It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rep. Ron Paul

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
This question is primarily for the Libs & Repub teams, but open for all: What's wrong with Ron Paul!?!?!?!?

He ran for president as a Libertarian, he votes consistently with Democrats, and he's an elected Republican. I'd think that an amalgam individual like this would garner one of your nominations?

I know parties are controlled by factions, but what has black listed him from a National Ticket, in your opinions?


[edit on 8-26-2004 by Valhall]




posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Ron Paul is the most consistent voter in Congress, he votes on a bill based solely on whether it's constitutional or not. Not only does he not vote for a bill if it's unconstitutional, he gets on the floor of the house and points out why it's not constitutional. Watch C-Span and he'll be there. His "thorn in the side" factor plays a large part in why he's "blacklisted" as you put it.

He's the founder and Chairman of something called the "The Liberty Comittee". This group, powered by thousands of liberty conscience Americans works to shrink the size of government. In fact, the National ID card may have passed after 9-11 had it not been for the behind the scenes work of this group! Another good example of what they can do is an instance where they made a call to arms and increased the support of a House Bill to leave the UN by 37% in three days. You can read a more in depth article of this commitee at WorldNetDaily.

The Democrats and Republicans both need the government in its current behemoth state to operate. It's what gives them power. Taking those powers away would be harmful to the parties. Ron Paul isn't concerned with politics, he's concerned with doing what he believes is right. Sadly, that's what would keep him off a national Republican ticket.

What keeps him off a national Libertarian ticket again is himself. He's doing much more for the cause of liberty in the House then he ever could running a (and it pains me to say it) losing Presidential campaign.

I'm glad you brought him up, I've been interested in Ron Paul since I learned about him during the last Presidential election. He's one of the very few honest politicians in Washington.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 04:52 PM
link   
And C-Span is where I first learned of him.
Has anyone else had their C-Span 2 & 3 dropped by their cable company? Good old complict Time Warner is my vendor.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 08:01 PM
link   
You practically can't have a discussion about Ron Paul without someone bringing up his interview with gunowners.org discussed on ATS in Congressman Ron Paul on Guns, Money and the NWO. Nor can anyone review his condemnation of the big government, anti-civil liberties, imperialistic Neo-Cons currently in power and easily dismiss the obvious implications that he's really a Libertarian "mole" currently operating as a Republican.

But I continue to try.
As I think what is so refreshing about Paul is his transcendence of labels and ideologies in general. I don't think he's "just a Libertarian" and were they in power, he'd have serious problems with them as well, including the implications of an all powerful ideologically driven free market society (as he clearly has problems with Rupert Murdoch's monopolistic role in promoting the Neo-con agenda).

I've been looking for a non politician based "party ideology" discussion since this forum began, and I think Ron Paul may be as good a keynote speaker as anyone.

What is so good about him, in my opinion, is the ability to transcend those labels and see the good and bad in everything. I'm no Ron Paul expert, but I seriously doubt he'd ever rely on strict party ideology (Republican, Democrat or Libertarian) to justify anything that didn't make sense, though I think the party's often do in many instances.

My biggest beef to date then with most of the conservative (R and L) positions in these forums is with the "free market" mantras and capitalism as a moral imperative forgoing any ability to address inherent problems for the sake of ideology. I'm sure someone can point out an example of a similar instance of Liberal ideology superceding common sense, but I'll leave that to another.

For now, either in the context of WWRPD (what would Ron Paul do) or just in the general spirit of ideological transcendence...

When is "less government" not enough government, and in some areas aren't we already there?

How can anyone not support a stronger FCC actually doing it's regulatory job in light of Paul's remarks on Murdoch and Ted Turner's remarks on himself.

How can anyone not support a stronger FDA doing it's job to protect citizens, not just protect corporate profits from Canadian reimportation?

And how can anyone (with a straight face) suggest the free market notion that corporate polluters are the best environmental police?

I'm really stuck on this "free market" captialist ideology and the notion that the only problems we have in this country arise from governmental solutions and the market would fix everything if we just let it go to hell.

Just from the news how can anyone not know better by watching the Hurricane disaster price gouging in Florida? Or just watching the Daily Show and the story of a Getty Oil distributor being run out of business by the corporate masters for charging too little for gas?

Allow me to oversimplify the prevailing party ideologies now.

(And I think only one will probably object.)

Republicans are for Corporations.
Libertarians are for Individuals.
Democrats are for Society.

Overall, that's somewhat fair I think and most would agree (except for one of course).

So who's up for a compromise besides Ron Paul? I am.



posted on Aug, 25 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Rant


While I don’t necessarily agree on all of Ron Paul’s views (guns for everybody?) I certainly do about government and the neocon faction now in charge.

Part of the problem is the fact that all other factions are either following their party standard blindly, been converted, or are being silenced. (Edit: Ron Paul's refusal to blindly follow a party ideology is likely the cause of his blacklisting IMHO.)

The party system is at the root of the current polarizations taking place in society and is used as a tool of control by the real powers. They set up a false dichotomy and reap the benefits from both sides. The question is how do you break that money driven system and put in place one that is good for the commons?

In Canada we have the same problems but on a smaller scale and somewhat under more control because we have multiple parties. But within each party the problem is the same and there is increasing overlap between the policies and philosophies of the mainstream parties.

How do you change the party system to one based on issues rather than ideology?

Does it begin with some sort of proportional representation to get more voices into government? This would bring you closer to the Canadian model that is lacking in many respects.

I would like to see the absolute abolishment of the party system.

Politics must be local and representative with all candidates independent. Then true democratic majorities could govern each issue based on the conscious of each representative and their constituent’s wishes instead of the block voting we now have based on loyalty to party affiliations.

What is the danger to the “government” of "we the people" educating our self and getting involved in truly participatory democracy with proper representation? Many things should be done at the local level. The structure of the different layers of government needs to be changed and who gets to run things must be based on real and relevant qualifications. This means that the way representatives are chosen needs to change. This goes much further than “Campaign Finance Reform”.

Secrecy and deception is anathema to this.

It may be too late to change things for this election but Americans should at least get a promise from all the candidates that the system itself will get a good hard look no matter who wins.

Edit: answered original poster's question.

[edit on 8/25/2004 by Gools]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join