Ron Paul for President

This thread is open to all points for and against this candidate and any other you may feel is better or worse than Paul.

There is slander and misinformation abound about this candidate and I would love the air cleared.

I will obviously be advocating his candidacy but invite all debate for or against as I don't want to pigeon hole myself into blind fealty.

Having said that I also don't want the impression that my overwhelming support of his posistions are not based on any research of the issues, this is simply not the case.

I can honestly say that there are issues I disagree, to some extent, with him, though mainly because they are issues I have not made firm decisions on such as abortion.

But as I have stated elsewhere, for the first time ever, I don't fear his personal agendas overruling the will of myself and those of the collective people.

So now I have somewhere to spam my bliss and frustration for the candidacy and the responses to it in this all too delicious roller coaster ride.

You feel free to pitch your two cents as well. Otherwise I'll take silence as agreement, to goad the nay sayers into speaking up as well as those with legitimate concerns.

This link contains great polling information and media bias against Paul.

http://www.captaincynic.com/thread/74637/2008-election.htm

Look at this! They laugh off his win in the text poll. WTF? Blatant spin.

Decius,

I live in Dr. Paul's district and I have met him many times and spent time with him and heard him speak quite a few times, and he's a great candidate. However, I have a problem with him on this subject, too. He is absolutely pro-big business.

He always votes to stifle the voices of shareholders when it comes to executive compensation and he always votes to give corporation execs higher and higher tax breaks.

He did, however, vote no to telephone monopolies. So, I don't think it's totally clear where he stands on this subject, hence his mixed business approval rating.

I am no expert on this issue and have curiosities of my own, but what I've gathered thus far on the point is that...

quote:

---

Question: What is his policy/perspective on controlling monopolizing corporations from preventing the growth of healthy competition?

---

I've heard him specifically address this question by saying that this problem occurs when big business and government collude in special deals to special interests.

He mentions how this would be taken away and that the reduced government would be put back in its intended role of protecting from such abuses which would be obvious in the also intended open government.

There is a reason why he is absolutely against the WTO, NAFTA, GAT, and others who preach free trade while actually squashing it under such aforementioned special deals.

A misconception that I think may exist on this issue is that Paul is against all regulation, this would mean that he doesn't believe the rule of law, which is obviously not the case. He appears to be against convoluted bureaucracy that actually subverts the rule of law.

quote:

---

He always votes to stifle the voices of shareholders when it comes to executive compensation

---

This I know nothing about and would love some elaboration.

Sheer wild speculation perhaps not even valid or to the point would lead me to my conjecture that perhaps this may have something to do with either a missinterpretation on your part and or to some posistion that consists of Paul's avoidance of asking a corrupt system to correct corrupt practices, in other words that whatever the shareholders are demanding is either adding to the problem or taking another wrong path. Perhaps its a point of contention of his so often seen as people asking others to fix that which is their responsibility, or simply addressing the wrong root cause of their concern.

But again, I am completely ignorant on this point so feel free to clue me in.

quote:

---

he always votes to give corporation execs higher and higher tax breaks.

---

This one seems easy enough, from a very basic perspective, he votes for higher tax breaks for everyone. Which is all he can do from his posistion since no one else has the balls to truly reform our tax system like he advocates.

I'm not sure I read or understood your post quite right, so correct me if I'm off base on this.

quote:

---

I think that the idea that without government interaction that large corporations won't have the ability to squash small compeitition is unlikely...

...the removal of government intervention...

---

If your meaning is that he intends to end government involvement, then that would indeed be incorrect to my understanding.

The specification that he makes is that corrupt collusion would be taken out, while proper government oversight against abuses would be re-established.

I don't think he is trying to create a libertarian society beyond a society that protects liberties with the rule of sound and sensible law, not runaway bureauracracy.

Which is why he defends the republic as a republican.

I find this next clip an interesting argument against Paul and only have researched one point, in brevity, to respond back.

He makes the argument that the 1st Barbary war was an example of foreign interventionism as "traditional to republicans", which seems absurd given that American's were taken hostage and forced to pay tributes to what are often referred to as pirate states at the time not under direct control of the ottoman empire though part of it who unofficially declared war on us.

I think that serves as a distinction from the usual use of the phrase foreign interventionism.

But again, again. I'm learning here and implore that all who have something to teach me in any direction to please do so.

I by no means am declaring blind loyalty to Paul, I simply see him as the best candidate I've ever encountered, based on what I do, and think, I know or have seen.

quote:

---

does he intend to create new agencies that are very limited versions of the same ones that perform the necessary tasks required in a semi-libertarian society?

---

To the best of my understanding, yes. Government oversight will not end, but be reduced primarily in terms of corrupted bureauracracy and more heavily reliant upon state governments which will be more affective when they, as well as the federal, are no longer able to be kept secret like they were never meant to.

And it will be much more reliant on the individual as well, personal responsibility based on an improved education level for the citizenry is one of his top goals.

Its about not expecting a free ride by a nanny state to fix all our problems and supply all our needs for us.

But indeed to have a representative government that does protect us from abuses and enforce our laws giving us the freedom to fix our problems at a more local level where we are more versed in what would best for that particular issue in that particular place with that specific demographic.

That is how I understand it, be my interpretation of his words right or wrong.

It is just smaller, open, government, not non existant government.

quote:

---

Such things are not libertarian, but are still necessary in modern society.

---

Exactly, the rule of law. He simply intends to clear out unconstitutional laws, not law itself.

I think there is a difference between libertarian and a libertarian government from the way you speak of it, off hand my dictionary just speaks of believing in liberties which is how I've heard him define his libertarianism.

I think I may have misspoke somewhat before when perhaps over emphasizing his libertarianism, because it is not without his Conservative Constitutional Republic beliefs, which is simply leaps and bounds away from current Neo-Conservativism, aka Imperial Fascists, as well as perhaps differing from a pure libertarian.

I live in Ron Paul's district, he has been a good representive of the people here, however, I have always been uncomfortable with Libertarians. I would not want to eliminate regulations related to safe food, water, air, work place safety, highway safety, auto safety, airline safety, rail safety, boating, land fill, industrial and bio waste, and etc. I would like to see more done in these areas, but a libertarinan would not.

I do not see how Ron Paul has a chance in becoming President under the current election process of country. It always appear that the party nominations goes to the individual with the strongest party ties and ablitiy to raise massive sums of money.

quote:

---

I do not see how Ron Paul has a chance in becoming President under the current election process of country. It always appear that the party nominations goes to the individual with the strongest party ties and ablitiy to raise massive sums of money.

---

... (hypothetical translation) Ron Paul doesn't have a chance because the system is corrupt, but I'll support it anyway.

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/ronpauldollar/index.htm

More Ron Paul support stuff

http://stores.ebay.com/libertymanifesto

The question about is our system of nominating political candiates being corrupt---I have never really thought about it in depth. However, I did learn a lot when I ran for a state representative back in 1990. I learned that money gets votes, I did not have the funds for major media exposure. Every dollar I spent my major oppostion spent 300 dollars. But still I managed to get 46% of the vote, the liberating got 5 % .
I believe general media by ignoring a candidate is a major contributor to ability to raise funds.
I really don't believe the system is corrupt, it is just a tough game to play.

Is Ron Paul a homophobe?
Is Ron Paul an isolationist?

He might be a homophobe, he seems fairly religious.

Is he an isolationist, this depends on what you mean. He is against occupying and policing the world and undeclared foreign wars, and therefore called an isolationist.

He is against government hand outs and foreign aid that causes dependancy and corruption rather than teaching others how to take care of themselves, this is both local and abroad.

But he is all for trade and travel.

Ron is hip. He has a Second Life.

I have been out of the loop for awhile, I honestly wasn't fully aware he was still in the race... I fear I am not alone.