Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[The Decider]

Quote by: Jubloz Osborn, you seem pretty knowledgeable about the guy. Do you know anything about his views on evolution? I tried some googling but didn't come up with much and, given that the politics pertaining to evolution will directly affect my profession after college, it's a pretty big issue for me.

According to the following email sent by the Paul campaign to a Republican blogger, Paul supports the idea of evolution:

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: Didn’t see his hand
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:15:06 -0400
From: Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
To: Ron Shank

Ron,

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.

Shanktified! » Blog Archive » Ron Paul Campaign on Evolution

[christibe]

An excellent response, that Dr. Paul.

He is so wonderful, and I have noticed something promising in my daily life that is evidence of Paul's 'fame'.

I am currently in Omaha, NE, a city in a state that has banned adult video stores, because it corrupts the youth, and all such things. Omaha has always been red, only some points in NE have ever been otherwise. They have a unicameral, for goodness sakes.

However, despite this somewhat clear idiocy at play, Paul in '08 bumper stickers are proudly displayed next to Bush in '04. Now, I am not a person that typically derives meaning from the number of bumper stickers per candidate statistics, however, I see it as promising for Paul.

I, a well-meaning socialist, am planning to register Republican only to vote for Paul in the primary (I'll be in MN at that point).

Paul attracts the largest base of voters from every philosophy. I love him because I hate the Iraq War, I hate the military industrial complex, I hate killing people and I hate paying money to a government that wastes it and uses it to kill people.

Conservative Bible-belt Christians like Paul, despite his 'pro-evolution' stance, because, dare I suggest it?, he makes them remember what it means to be Conservative. It means- small govt.!?!? little to no taxation?!?!? no big enough army to be waging many wars at once?!?!?!

But yes, I think he is bringing people back to their senses. And I am grateful that for once, my vote won't be wasted on the lesser of two evils.

[Osborn F Enready]

christibe said: And I am grateful that for once, my vote won't be wasted on the lesser of two evils.

WORD!

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready WORD!

Os here's more than a word: My apologies to all b/c I have been mia lately. Working on other things and will return when it is more convenient. Hi to all.....

From Dr Paul:

September 7, 2007 Has this been a hectic and encouraging time! First we got almost 17% in the Texas straw poll, an event set-up to represent the establishment, with very restrictive voting rules. That 17% of the Republican hierarchy would support our views, after a full day of pro-war propaganda, is good news. Then we won the more open Maryland Republican straw poll with 28%. In both cases, as usual, hard-working, well-organized volunteers made all the difference. The Fox debate was a lot of fun as well. It's true that a few of the network people are not exactly with us on foreign or domestic policy (though one famous guy whispered to me that he is a libertarian), but the audience-with lots of students from the University of New Hampshire-was definitely fair and balanced, as their enthusiastic reaction showed. My opponents called for more war, more torture, more secret prisons, more eavesdropping, more presidential power. Some seemed to identify the government and the people as if they were one entity. But you and I know that once the government moves beyond its very limited constitutional mandate, it is an opponent of the people, a rip-off operation that takes our money and our freedom and our social peace, and gives us a mess of statist pottage in return. The government failed miserably on 911 to protect us, despite spending trillions. So the answer was supposed to be the giant, socialist Department of Homeland Security, protecting you and me from taking our toothpaste on the airplane. I was ridiculed for saying that the airlines, which know best how to protect their property, should have been allowed to arm their pilots. But then, you and I really believe in the Second Amendment. It is not just a political slogan for us. When I discussed the blowback that came from us intervening on the Arabian peninsula, Chris Wallace asked me if I wanted to follow the marching orders of al-Qaeda. I responded that I wanted to follow the marching orders of the Constitution, and not wage undeclared, aggressive wars that cause us only trouble. This is a mystifying to some, of course, but not to more and more Americans. There was much talk of taxes, and a pledge not to raise rates. But as usual, I was not allowed to discuss my lifelong pledge to abolish the income tax. Just holding the line, when the government takes such vast sums through an illegitimate guilty-until-proven-innocent system, is hardly enough. We need to slash taxes and spending if we are to have a future of prosperity for ourselves and our families. After the debate, many young people gathered around the stage to discuss our ideas and ask questions about them (and to have me sign their badges). My colleagues got no such response, and after a few moments, "security" ordered me off the stage. Can't have any such demonstration of interest in liberty. But the young are with us, and so are Americans of every stripe. Even party officials. When one of my opponent said it was OK to lose elections through supporting the Iraq war, that set party people's teeth on edge, and rightly so. The Republican party is shrinking. We need new people. It's either our ideas or President Hillary, and more and more people recognize it. But the media, and everyone else, will be looking at fundraising totals at the end of this month. They'll judge us by how we do. And we need help to wage what we hope will be a full-scale, 50-state campaign. Please help me head into the next quarter fully armed to do battle for freedom, peace and prosperity. Make your most generous contribution https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/. This Revolution is on the move, but it very much needs your support. Sincerely, Ron

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: brien Os here's more than a word: My apologies to all b/c I have been mia lately. Working on other things and will return when it is more convenient.

Hmmm, you know it against the rules to have two accounts, right Mia?

Quote by: brien Hi to all...

Well hey yourself there buckaroo.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: christibe An excellent response, that Dr. Paul. He is so wonderful, and I have noticed something promising in my daily life that is evidence of Paul's 'fame'. I am currently in Omaha, NE, a city in a state that has banned adult video stores, because it corrupts the youth, and all such things. Omaha has always been red, only some points in NE have ever been otherwise. They have a unicameral, for goodness sakes. However, despite this somewhat clear idiocy at play, Paul in '08 bumper stickers are proudly displayed next to Bush in '04. Now, I am not a person that typically derives meaning from the number of bumper stickers per candidate statistics, however, I see it as promising for Paul. I, a well-meaning socialist, am planning to register Republican only to vote for Paul in the primary (I'll be in MN at that point). Paul attracts the largest base of voters from every philosophy. I love him because I hate the Iraq War, I hate the military industrial complex, I hate killing people and I hate paying money to a government that wastes it and uses it to kill people. Conservative Bible-belt Christians like Paul, despite his 'pro-evolution' stance, because, dare I suggest it?, he makes them remember what it means to be Conservative. It means- small govt.!?!? little to no taxation?!?!? no big enough army to be waging many wars at once?!?!?! But yes, I think he is bringing people back to their senses. And I am grateful that for once, my vote won't be wasted on the lesser of two evils.

Those are some good reasons to get Ron Pual nominated in the primary over some of those other Republican canadates. Although he is not supportive of domestic "socialist" style programs funded by the Feds he does share the views of socialists concerning the anti-war agenda and the anti- big brother movement he seems to support is clearly in line with leftwing intellecturals. He comprehends the idea of keeping state and religion seperated. And most left-wingers feel the income taxes are too high.

I do not support the bills he wrote that became law as they do not jive with his current speechmaking. But I might vote for him in the primary because as fate has it, one of the petition collectors got me re-regestered as being a Republican. Because of one reason.

Here is my one reason to support Ron Paul. (right now Ron Paul cannot do this because Hillary is a canadate - but later on he could).

If as a President Ron Paul would get behind and praise the new book by Bill Clinton -- "Giving, how you can change the world". With Bill Clinton working in the private sector to encourge private charity for those socialistic concerns for poor people and so forth then Ron Pauls ideas of not doing that project via big government is 'workable'. A grass-roots agenda of charity and giving (free will) would eleminate the need for a government to assume such a responibility. So in effect Bill Clinton and Ron Paul would be in harmoney for an over-all change that would be effective. And although many Ron Paul fans do not like Clinton (out of habit) they would find his new book and the ideas of it compatable with their own. A more active private sector and a less active governmental sector would (could?) manifest as the new and shared idealisms of both.

So come on you R.P. people.... agree with me on this.

If he did that now, by supporting Bill Clinton's book ideas about private sector responsibility to change proverty he could even use Bill agenst Hillary's ideas for governmental programs, and that, would be his smartest move to make right now.

[Chaossaber314]

I don't want this to sound terribly belligerent but I keep finding myself more and more Anti-Ron Paul. It's like he has a decent point but then has a crazy idea that will supposedly solve it. For instance, Yeah, we shouldn't provoke the Mid-East with entanglements or needless wars like Iraq. Ok, but his solution is to...

-pull out completely from the Middle East, which is tactically stupid. If our military is required which it is from time to time, particularly in the already unstable atmosphere, you don't simply leave. You stay back on the sidelines if and when your assistance is necessary. Along the same lines, he wants us to pull out all of our troops from foreign bases. Does the man have any idea of a concept like tactics? I can understand leaving Iraq, but closing bases around the world?

-leave NATO, and essentially ruin any relationships we've spent about the last century developing.

-leave the UN, and basically separate ourselves from any form of diplomacy with the rest of the world.

-dismantle just about all federal agencies including the CIA, FBI, NSA etc. I can understand the harsh inclination but these organizations need reform and much greater accountability, not dismantling. Furthermore, he has no solution to what we're supposed to do without these organizations. Just to eliminate them and hopefully everything will work out.

We have a clown like Bush who insults the collective mother of the world at a dinner party and is asked not to come back. This guy sounds like he's about to get drunk, feel up the party host's daughter, and piss on the dinner table. We're going to have enough problems repairing our image with the rest of the world after Bush. At the end of Bush's term we're going to have strained relationships with other nations. Paul seems to intend that we have NO relationships with other nations.

Maybe I'm completely mistaken about Paul's views. But, I just keep getting more and more underwhelmed with this internet-demigod. Also, for someone described as a strict constitutionalist, he sure doesn't seem to understand a basic introductory government course concept like the Necessary and Proper clause.

And before anyone suggests it, I'm undecided on who I'm voting for so this isn't coming from any sided bias. Perhaps I'll change my tune if I'm completely off base about what Paul is suggesting.

[Clarence]

Dismantling these agencies and rebuilding the necessary ones correctly, I believe is his position.

Ron is bound to answer honestly when he's asked what we should do. That's different than what an red executive could do against a blue legislative dominance.

The best thing about Ron is his honesty. Now people are cornering the man and taking pot shots asking his honest opinion on certain matters.

I'll bet if we gave some truth serum to a few of the other candidates, we'd hear the solution for the ME is a couple of mushroom clouds. They'd never admit it.

His strength is bound to be his weakness.

He needs some PR help so his messages aren't lost in translation.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Clarence Dismantling these agencies and rebuilding the necessary ones correctly, I believe is his position. Ron is bound to answer honestly when he's asked what we should do. That's different than what an red executive could do against a blue legislative dominance. The best thing about Ron is his honesty. Now people are cornering the man and taking pot shots asking his honest opinion on certain matters. I'll bet if we gave some truth serum to a few of the other candidates, we'd hear the solution for the ME is a couple of mushroom clouds. They'd never admit it. His strength is bound to be his weakness.

People are taking "pot shots" at Ron Paul for requesting clarification of his stated positions on the CIA, FBI, the UN, and NATO? That's a new one. I agree with Chaossaber314--Paul has not explained to my satisfaction how our nation would gather intelligence or maintain our alliances overseas in the absence of these organizations. He's big on quoting the constitution and criticizing big government, but chintzy on the specific Paul alternatives, either "honest" or "realistic."

Quote by: Clarence He needs some PR help so his messages aren't lost in translation.

I disagree. One of the refreshing aspects of Ron Paul are his crystal clear messages and language. "Abolish the CIA" doesn't require a PR firm to communicate or explain. And if Paul has no specifics for a post-CIA American intelligence community, a PR firm can't help him much.

[Clarence]

pot shots maybe not. poor terminology. maybe people are just being obtuse when considering his answers to these questions?
I'm a bit concerned about mr paul not being gaurded enough to play the game enough to win. That's what we need. That's what I meant about PR.

'in translation' meaning the difference between Mr'.Pauls statements and how they are stated by scared democrats

[The Decider]

Quote by: Clarence pot shots maybe not. poor terminology. maybe people are just being obtuse when considering his answers to these questions?

Obtuse? My questions are clear and direct. What does Paul specifically propose for the collection of intelligence data in the absence of the current intel organizations? The only answer I've received at Volconvo is some form of "we don't need intelligence to prevent terror attacks."

Quote by: Clarence I'm a bit concerned about mr paul not being gaurded enough to play the game enough to win. That's what we need. That's what I meant about PR.

I thought Paul was above parsing words and Washingtonian double-speak. The minute he starts, his long paper trail of clear and concise messages will come back to haunt him every day. Leave the flip-flopping and non-answers to the expert in the Republican field, Mitt Romney.

Quote by: Clarence 'in translation' meaning the difference between Mr'.Pauls statements and how they are stated by scared democrats

I'm not "translating" Paul's position: I'm asking for clarification. If Paul wants to abolish the current US intel community, what PRECISELY does he want in its stead? That's a question, not a translation. Paul should not have trouble providing an answer. But somehow his Volconvo supporters are have trouble providing a convincing one.

And what gives you the idea that Democrats fear Ron Paul? I respect the man, but I don't fear him. He hasn't even broken double digits in ANY statewide Republican poll, including the straw poll in his home state of Texas. Perhaps he'll do better in a few months, but right now he's really not too scary for anybody, in any party.

[Clarence]

Quote by: The Decider Obtuse? My questions are clear and direct.

fair enough

What does Paul specifically propose for the collection of intelligence data in the absence of the current intel organizations? The only answer I've received at Volconvo is some form of "we don't need intelligence to prevent terror attacks

there need not be specific answers because he hasn't promised to tear these beuracracies down. He's only suggested that these agencies are unconstutional when prompted.

I thought Paul was above parsing words and Washingtonian double-speak. The minute he starts, his long paper trail of clear and concise messages will come back to haunt him every day. Leave the flip-flopping and non-answers to the expert in the Republican field, Mitt Romney.

please. Tactic noted. When you join the upcoming clinton debate you're effectively neutralized before it starts.

I'm not "translating" Paul's position: I'm asking for clarification. If Paul wants to abolish the current US intel community, what PRECISELY does he want in its stead? That's a question, not a translation. Paul should not have trouble providing an answer. But somehow his Volconvo supporters are have trouble providing a convincing one.

well it's a good question. I don't know.

And what gives you the idea that Democrats fear Ron Paul?

because he's the man that makes it tough for the democrips. You and others are splitting hairs over issues and taking aim. It's plain to see. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just plain to see. It would seem you would want him to be the republican candidate so if you lose you're not faced with Rudy McRomney.

I respect the man, but I don't fear him. He hasn't even broken double digits in ANY statewide Republican poll, including the straw poll in his home state of Texas. Perhaps he'll do better in a few months, but right now he's really not too scary for anybody, in any party.

The polls? Which polls? That's my debate. You know where I stand and why, most likely.

Ron Paul is the bridge between the left and the right. we can embrace him or not.

[The Decider]

Quote by: Clarence there need not be specific answers because he hasn't promised to tear these beuracracies down. He's only suggested that these agencies are unconstutional when prompted.

Semantics. Paul wants those intel agencies--and anything he deems "unconstitutional"--replaced with something. What? If he breaks double digits and really does threaten to take one or more of the Republican primaries, he'll have to answer questions like that with something close to specifics.

Quote by: Clarence please. Tactic noted. When you join the upcoming clinton debate you're effectively neutralized before it starts.

Neutralized from what?

Quote by: Clarence because he's the man that makes it tough for the democrips. You and others are splitting hairs over issues and taking aim. It's plain to see. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's just plain to see.

I don't see any Democrats struggling over Ron Paul. Some of us agree with his stance on the war, the Patriot Act, and some other issues. But worry? About what?

Quote by: Clarence It would seem you would want him to be the republican candidate so if you lose you're not faced with Rudy McRomney.

Not really. I enjoy watching Paul make things interesting during the Republican debates. I respect Paul for his courage and willingness to articulate unpopular policies in his political party. I wish Mike Gravel had a fraction of Paul's genius with clear words and ideas. But desiring Ron Paul for the Republican nomination? I have no doubt that he would lose to Hillary, Obama, or Edwards after the Republican base deserts his candidacy in droves. But that's unprovable speculation and sheer fantasy. Rudy or Romney will win the Republican race as things stand now and I don't think they'll win the general election either. Even Hillary with her high negatives does well in head-to-head matchups with both men.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider People are taking "pot shots" at Ron Paul for requesting clarification of his stated positions on the CIA, FBI, the UN, and NATO? That's a new one. I agree with Chaossaber314--Paul has not explained to my satisfaction how our nation would gather intelligence or maintain our alliances overseas in the absence of these organizations. He's big on quoting the constitution and criticizing big government, but chintzy on the specific Paul alternatives, either "honest" or "realistic." I disagree. One of the refreshing aspects of Ron Paul are his crystal clear messages and language. "Abolish the CIA" doesn't require a PR firm to communicate or explain. And if Paul has no specifics for a post-CIA American intelligence community, a PR firm can't help him much.

I believe that you misunderstand the principles on which Mr. Paul stands, which are those on which our country was founded.

Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind. I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. I have no ambition to govern men; it is a painful and thankless office. I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive. I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. One man with courage is a majority. Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty. To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

If there's any doubt I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine the providence of the above.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

So your response to specific questions was a quote ladened with platitudes. Alright...

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 So your response to specific questions was a quote ladened with platitudes. Alright...

No. The response is in the first quote, and it's no platitude. Why are you worried about our alliances with other countries? We should have NO alliances. We should trade with all countries but our government doesn't need to be entangled with those countries through any sort of secondary agreement to allow such trade. Our merchants can show the worth of our country and, when they mess up, it is quite clear that only some individuals have messed up. Such things won't bring the wrath of hundreds of thousands of Muslims down on the head of us all.

Keith

[Chaossaber314]

Why are you worried about our alliances with other countries? We should have NO alliances.

At which point I stopped reading.

[Technosoul]

What is up with all those linkbacks at the bottom of the page that advertise pronographic webpages? Why are they checking out Ron Paul's debates? Is that his support group due to his "hands off the internet"speech he made at U tube?
Or just advertising method?

[The Decider]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger I believe that you misunderstand the principles on which Mr. Paul stands, which are those on which our country was founded.

I ask for Ron Paul's plans following the elimination of intel agencies and you provide a lecture on principles. Is any Volconvo Paulista knowledgable enough about the candidate's public statements to answer a specific question with specifics?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: The Decider I ask for Ron Paul's plans following the elimination of intel agencies and you provide a lecture on principles. Is any Volconvo Paulista knowledgable enough about the candidate's public statements to answer a specific question with specifics?

Interestingly, Mr. Paul bases his positions on principles. I know it's a creative concept, since most politicians have no principles whatsoever, but Ron Paul does. The principles that I've cited are the type of principles that Ron Paul appears to use in his decision making.

If you like things directly from Mr. Paul.

Nonintervention: The Original Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

In this link, Paul gives the same quote I gave first ... The Original American Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

As well as here ... The Original Foreign Policy by Ron Paul

I'm having difficulty finding specific mentions concerning one issue that has been brought up elsewhere from Mr. Pau, but this article from five years ago, Oppose the New Homeland Security Bureaucracy! by Rep. Ron Paul, discusses the Dept. of Homeland Security. The FBI and the CIA aren't specifically there. However, since Mr. Paul is a principled man, and his principles are those which this country was founded upon, at the very least he would find no Constitutional justification for a federal police force, and he would likely also find that such an entity would be a great threat to our freedoms.

For an extensive list of specific words from Ron Paul, in dozens of articles and speeches dating back to 1994, you can go to Congressman Ron Paul Archives

Somewhere I have his campaign book from 1988, signed by him. I'll have to dig that out. Unfortunately, even if he is elected, my copy has been damaged and won't be worth more than what's written in it. But that is of great value in itself.

Keith