prison system. While this wasn't legislative, he made an interesting point. In his complaints, he noted that California has 160k+ inmates occupying space intended for 100k people. One function of maximum occupancy notices is to prevent fire and safety hazards. Having too many people occupying a single space can be dangerous, especially if, for example, an upper level of a building has not been tested to withstand the long-term weight of maximum occupancy + 60% and their belongings.

Is there a point at which Ron Paul would be OK with the federal government stepping in to remedy this situation?

DD, I'm not answering for Ron Paul, but I do have an opinion on this if you don't mind.

Legalize Drugs. Scoll down and read his thoughts under the caption "The Case for Drug Legalization" here: totse.com | Ron Paul essay on legalizing drugs

I'm also a supporter of LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) › Cops Say

Fed Up

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

DD, I'm not answering for Ron Paul, but I do have an opinion on this if you don't mind.

Legalize Drugs. Scoll down and read his thoughts under the caption "The Case for Drug Legalization" here: totse.com | Ron Paul essay on legalizing drugs

I'm also a supporter of LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) › Cops Say

Fed Up

That's a dodge. That would be akin to giving me response challenging the numbers that the Congressman cited.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's a dodge. That would be akin to giving me response challenging the numbers that the Congressman cited.

Let me address whether it's a "dodge." I gave you the LEAP site to look at the numbers from a police officer's perspective. Specifically this: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) › Publications › Publications › COPS SAY LEGALIZE DRUGS!

"After nearly four decades of fueling the U.S. policy of a war on drugs with over a trillion tax dollars and 37 million arrests for nonviolent drug offenses, our confined population has quadrupled making building prisons the fastest growing industry in the United States. More than 2.2 million of our citizens are currently incarcerated and every year we arrest an additional 1.9 million more guaranteeing those prisons will be bursting at their seams."

Also, "Property crime rates have tripled and violent crime rates have doubled since President Richard M. Nixon created the Drug Enforcement Agency in 1973 and declared an "all-out global war"to end the "drug menace." The connection is not coincidental."

"In a recent survey of persons in prison for robbery or burglary, one out of three said that they committed their crimes in order to buy drugs. In a survey of adolescents, those who admitted using cocaine, 1.3%, accounted for 49% of the admitted crimes. In several studies of prisoners, 65% to 80% have admitted regular or lifetime illicit drug use. About 75% of our robberies, thefts, burglaries and related assaults are committed by drug abusers. Numerous studies show that drug users commit far fewer crimes when undergoing outpatient drug therapy or even when the price of drugs drops."

Also: Two-Year Commission on Illegal Drugs says End Prohibition - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) › Press Releases › Two-Year Commission on Illegal Drugs says End Prohibition

The above is what you are concerned about in your question to Paul right? Would not these numbers be reduced considerably if prohibition of drugs was reversed?

A sample of how it can work:

swissinfo - Heroin-assisted treatments for drug addicts are attracting interest from other countries including Italy

Let me know if this addressed your query...just discussing to illicit discourse, not arguing with you....

Fed Up

[avsp]

If drug legalisation led to an increased number of paranoid spree killings would he consider changing the law even though it contravened his doctrinaire position on the matter?

Answering 'It wouldnt happen' isnt allowed btw.

[Dumpy Dooby]

That doesn't answer the question because it's addressing the issue of having drugs illegal, not having an overcrowded. Pretend that all of the criminals are gay carnivorous pedophiliac atheists if you must. Sheesh.

I don't care about the drug statistics because they're irrelevant.


I can also say that I don't think that immigrants from Mexico ought to be illegal, therefore we don't have an "illegal immigrant" problem, but that's a cop-out. That's not addressing the problems with immigration. That's curtailing the question so that I can address something related.


I don't care about why these guys are in jail. That's irrelevant. They broke the laws that were on the books. Whether or not I agree with those laws is irrelevant, especially if I'm looking at it from the federal government's point of view. They broke the law. Now they're in jail. The jails are overcrowded, and the State isn't doing anything to fix the overcrowded jails.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That doesn't answer the question because it's addressing the issue of having drugs illegal, not having an overcrowded. Pretend that all of the criminals are gay carnivorous pedophiliac atheists if you must. Sheesh.

I don't care about the drug statistics because they're irrelevant.


I can also say that I don't think that immigrants from Mexico ought to be illegal, therefore we don't have an "illegal immigrant" problem, but that's a cop-out. That's not addressing the problems with immigration. That's curtailing the question so that I can address something related.


I don't care about why these guys are in jail. That's irrelevant. They broke the laws that were on the books. Whether or not I agree with those laws is irrelevant, especially if I'm looking at it from the federal government's point of view. They broke the law. Now they're in jail. The jails are overcrowded, and the State isn't doing anything to fix the overcrowded jails.

You are confused DD...

To cite your example, an illegal alien is "illegal" period and should be deported.

Someone who is caught with drugs is put in jail. If drugs are "legalized," then jailtime would be unnecessary. Wouldn't this fix the problem?

They are most definitely connected.

Am I missing something in your line of thinking?

Fed Up

[nbiggershaft]

Question:

Given that you are pro free trade with all countries and have a non-interventionalist foreign policy, would it be safe to assume that a Ron Paul led government(barring contrary action by congress) would have had or supported trade with Germany and Japan during World War 2?

(While there exists the obvious argument that we were attacked by the Japanese such an attack was unlikely without the restriction of trade in the first place)