Why is Dr. Paul the man for the Job?

I do not know really anything about Dr.Paul. I am a progressive so I tend to ignore the republican candidates. However, seeing so much Dr.Paul Support on this thread I have to ask, why him?

I would really appreciate you all sharing your information with me. I would love to hear why he is great, and why he is not.

Who knows, I could end up voting Republican for the first time in my life.

reply to post by Animal


Being the skeptical prick I am, I thought this "Ron Paul Fever" was just another attempt at shoeing in another white, rich, "underdog" Republican from Texas. I was dead set on voting for Kucinich, maybe even Biden. I started looking into Ron Paul more and more as the months went by trying to find dirt on him, and was ASTONISHED when I couldn't. Months rolled by and daily I would type in "Ron Paul" in conjunction with "bad, liar, false, fake, dishonest, conspiracy, flip flop," and everything else you can imagine.

I found one petty article that was ghost written that he had apologized for. I'm an amazing judge of character and I feel as though he was genuinely sorry and even puzzled as to where the article came from.

To me, he is the light for America.. Not to be dramatic or anything. I come from the side that doesn't vote based on absolute mistrust of all the candidates and I can say that I will do everything in my power to get this man elected. He's steady, balanced, truthful, genuine. This is the same man that's giving back his bonuses back to the federal government! WTF? When have you ever heard such a thing? Almost all of his campaign money is coming directly from people. Where you always see government lobbying and coercion, there is none with this man. If a politician is denying money even from his original salary... Something definitely RIGHT about him.

I think his personal morality speaks for itself too. He's an OBGYN, presents himself to be a true Christian, and has been married to the same woman for 50 years. No gay scandals or affairs involved.

He's different breed of politician. Those things that seem to attract your average politician are of no use or importance to him. Money, he gives it away. Sex, has been banging out the same lady for 50 years. Power, never votes against the will of the original creators of the country. Not even for personal benefit. This man doesn't want what's good for you and I personally, as other politicians don't. Though, the best thing about his campaign is he's taking the control away from the power mongers and FORCING the people to take part in politics that dictate the course of their life! He's pushing responsibility onto the people to act for their own good, instead of running for office to dictate control and regulation over all of us.

He's humbling. In retrospect, he makes me feel that all hope isn't lost and that the original freedom of our forefathers intended us of having may not be a fallacy, that we're believed never was and never can be. Like... WE finally have a chance to be heard and to live the way we are supposed to. Let the goodwill of humanity (what's left) take its course, instead of being forced to fear unseen forces abroad and at home. If this isn't a beacon of freedom, I really don't know what is.


Ron Paul 2008!

RIDE OR DIE!



[edit on 5-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Kucinich is for nearly everything Paul is for that is good, plus a whole bunch more (especially for a progressive). I don't know about dirt or dishonesty on Paul, but I strongly disagree with his stands on many issues. Here's a little score sheet I've made on Paul:

Ron Paul voted for:
1)Putting Attorney General Gonzales in charge of domestic electronic spying.

2)Eliminating the Estate Tax, a tax that applies to the 0.27% wealthiest of U.S. citizens.

3)Making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.

4)Banning gay adoptions in D.C.

5)Eliminating affirmative action in college admissions.

6)The bankruptcy bill pushed by the credit card companies.

7)Drilling in ANWR.

He voted against:
1)Raising the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s.

2)Statehood for D.C. whose residents have no voting representation in Congress.

3)Allowing stockholders to approve executive pay.

4)Strengthening the Social Security lockbox.

5)Restricting employer influence in union organizing.

6)OSHA's ergonomics rules, which protect workers against things like carpal tunnel syndrome.

7)Requiring lobbyists to disclose bundled donations.

8)Banning soft money political contributions.

9)Raising CAFE standards.


Paul was given a 37% rating by The League of Conservation Voters, compare that to Dennis Kucinich who received 100%.

Here's a couple different links for anyone who wants to check up on Ron Paul's stands/votes on a wide array of issues:

1: ontheissues.org...

2: www.progressivepatriots.com...

p.s. Also Paul is not for publically financed elections (he believes money is 'speech'). So the White House and our political offices will still be bought and sold under a Paul administration...

[edit on 5-12-2007 by Raoul Duke]

reply to post by Raoul Duke


What can I say other than, Raoul Duke you do do your homework.

That is a nice list you have created, and I appreciate the links. I also support Kucinich.

reply to post by Raoul Duke

Ron Paul voted for:
1)Putting Attorney General Gonzales in charge of domestic electronic spying.

# Opposes Patriot Act & Iraq War. (Jan 2007)
# Violating habeas corpus will be used against us.
# Be cautious about warrantless searches & habeas corpus. (May 2007)
# Criticizes use of war on terror to curtail civil liberties. (Jan 2007)

2)Eliminating the Estate Tax, a tax that applies to the 0.27% wealthiest of U.S. citizens.
3)Making Bush's tax cuts for the rich permanent.

# Immediately work to phase out the IRS. (May 2007)
# Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)
# Voted YES on providing tax relief and simplification. (Sep 2004)
# I have never voted for a tax increase; and never will. (Nov 2007)
# Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)
# Voted YES on permanently eliminating the marriage penalty. (Apr 2004)

4)Banning gay adoptions in D.C.

Not a federal issue. He votes no on issues like these because he's a congressmen from Texas, and it has nothing to do with him or the federal government. Most of the issues he votes no or yes on that seem questionable come down to whether or not the federal government should be involved.

5)Eliminating affirmative action in college admissions.

# Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Which is highly more important than race generated acceptance. Affirmative action is a joke and set up to segregate rather than unite. It's also hardly a federal level. State courts should decide the fate of this issue in the school they preside over. Not the federal government.

6)The bankruptcy bill pushed by the credit card companies.

# Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

As he holds corporations to the same standards as the people. It's called "balance."

7)Drilling in ANWR.

I don't entirely agree with this, as I don't agree on anything that takes the piss out of innocent life, or pristine landscapes.

He voted against:
1)Raising the minimum wage to a level comparable to that of the 1980s.

Catch up to the inflation that our fiat money system has provided for us? If you'd do reading into any of these subjects, you'd see that raising the minimum wage to any degree is detrimental for small business, while big business is unaffected.

Read.
Read.
Read.





That's just some of your points. There is no BLACK AND WHITE in life, let alone politics. I'm do not agree with him on several topics, as I do not with Kucinich, but you don't see me running around throwing wrenches in the gears of progression.

Waste your vote on Kucinich. At least the man I'm voting for has a chance in hell, and may even make your guy vice president. As far as going out of your way to prove a point that could potentially harm both of our causes, I think is a poor decision. Especially when you have no idea, not even a concept as to why he has voted the way he has. You automatically see it and say "bad." And that's exactly the kind of thinking that has landed us where we are right now.

Thanks for contributing to that perpetual cycle of ignorance.


[edit on 5-12-2007 by DeadFlagBlues]

Do you even understand the implications of having a universal healthcare program coupled with the heavy taxing we face already? Really, do you? Do you understand how much money we'd be giving our government that already blatantly abuses our current tax systems everyday of our life? You want to put more money and trust into the same institutions that have been raping the American people for the last 90 years?

Kucinich is a good guy, fellow vegan, and an absolute cornball, but why waste a vote when you could contribute to a campaign that can potentially win and eventually reform American policy at home and abroad? I like a lot of what he stands for, but I see the same concern for the American people through Ron Paul. You're wasting a vote if you go with Kucinich, that's obvious. If a candidate could make similar drastic changes if in power, and had a shot at actually winning, why wouldn't you do your part to help that? Or at least abstain from bashing it. If we could get back on our feet in the form of Ron Paul, that would open up plenty of breathing room for people like Dennis Kucinich.


This is all baby steps, and if you're not willing to take them, don't trip us up. We have a job to do. Seriously.

reply to post by Raoul Duke


I always tell those searching for info on Ron Paul, to actually do the research themselves -- and the best way to do that is to watch videos of Ron Paul speaking for himself. Raoul's post is a perfect example of why. If you're going to attempt putting someone in bad light for something they may have done or said -- especially if you're trying to convince others... atleast have the decency to tell them why the person in question did/said what they did. And if you don't know yourself, you shouldn't be putting your input into such an important subject matter. The question was directed at those who have actually done their homework, properly.

Animals,

DeadFlagBlues did quite well to clarify, but I sincerely hope you didn't just make your decision based on Raoul Duke's post. Do the research yourself. In a matter as important as the presidential elections -- where your decision could mean everything, thats the least you can offer.


[edit on 5/12/07 by Navieko]

reply to post by Animal




Don't take our word for it. If you like what he has to say, join us. If you don't, vote for Kucinich. Both of these men deserve it.


Biden and Gravel wouldn't be too bad either.

As DeadFlagBlues has pointed out Dr. Paul votes on the Constitution, Many of his votes you may disagree with but to understand them you must understand the powers given to congress and the limitations on it, to understand that you must read the constitution, if its not outlined in there, then it isn't a Federal issue and is to be left to the states to decide upon, hes made his personal stances clear on many occasions and made clear that though he understands and may have supported the "thought" of the issue, he couldn't vote for it because it wasn't in his power to do so....

Just because Congress votes on certain issues, doesn't mean they have the Constitutional power or authority to do so.. he understands this... his votes reflect it..


Unlike the other politicians who flip flop, he won't, because his foundation is firm
using his position for the purposes it was created for and understanding his own limitations in that position and the limitations of government, makes him the perfect candidate to lead this country, not only that but you cant get dirt on him because of this, unlike other politicians who get backed into a corner on a "personal belief" and flip flop their way out of it, he doesn't need to do this ever because he follows the rules and plays the game the way it was meant to be played...

He doesn't pander to get votes, he doesn't flip flop to get votes, he doesn't lie to get votes...

He does his job the way it is supposed to be done, he doesn't need to do anything else because that in and of itself is enough....

a politician shouldn't need to sell himself to you, or kiss you rear end, if they are following the oath they took to the CONSTITUTION of the United States, then which is the ONLY thing American should be Concerned about because that Constitution Protects you and your rights, If its followed then you'll never have an issue..

The current problems this country suffers form is due to the deviation of the Constitution....


If all of our leaders followed the Constitution, parties wouldn't matter at all.....


But most will still follow party lines and vote just to get a guy form their party into office, even though that guy may take some of their rights way, its ok because its not the "other guy"

They will vote based on race, or gender or some personal issue that government has no Constitutional control over in the first place just because its the thing to do, rather then looking at the issues, they will elect leaders with long records of lying and flip flopping, just because that politician made them feel all nice and happy at the local rally by kissing their rear ends...


And the Honest Patriot who stands true to his oath to the people, will be ignored... and this country will fall further into turmoil...




Out of Paul and Kucinich Paul has a much better chance, Id hope we could all elect Dr.Paul, id support Kucinich as VP


Now that would be One hell of an Administration.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by C0le]

Im glad to see that Americans are finally discussing the issue of America. You finally see there is a problem.

The whole planet is being turned into a giant computer program - and the spirit of our lifes are not really happy with it. We are not really aware what it is that makes us feel this heavy burden on our shoulders.

I get this feeling that it is the machinery that keeps us down. A machinery that really influence the way our thoughts are each day. We barely have time to remember who we are as individuals.

I blame the system. Im pretty far out, but even though Im lost and pretty much insane - I still blame the system for my insanity.

All I want to say is - If Ron Paul wins and he's goal is completed - Then I believe strongly - very strongly - That it can change our whole planet. Just like your current adminstration changed the planet, to this.

This country is so desperate for a president like Ron Paul... it's almost unbelievable a politician like him exists.


OP...you say you're 'progressive', and you're a dem? So, you're saying Hillary
is progressive? Edwards is progressive? Pardon my guffaw.

reply to post by lw2525


I don't think he/she is saying any of that. Regardless our party bias, we're all wondering who is going to step in with the right intentions and restore the sanctity our nation once had. He/she was leaning towards Kucinich, so they have to be a somewhat aware of what's going on.

Well if either Paul or Kucinich get their respective party nominations I'll eat the entire internet. But hypothetically a day where both were running for president would represent an unprecedented win / win scenario. As already mentioned, the 2 reaching out across party lines to form an alliance would provide a fascinating development.

The main thing to remember is to not lose momentum should either of these outstanding candidates fail to get nominated. If the Paul / Kucinich supporters got together I think there would be a solid base of people power to mobilise and save Amerika. Don't wait for the nomination game to play out, get busy!

Originally posted by lw2525
This country is so desperate for a president like Ron Paul... it's almost unbelievable a politician like him exists.


OP...you say you're 'progressive', and you're a dem? So, you're saying Hillary
is progressive? Edwards is progressive? Pardon my guffaw.

i had to stop reading at tis post to reply...


did i mention any names? oh yes i did kucinich.

I do not like either Hillary or Edwards, or really even Obama for that matter. I guess my oint in telling you i am progressive has nothing to do with Candidates, it has to do with my political ideology...

also I would pardon your guffaw if only I knew what you were guffawing at...


I might as well assure the other posters, I will not dismiss Dr.Paul simply because of what people post here, I really am interested in learning more about the man.

funny there were only 2 posts left to read...anyway...

First off thanks for sharing you thoughts on the Doctor, and links to further information. I agree with the last few posts that a united ticket with Paul / Kucinich would be amazing.

I will have to look into Paul in a little more depth, being a progressive I do believe in the importance of things like universal (in some form) health care, me and my wife pay half of what we pay in a mortgage to health care, and it still blows goats balls. While I have o agree with the sentiment posted earlier, it seems insane to give more money to the establishment that has been robbing me for decades.

Still this is not the only issue I vote for, and in today's world there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed with a quickness and I see nothing so far to convince me that Paul is not the man for the job.

There are too many responses to respond to each one, I did see that it was suggested that I listen to Paul's rhetoric instead of looking at his voting record. Well, I think a politician's voting record is the ultimate in judging them. A politician will say or do anything to get elected, but you've got to look at what she or he has done while in office, this is the true judge of a politician.

Also on the issue of the federal government being involved in a whole host of things. The federal government normally gets involved in something, because a state isn't doing a particular function. Like at the present time a lot of people are calling for single payer universal healthcare (Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate to propose this), no state in the union has such a program. So I don't find this to be convincing either.

[edit on 6-12-2007 by Raoul Duke]

reply to post by Raoul Duke


For having that avatar, you sure are oblivious to the powers that be whom are trying to save this #'d up world.

And there is a reason the United States doesn't have a universal healthcare program and I went over that in my post. Give it a read. Just because you watched "Sicko," I wouldn't go thinking you're some kind of aficionado on the subject. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Entrusting that amount of responsibility and money would be real genius idea in itself.


Once again. .

reply to post by Animal


Just do your own research on who to vote for. I firmly believe that if enough people can be made aware of what the candidates stand for, and how they have behaved in the past, that the choice will be obvious.

The way the party system works is to blind people to the history of a candidate as a person by emphasizing loyalty to a party. They want you to think that because the wheelers and dealers in the party itself pick someone, then you should follow them with blind trust and vote the way they tell you to.

Does anyone ever notice that what all these party leaders are really telling you is that you're too stupid to decide for yourself, so they'll tell you what you need to know, and who you should vote for.

The American political system, as it is now run, is one big "put down" to the intelligence of the citizens.

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by Raoul Duke

 

For having that avatar, you sure are oblivious to the powers that be whom are trying to save this #'d up world.

Hmmm?

And there is a reason the United States doesn't have a universal healthcare program and I went over that in my post. Give it a read. Just because you watched "Sicko," I wouldn't go thinking you're some kind of aficionado on the subject. The costs far outweigh the benefits. Entrusting that amount of responsibility and money would be real genius idea in itself.

We're already paying the costs of universal healthcare, but we don't have it. Instead 50 million people are uninsured...

reply to post by Raoul Duke


And if we keep our current taxing systems and implement a UHC system, our families will go without. Especially with the weakness of the dollar. Healthcare takes a backseat to the our current economic crisis.