Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Osborn F Enready]

Rep. Ron Paul files for Republican presidential bid: AP By Katherine Hunt Last Update: 6:39 PM ET Jan 11, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Rep. Ron Paul has filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money, the Associated Press reported late Thursday. The nine-term congressman from southeast Texas was the Libertarian nominee for president in 1988 and received more than 400,000 votes, the AP reported. This time he plans to run as a Republican.

If you want to see Ron run, drop him a line.

Check out his site.

Ron Paul Exploratory Committee

Ron Paul explains "How Government Debt Grows:
How Government Debt Grows by Ron Paul


Ron Paul is a seated Republican Congressman in Texas, but his voting record is his telling tale of honorable representation in the name of individual rights, and he is a "lifetime" Libertarian Party member.

Ron Paul is the only seated official I have ever seen who admits bold faced, the scham that has become taxation and the Federal Reserve.

Please, take a moment to check the mans voting record, review some of his words.

From the site:
"Contributions from corporations, labor unions, and foreign nationals are prohibited."



Some Paul quotes:

“War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.”
Ron Paul quote

“The obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people.”
Ron Paul quote

“The greatest threat facing America today is the disastrous fiscal policies of our own government, marked by shameless deficit spending and Federal Reserve currency devaluation. It is this one-two punch-- Congress spending more than it can tax or borrow, and the Fed printing money to make up the difference-- that threatens to impoverish us by further destroying the value of our dollars.”
Ron Paul quote

“Nearly all of the Senators, witnesses, and Judge Alito himself spoke repeatedly about the importance of respecting Supreme Court precedents. The clear implication is that we must equate Supreme Court decisions with the text of the Constitution itself, giving them equal legal weight. But what if some precedents are bad? Should the American people be forced to live with unpopular judicial “laws” forever? The Constitution itself can be amended; are we to accept that Supreme Court rulings are written in stone?”
- Rep. Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk, 1/16/06

"For government, the federal budget is essentially a credit card with no spending limit, billed to somebody else. We hardly should be surprised that Congress racks up huge amounts of debt! By contrast, responsible people restrain their borrowing because they will have to pay the money back. It's time for American taxpayers to understand that every dollar will have to be repaid. We should have the courage to face our grandchildren knowing that we have done all we can to end the government spending spree."
Ron Paul



Paul limits his view of the role of the federal government to those duties laid out in the Constitution. As a result, he sometimes casts votes at odds with his constituents and other Republicans.

He was one of a handful of Republicans to vote in 2002 against giving President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq, contending that only Congress had the power to declare war. At times, he has voted against funds for the military.

Paul bills himself as "The Taxpayers' Best Friend," and is routinely ranked either first or second in the House by the National Taxpayers Union, a national group advocating low taxes and limited government.

Ron Pauls voting record:
Project Vote Smart - Representative Paul - Voting Record

Please, if you value individual rights, help Ron win this fight for all of us.

[notworthabean]

I believe ron paul also believes 9/11 was a hoax, he has low name recognation, low funding etc etc

aka he has nil chance.

[Osborn F Enready]

notworthabean said: I believe ron paul also believes 9/11 was a hoax

Can you substantiate that with a link or something, if you expect people to believe it?

notworthabean said: , he has low name recognation,

Thats a bonus in many peoples eyes, mine included.

notworthabean said: low funding etc etc

Without a bank account built on corruption, its hard to get a vote in Washington.....

Do you accept it, or refuse to?

Surely, yes, its easy to accept it, just like all the rights removal going on, but is "sheeple" a career choice worth following, or an ideal worth living?

notworthabean said: aka he has nil chance.

They say a revolt wouldn't have much chance either, but no sense in waiting until there is no other choice to find out, right?

[notworthabean]

Can you substantiate that with a link or something, if you expect people to believe it?

heres one where he calls the past 9/11 commsion a cover up

Presidential Explorer Paul: Investigate 9/11 'cover-up'

and the fact that he appeared on alex jones site at all speaks ill of him honestly

Thats a bonus in many peoples eyes, mine included.

why? it hurts his chances of winning greatly.

Without a bank account built on corruption, its hard to get a vote in Washington..... Do you accept it, or refuse to? Surely, yes, its easy to accept it, just like all the rights removal going on, but is "sheeple" a career choice worth following, or an ideal worth living?

it doesn't have to be built on corruption, but money is obviously important.

[Osborn F Enready]

notworthabean said: and the fact that he appeared on alex jones site at all speaks ill of him honestly

I appreciate the link.

I think there was obviously a lot covered up about 9-11, the question is WHY?

Regardless, I don't see why that makes Paul look bad except to people who don't like Alex Jones, and automaticly discredit him because he was associated with Alex. (how big a segment of society is that?)

How many people actually think 9-11 was investigated well? Not many I have talked to.

notworthabean said: why? it hurts his chances of winning greatly.

Usually, yes, it could. I think in this case, his name NOT being associated with the Republicans party, or Democratic Party is a benefit, as is their almost unified stance against him. A lot of people are sick of the corruption, they just haven't figured out what to do about it yet.

Rons chances may not be promising, or worth banking on, but surely worth exploring and supporting, at least in my eyes.

I don't vote for who I think can win. I vote for who is doing the right things in protecting my liberty, both economic and individual. I see Ron fitting the bill, in my opinion.

notworthabean said: it doesn't have to be built on corruption, but money is obviously important.

Well, the corruption part would be a huge benefit, from the view of corporate lobbyists, just not from the rest of the nation.

I do agree overall though, Ron has his work cut out for him. I plan on helping him to shoulder the load unless the Libs put forth an EXTREMELY valid and viable canidate.

[notworthabean]

I appreciate the link.

no prob-I saw a fuller version somewhere but couldn't find it :shrug:

I think there was obviously a lot covered up about 9-11, the question is WHY?

we probably won't know for 50 years, and it was probably to hide incompotent people.

Regardless, I don't see why that makes Paul look bad except to people who don't like Alex Jones, and automaticly discredit him because he was associated with Alex. (how big a segment of society is that?)

probably a fair amount, I'd say a good 80% of the voting public, if they visited his site/listened to his radio show would figure out the guys...well ya. Not that I rule out the governments involvement therein, but I don't see what’s to be gained by knowing if that is the case.

How many people actually think 9-11 was investigated well? Not many I have talked to.

I'd say the majority of the populace firmly believes the offical story.

Usually, yes, it could. I think in this case, his name NOT being associated with the Republicans party, or Democratic Party is a benefit, as is their almost unified stance against him. A lot of people are sick of the corruption, they just haven't figured out what to do about it yet.

and chances are rons not going to be able to capitalize on that

Rons chances may not be promising, or worth banking on, but surely worth exploring and supporting, at least in my eyes.

if hes the closest to you on polices than yes that’s true

I don't vote for who I think can win. I vote for who is doing the right things in protecting my liberty, both economic and individual. I see Ron fitting the bill, in my opinion.

understandable-though I was addressing his chances, he is to much of a paleocon for me.

[bishop]

i disagree with him on some issues at the detailed level, but overall, i could definitely see myself voting for him. especially since my personal favorite (fiengold) has not announced that he will run. i can't vote in the republican primaries though, since i'm an independent.

what will be interesting, is seeing paul in action during the primary debates. alan keyes was a candidate who made constitutionalism the main component of his campaign - and he wasn't supported by the party.

what i'm getting at is while paul has an opportunity not provided to 3rd party candidates (getting to participate in public debates), he still needs to win the support of the party's base. and, this is the same exact party that rabidly supported bush's reelection in 2004. just some food for thought, but it seems that paul's chances are slim to none - assuming that the republican base hasn't drastically changed over the past couple years.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop what will be interesting, is seeing paul in action during the primary debates. alan keyes was a candidate who made constitutionalism the main component of his campaign - and he wasn't supported by the party.

Indeed. I thought Alan Keyes would have been the best thing the Republican party ever produced in modern times, but as you say, the party noticed, and promptly abandoned him, and his ideals. Blanking schmucks !

Quote by: bishop what i'm getting at is while paul has an opportunity not provided to 3rd party candidates (getting to participate in public debates), he still needs to win the support of the party's base. and, this is the same exact party that rabidly supported bush's reelection in 2004. just some food for thought, but it seems that paul's chances are slim to none - assuming that the republican base hasn't drastically changed over the past couple years.

I suppose it depends on how you spend your aloted monies.


Something tells me a Ron Paul campaign won't look like any other Republican, or Democratic campaign you ever saw.


I never thought I be calling out "Ronbo!" again.

[bishop]

he needs to have a lot of strong grassroots support - something the LP isn't exactly known for having.

without strong grassroots support, he'll be an unknown to voters who only casually follow politics/current events. and, voters have a clear tendency to prefer voting for people that they've heard of - even if there may be other lesser-known candidates whose views better support their own.

in some respects, that's what happened in the 2004 democratic primaries where john kerry somehow emerged victorious - even though people like dean and kucinich better voiced the party's core values.


i don't expect paul to win the primary, but if he could garner strong grassroots support, the LP candidate could enlist them in his/her own campaign.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Indeed. I thought Alan Keyes would have been the best thing the Republican party ever produced in modern times, but as you say, the party noticed, and promptly abandoned him, and his ideals. Blanking schmucks !

Alan Keyes? You mean the right wing lunatic with the link to a recording of Terri Schaivo "laughing" on the upper right hand corner of his web page? Talk about appealing to the brain-dead! Let's see, Keyes wants all abortions to be illegal, hates gay folks and supports Virgil Goode's racism. Keyes is also the genius who said that "Jesus would not vote for Obama". (Good thing as Jesus is not a registered voter in Illinois, last I heard.) And you are surprized that even the Republicans dropped him? Keyes makes Santorum look sane.

I wish Ron Paul well. He can be a loose cannon at times, but overall means well.

[Autolykos]

Just out of curiosity, Rick --

How do you think Ron Paul is a loose cannon?

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: RickSp Alan Keyes? You mean the right wing lunatic with the link to a recording of Terri Schaivo "laughing" on the upper right hand corner of his web page? Talk about appealing to the brain-dead! Let's see, Keyes wants all abortions to be illegal, hates gay folks and supports Virgil Goode's racism. Keyes is also the genius who said that "Jesus would not vote for Obama". (Good thing as Jesus is not a registered voter in Illinois, last I heard.) And you are surprized that even the Republicans dropped him? Keyes makes Santorum look sane.

You know, it infuriates me that even though I qualified my statement, you still jumped on me over an obvious oversight on your part.


A) I said the ****ing Republican party.

B) You know I do not support those extreme ideals you just pointed out.


But hey, I'll take Keyes over Bush any time. Something tells me he won't be trying to govern in secret like Hitler Jr., and his posse.

Quote by: RickSp I wish Ron Paul well. He can be a loose cannon at times, but overall means well.

OK, you have come back to your senses.


Have you ever had blood work done? Perhaps a touch of Tourette's Snydrome going on in there?


You, and your outbursts...

[RickSp]

MB, your insults are such a waste of time. Boring too.

You wrote:

Quote by: MB I thought Alan Keyes would have been the best thing the Republican party ever produced in modern times, but as you say, the party noticed, and promptly abandoned him, and his ideals. Blanking schmucks !

I point out that Keyes is right-wing nut job of the lowest order and you get pissed at me? Would you mind explaining how this rabid racist fool "would have been the best thing the Republican party ever produced in modern times"? How could this talk-radio buffoon be good for the Republicans or any party?

[bishop]

it seems that MB's post was taken out of context...

his 2000 campaign did make constitutionalism its primary focus - and that is what MB agreed with. keyes's actions/statements regarding schaivo and obama are irrelavent to his 2000 campaign. the devil is, obviously, in the details with regard to gay/abortion/civil rights issues - which keyes have a visibly poor record on.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop it seems that MB's post was taken out of context... his 2000 campaign did make constitutionalism its primary focus - and that is what MB agreed with. keyes's actions/statements regarding schaivo and obama are irrelavent to his 2000 campaign. the devil is, obviously, in the details with regard to gay/abortion/civil rights issues - which keyes have a visibly poor record on.

I disagree that Alan Keyes made constitutionalism his primary, secondary or every tertiary focus during the 2000 campaign. The Alan Keyes for President 2000 Campaign Brochure doesn't mention the Constituion once. It's first sentence however is all about abortion.

If the Declaration of Independence states our creed, there can be no right to abortion, since it means denying the most fundamental right of all, to human offspring in the womb.

From there it is a laundry list of right wing social conservative issues. Constitutionalsim is never mentioned.

Likewise his speeches given during the campaign focus on his religious and social policies more than any other single topic. In fact Keyes demonstrates that his focus is religious rather than constitional.

This nation was founded on a clear, simple and easily stated premise. Right there in the Declaration, they make it crystal clear: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." The importance of that statement is that it makes it clear that the claim that we have to human rights and dignity does not come, as some folks in the ACLU want us to believe, from the Bill of Rights and it doesn't come from the Constitution, and it doesn't come from the laws passed by the Congress, and it doesn't come from the decisions that are taken by the Supreme Court. That claim to human dignity and human rights, which is the foundation of our whole way of life, rests on the power and the will, the existence and the authority of Almighty God--not on any human foundation., (Emphasis added)

Renew America rally in Alabama- April 29, 2000


Keyes interest in "constitutionalism" is wildly overstated.

[bishop]

i'm not very familiar with keyes's documented materials... for me, like many others, he was an unknown coming up to the 2000 election - first time i ever heard of him.

so, i learned the most from him from what i saw during the debates, and some speeches televised on cspan. in the debates, he definitely placed an emphasis on the constitution, and the founding fathers - he also put an emphasis on social/religious issues.

CNN Transcript - Special Event: First in the Nation: The New Hampshire Debates -- GOP Presidential Candidates Square off - January 26, 2000
CNN Transcript - Larry King Live: South Carolina Republican Debate - February 15, 2000
Online NewsHour: GOP Debate - February 16, 2000

in each debate, he did put a focus on the constitution, along with other issues. and from the speech you cited:

Quote by: keyes We don't need to reform the tax, we don't need to change its rates, we don't need to tinker with it, we don't need to take the code and do this or that, we don't need to simplify it, we don't need to flatten it. We need to abolish it, get rid of it, and return to the original Constitution!

now, i didn't support keyes solely because of his bible-thumping bigotry, but to opine that constitutionalism was a small/neglibible part of his campaign doesn't seem to hold up in light of statements made during speeches/debates. out of his party's competitors, nobody referred to traditional constitutionalist arguments nearly as much as keyes did.


to try and get this back on topic, the original point that i made, whse reply fell victim to being taken out of context, was that while keyes made constitutionalism an issue in his campaign - it didn't exactly resonate with the republican base. and since the party's base doesn't seem to care much for these issues (or approach to solving issues), i doubt that paul will fare much better.

[RickSp]

Agreed, Keyes is off topic. I still question if Keyes made constitutionalism much of an issue and if so whether that was the reason his campaign tanked. I think the fact that Keyes is a lunatic played a much larger role.

Of course "constitutionalism" as used by Keyes is highly suspect anyway. His suggestion that he wants to "return to the original Constitution" is doubtful as in its original version, it was a strongly pro-slavery document. I doubt that Keyes supports slavery, except possibly for homosexuals. But if Keyes supports the amended constitution then the 16th amendment contradicts all his speeches calling income tax a "slave tax". His "constitutionalism", so called, seems to want to pick and choose amendments.

Ron Paul only occassionally gets caught up in such things though he did propose using "letters of marque and reprisal" for fighting terrorism, as authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As Dr. Paul should have known, letters of marque and reprisal were abolished in international law in the 1850s. Folks are still laughing at him for that one.

[bishop]

Quote by: rick Agreed, Keyes is off topic. I still question if Keyes made constitutionalism much of an issue and if so whether that was the reason his campaign tanked. I think the fact that Keyes is a lunatic played a much larger role. Of course "constitutionalism" as used by Keyes is highly suspect anyway. His suggestion that he wants to "return to the original Constitution" is doubtful as in its original version, it was a strongly pro-slavery document. I doubt that Keyes supports slavery, except possibly for homosexuals. But if Keyes supports the amended constitution then the 16th amendment contradicts all his speeches calling income tax a "slave tax". His "constitutionalism", so called, seems to want to pick and choose amendments.

that also struck me as being totally inconsistent. on economic/spending issues, he seems to be a clear constitutionalist.. but then on the other hand, he favors legislated bigotry, as well as legislating federal support for religion (i.e. school prayer, etc.)..

i think that for most people, whenever they spot clear inconsistencies in what a candidate's saying - they tend to drop their support for that candidate. at least that was the case for me - not that i supported keyes to begin with, but i initially listened to what he had to say before ignoring him entirely.

Quote by: rick Ron Paul only occassionally gets caught up in such things though he did propose using "letters of marque and reprisal" for fighting terrorism, as authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As Dr. Paul should have known, letters of marque and reprisal were abolished in international law in the 1850s. Folks are still laughing at him for that one.

what i don't like about paul are his radical views on all economic/spending issues - particularly in abolishing the federal reserve (and placing central banking authority within the government instead). i'd rather he just focus on mandating balanced budgets and nothing more. that, and some of his other positions on these sorts of weighty issues, are not going to garner him lots of support in the primaries... (i could say that voters don't support radicals, but they did reelect bush in 2004, so....)

the only reason why i'd vote for paul, sad to say, is because i know he'll lose. i don't want ron paul's policies to be enacted in reality - i merely want our foreign/domestic policies to move in the direction of what paul advocates.

[RickSp]

Quote by: bishop what i don't like about paul are his radical views on all economic/spending issues - particularly in abolishing the federal reserve (and placing central banking authority within the government instead). i'd rather he just focus on mandating balanced budgets and nothing more. that, and some of his other positions on these sorts of weighty issues, are not going to garner him lots of support in the primaries... (i could say that voters don't support radicals, but they did reelect bush in 2004, so....) the only reason why i'd vote for paul, sad to say, is because i know he'll lose. i don't want ron paul's policies to be enacted in reality - i merely want our foreign/domestic policies to move in the direction of what paul advocates.

As a legislator Dr. Paul is in the comfortable position of voting against what he doesn't agree with, which is to say, most legislation. While I agree with many of his ultimate goals, his lack of any proposals of how to get there from here makes his positions functionally irrelevant. I definately do not agree with his more conservative views on foreign policy. His views on trade agreements and the UN seem to me to be a lot of cutting off ones nose to spite ones face.

Regrettably the fact that he has no chance of effecting the outcome of the election will mean that even his good ideas wil not be heard.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: RickSp Ron Paul only occassionally gets caught up in such things though he did propose using "letters of marque and reprisal" for fighting terrorism, as authorized in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As Dr. Paul should have known, letters of marque and reprisal were abolished in international law in the 1850s. Folks are still laughing at him for that one.

Had letters of marque and reprisal not been banned, would Dr. Paul's proposition still be laughable, in your opinion?

- Rob