Paul -- what's not to like?

  • Follow Letters

Friends repeatedly surprise me in conversations about whom they will support in the upcoming presidential elections by their dismissals of Ron Paul, my preferred candidate.

The Augusta Chronicle and the Associated Press articles it prints mimics my friends’ dismissals with scant coverage of Dr. Paul in comparison to Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, apparently supporting the preconception that “he is unelectable.” When I ask why, there is rarely negative feedback about his specific policies, but rather personal preferences – “I don’t like the way he talks,” or, in a false twisting of his position, “he would leave America defenseless against terrorism,” and so forth. What is there not to like about Ron Paul’s policies?

What do The Chronicle and some conservatives have against peace? What do you not like about the idea of bringing our troops home and actually defending America, instead of sending them abroad to “build” nations such as Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? Do you seek to encourage more of the unending wars we have had since 1941 – of which only that first has met the constitutional demand that Congress declare war – to promote sales of your paper? Why do some dismiss the views of our own soldiers, who give more of their own money to Paul than to all other Republican candidates combined, and considerably more than they give to President Obama?

What do some liberals not like about Paul’s insistence that Americans should be free to work, and business firms free to hire, at prices the two agree upon, without being forced to join a dues-collecting union?

What do you oppose about Paul’s legislation to audit the Federal Reserve; to end the addition of yet more trillions of dollars to our government’s debt, which citizens will be forced to pay; to let Americans keep a higher percentage of their paychecks; and to restore a dollar backed by something more sound than congressional IOUs?

What do some Christians not like about Paul’s opposition to federal mandates to religious-based schools concerning what they must teach, or to hospitals and even to church organizations about what they must provide their employees and patients, even when those mandates violate the faith on which those institutions were founded?

What do you not like about Paul’s proposed bill that would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and stop federal judges from dictating against those states that choose to protect life? What do you dislike about his Sanctity of Life Act, which would define a human life as beginning at conception?

Does The Chronicle only pretend to stand for the principle that all humans have a right to life, liberty and property? Why do many liberals mouth their support of human rights, and why do many conservatives appeal to a faith in God, then belittle the only candidate in this race who, for 24 years in Congress, has consistently supported tiny government; a true free market; a strong defense that does not roam the world seeking dragons to slay; and laws that leave all Americans free to pursue their own ends?

What do you not like about freedom?

Frank Williams

Augusta

Comments (24) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Freedomwarrior
0
Points
Freedomwarrior 03/25/12 - 07:21 am
7
0
I signed up just so I could

I signed up just so I could thank you Mr. Williams for the best article on Ron Paul since his campaign began. You said it perfectly. I have made this same argument. Why anyone not want to end the federal reserve or bring our troops home or abolish the IRS? We live in a sad day when so called Christians won't back a man as Dr. Paul but vote for someone who has flip flopped on abortion and many other moral issues and to protect our gun rights.
We need more reporters like you to get this message out.

wribbs
436
Points
wribbs 03/25/12 - 08:51 am
5
0
He's the only republican

He's the only republican candidate talking about making real changes to America; changes that are going to be made either by an elected official or when this country goes bankrupt. We cannot continue to spend money we don't have and get away with it forever. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum, only want to tinker with the system a little bit and prolong the inevitable.

They don't want real change, they want to be in charge.

SCV Sam
0
Points
SCV Sam 03/25/12 - 09:20 am
2
7
Mr. Frank, Dr. Paul
Unpublished

Mr. Frank, Dr. Paul probably would be better than the foreign borne anti-American communist freedom stealer now occupying the White House for certain. But unlike Senator Santorum (or Gov. Palin should the Lord's will be a brokered convention) he will not bomb Iran and liberate it , allowing us to see $1.25 gasoline.

Neither has Dr. Paul taken the strong stand on MORALITY that Santorum and Palin have. Will Dr. Paul outlaw abortion ( including forms of so called "birth control" ) and enforce laws against fornication, pornography, adultery, shacking up and divorce and restore America's moral greatness ? I ask you. For me and my family that is respectfully what is not to like.

Steve62351
66
Points
Steve62351 03/25/12 - 10:21 am
0
0
Mr. Frank Williams, Many of

Mr. Frank Williams, Many of us would like to live in a world where each country could do as your letter says. But, we don't. Instead, the world is on an unstoppable coalescence to globalism that has been going on since Marco Polo Thus no country can pull back from the world. In other words, Mr. Paul is wrong, and so are you, in promoting the the idea of "...bringing our troops home and actually defending America." America can't be defended from within. If America could, then Pearl Harbor won't have happened on Dec 7, 1941. If America could, then the World Trade Center Towers would still be standing. If America could, then I wouldn't be writing a comment on a computer made in Mexico that sends a signal to a modem made in China, which is connected with copper wire mined in Peru to a server with components and software in it from several foreign countries around the world. That's the reason not to like what Ron Paul says and thinks. And, the fact that so many people around the world don't understand the inevitability of globalism is causing gigantic problems worldwide: The Greeks think they can return to the Drachma, and they probably will because of their absolute blindness as a people (much like we here in America) to the reality of physics: We live on a planet that is getting smaller with every technological advance. It is becoming impossible for any one country to "go it alone" and try to live only within itself. Look around you, what would America do without the finished products, raw materials, medicines, even people from other countries? How would you get to work without oil from the Middle east countries, or Nigeria in Africa, or Venezauela in South America, or Mexico, or Canada? The United States has oil reserves to supply all the oil we need without imports, but that oil is not currently available. Are you going to stop driving to work until oil from U.S. wells is available? Do you live within walking distance of the grocery store? How will the groceries get to the grocery store without foreign oil being refined into diesel for the trucks to bring food from all over the country to your grocery store? What isn't to like about Mr. Ron Paul's thinking: He demonstrates a severely limited grasp of where the world is headed, no country can stay isolated and think they can merely carry on commerce with foreign nations. A significant, specific position of Mr Ron Paul that you left out of your letter to the Chronicle was that he has stated over and over that he would let Iran do whatever it wants to do regarding acquiring the ability to make nuclear weapons. That statement is beyond incredibly naive and the remark of a person in total denial of the world we live in. So, yes, I hear plenty to not like in what Mr. Ron Paul says.

prov227
3279
Points
prov227 03/25/12 - 10:52 am
6
0
Wonderful and well written

Wonderful and well written letter! Anyone who thinks that an elected president will become moralizer-in-chief is mixing state with church. We are given the gift of grace individually in accepting to follow Christ. We cannot make this decision politically as a "nation". Santorum will not solve the problems that are the cause of the moral decay of the country. A state-supported "inquisition" will not work. Maybe we should be listening to the Biblical teachings of "honest weights and measures". Nations that destroy their monetary unit follow in moral decay in other areas. Santorum does not address this most important and Constitutionally-approved governmental responsibility.

His record, as a former senator, in voting to enlarge government programs and add to the national debt is abysmal.

Bombing Iran, to "liberate it" and expecting gas prices to drop to $1.25 is absurd, with all due respect. What next, will we "liberate" the oppressed Chinese? Pakistanis? Venezuelans? Where does this foreign policy end? World empire and bankruptcy.

broad street narrow mind
348
Points
broad street narrow mind 03/25/12 - 11:01 am
5
0
soldiers giving their little
Unpublished

soldiers giving their little bit of money to the only candidate not interested in sending them off to wars for profit of the few and already rich should mean something to all those who "support our troops." if it doesn't mean voting for ron paul, those who "support our troops" should at least understand our troops want the wars to end ten years ago.

nevadasmith
0
Points
nevadasmith 03/25/12 - 12:46 pm
3
0
First, All I hear from people

First, All I hear from people that I talk to about Ron Paul is,and always is, the same refrain:"He's too old".Never,He has the wrong Policies,always,"but He's too old".It frustrates the heck out of me.I never even get to say my "good stuff" like: The Day of Fiscal Reckoning is coming so Vote for The Man who Reckoned it was coming; or Freedom and Liberty for all Vote for Ron Paul. Nobody wants to read my: "GOP Meltdown"; "RON PAUL 2012 This was their finest hour"; etc. I can't impress anyone with my "witty" Campaign songs: Jerry Reed's "East Bound and Down" -We're gonna do what they say can't be done; Or, Aimee Mann's "Wise Up"(To GOP)-You got what you want,now you can hardly stand it. You know,I hardly care anymore. I am my own "Bastogne", my own "Paul Revere" so : Go to Americans Elect dot org. to ensure that Ron Paul is The Historic First Internet Nominated Presidential Candidate on all Fifty State Ballots for Nov.6, 2012. Maybe when The American people wake up, say about Labor Day, and realize that The only choice they have been given for President is: Democratic same old and Republican same old; Then Ron Paul, Dr.Ron Paul, may not look that old.

nevadasmith
0
Points
nevadasmith 03/25/12 - 12:50 pm
0
0
The Nuclear Meltdown That the

The Nuclear Meltdown That the GOP Presidential Nomination has become (And Sheldon Adelsons money still plays)

With Jeb Bush‘s, after The Illinois’ Primary, too little too late, Endorsement of GOP Frontrunner Mitt Romney, it becomes more and more apparent that The GOP Presidential Nomination process has entered The Nuclear Meltdown Stage.Jeb Bush’s endorsement or Romney will end up being a futile attempt to stop a Nuclear Fission like chain reaction that is out of its containment vessel. A GOP meltdown can not now be averted.
Significant High Level GOP endorsements may have had credibility and would have worked at the beginning of this Electoral process, but certain turbulent forces in the GOP are no longer willing to be contained. Discredited by many unfairly, The Reborn Tea Party was about Fiscal Conservatism, not the bastardized Ideological Conservatism promoted by some opportunists, something that The Republican Party has been unable or unwilling to understand. The GOP still tried to take advantage of an Ideological weapon of mass destruction without considering the possible self-contamination or blowback possibilities. Our present state of affairs conclusively proves they have failed.
Initially, The true but unrecognized Front runner, due to a total media ignore, was Congressman Ron Paul, He had already unofficially been The GOP front runner and only candidate for a year--actually he had never stopped running since the 2008 GOP McCain catastrophe-this failure to come to terms with Congressman Paul, a continuing benign neglect, would be indicative of the GOP nominating process for all the GOP Presidential -Elect hopefuls‘. By the fall, the beginning of The Official GOP race, with the other Presidential-Elect Hopefuls like: Former Gov.Mitt Romney; Rick Santorum; Gov.Rick Perry; Michelle Bachman; Newt Gingrich;John Huntsman; Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain, all gave the loose appearance of a grand unified strategy; A Posse to unseat President Barrack Obama.All of them, except Mr. Ron Paul,-who goes by the beat of his own drummer and serves a higher calling-seemed so overly confident, as if The GOP nod and aiming at a sitting Incumbent guaranteed The White House, never realizing that POTUS would never be a sitting target-No one gets to be The President by being a sitting target for any of his opponents. Most soon found out to their dismay, except for a surprising surge by Mr. Cain, that you have to be for something, not just against The Incumbent.
After The South Carolina Primary, there remained Four GOP candidates with three different visions,--Like in any new marriage--One borrowed, one old, and one new. Mr. Romney brought The borrowed: The same politics as usual, as the Incumbent but Republicanized. Mr. Santorum brought the old; an antiquated Religious zeal and anti modernity .Mr. Paul brought the new; a vision for the future coupled with fiscal conservatism. And Newt Gingrich brought Sheldon Adelsons money.
If at any time The GOP old guard, (The Republican elite?) Were going to chime in, they had to do it now.
I suspect that: All the Republicans on the sidelines, the ambitious Hopefulls, the jugglers and the clowns; were watching and waiting for some signs of GOP distress or fatal missteps by The Democratic sitting Incumbent. While history was passing them by, an extraordinary vision of the GOP future was being squandered, the mediocratic vision of The GOP as business as usual was not being promoted .The extremist retro vision of GOP intolerant Religious dogma had not been suppressed, and of course, Sheldon Adelsons money still played on.
The GOP now is in Purgatory, The Vision of The future is lost, albeit still in a lonely rear guard action, and the vision of the same old and the disparaged past will battle away until all that was, and is good and Godly about the Republican Party has been dissipated. Welcome to the MELTDOWN!

nevadasmith pseudonym
Full Disclosure: I have and will still be supporting Ron Paul.

nevadasmith
0
Points
nevadasmith 03/25/12 - 12:54 pm
3
0
THE DAY OF FISCAL RECKONING

THE DAY OF FISCAL RECKONING IS COMING SO VOTE FOR THE MAN WHO RECKONED IT WAS COMING
RON PAUL
In an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal, published yesterday on March 20, Congressman Paul Ryan finally lets “the cat out of the bag”; On January 13, 2013, just days before our next President is Inaugurated, The Day of destiny for the Budget and Deficit will be upon us all. Knowing Politicians the way we all know them, invariably The American Budget and Deficit crisis will again be a “can kicked down the road”.The Budget and Deficit Armageddon will be faced at the beginning of the next Presidential Term, should not A Man,A Statesman, who has spent his whole life preparing for this moment be the one to lead us?Is it not The Duty of every Republican, no everyone who cares to call themselves an American to now Rally around The One Man who almost his whole Public Service Career has been a Cassandra to This pressing Fiscal crisis.
Back in The day, before the richest man in the world Mexican Billionaire Carlos Slim owned a controlling interest in the New York Times, I would have expected The Times-all the news that’s fit to print-to be one of Ron Paul’s Staunchest advocates. I would have expected to see every day when a some new MIT Sloan School of Management Professor who used to be on The Federal Reserve or IMF, or Billion dollar Fund manager, or Improbable Trader bestseller book writer, or another member of Congress or Senator, that comes out in support of a Ron Paul Economic Policy without saying Ron Paul,for the NYT's to be gently guiding its readership, The American People to the obvious conclusion. The Day of Fiscal Reckoning is Coming so Vote For The Man Who Reckoned It Was Coming,Ron Paul.
I don’t think I can count on Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg’s News. Or any other New Media Outlet that depends on a pretty face or five second news blip to survive, to give full exploration to the most serious dilemma of our time.
I am an Optimist and a sentimentalist: I still think that all will come out all right;that this fight will be won on November 6, 2012. And I will have been part of something so special; to paraphrase Winston Churchill: If America “lasts a thousand years men will still say this was their finest hour”

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG
76
Points
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG 03/25/12 - 01:06 pm
2
4
Point of Reference: This is a

Point of Reference: This is a letter to the editor, not an article. Now, more relevantly, Ron Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored 620 pieces of legislation during his tenure as a Representative from Texas. Of those bills, only 1 was signed into law. That’s a success rate of less than 0.2%. So please tell me, what Ron Paul brings to the table, other than unanimously unpopular ideas.

Techfan
6461
Points
Techfan 03/25/12 - 02:19 pm
2
4
Paul has his 12%-14% crazed

Paul has his 12%-14% crazed zealous followers. He represents a district that is carved with gaps and has areas that aren't contiguous. The proposed new district is better geographically, but still a safe district for Paul. He will never be more than a Congressman, unless appointed to another position.

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG
76
Points
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG 03/25/12 - 02:57 pm
0
0
@Pipeline I could answer

@Pipeline

I could answer every question directly, but I do not suppose that would matter much to you. Instead, I will answer them generally. My personal status has improved greatly over the past five years. I am not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but my overall wealth has risen and my quality of life is high. Now here are my responses. How are gas prices? Gas prices are driven by the world market. China’s increasing demand helps to raise the overall price of crude. Compound that with no new refinery capabilities since 1979 and you get an unstable market that sees prices increase. How will Ron Paul decrease China’s demand for crude or increase refinery capabilities? Where on his platform has he stated that? How will Ron Paul increase the USA’s “unfavorable” world opinion? The EPA is in charge of monitoring carcinogens and other toxins. The GOP stands for a decisively smaller government and seeks to reduce and/or eliminate agencies such as the EPA. Ron Paul running under the “Republican” ticket and seeking to “expand” such EPA responsibilities is somewhat counter-intuitive and suggests he is either completely out of touch with his party’s values or he simply does not care. In which case, he should run as an independent, which he will ultimately do, in my opinion. But it still begs the question as to why he is in a candidate in the GOP primaries to begin with. The answer is because his congressional district is in a deeply rooted conservative state, Texas, and he would have ultimately never been elected/re-elected as a non-republican. And since he is a registered Republican he is on the Republican ticket, for now. So just what will Ron Paul do to strengthen the EPA’s stronghold on America’s public-health that has not already been thought of or put into place? As I recall, smoking bans are popping up left and right, for the better, appliances are more energy efficient than ever, and vehicles are continuously being produced with better gas mileage capabilities. The housing market and unemployment rates are on the incline, not necessarily because of Obama’s public policy, but because that’s what happens after a recession. So ultimately, those would improve regardless of who takes office. My personal liberties are fine. This argument angers me more than any other. I do not feel like one right has been taken from me as a citizen of this nation. And anyone who feels that way is sadly out of touch with reality. I think everyone can agree with the idea that senseless wars need to go, but do you really believe Ron Paul will bring the troops home the day he takes office. Tragically, America will always be the World Police no matter who is in office. Unconventional ideas do not work in a democracy because they are unpopular. Only popular ideas prevail, because they are the “status quo.” Nothing will ever change that principle, so long as we continue to be a democracy. That is why radicals do not get elected in this nation. Every successful candidate is a moderate who sways slightly towards their party’s side, and is great speaker. By the way, the blog name-dropping, makes your argument seem slightly discrediting.

TParty
6003
Points
TParty 03/25/12 - 03:09 pm
1
0
pipeline010's comment at

pipeline010's comment at 11:45am is absolutely 100% correct.

Look at how much money Obama was given to run his Presidency. Whoever will be the GOP nominee- I'll tell you who will the next election: The one who raises the most money. Doesn't matter about ideals and what our politicians really believe. It's whoever is lining their pockets that will dictate who is in charge and what they will do.

Who raises the most money will win the election.

Eve Marie
0
Points
Eve Marie 03/25/12 - 03:23 pm
5
0
@Imrightyourwrong- With all

@Imrightyourwrong-
With all due respect, congress has the lowest approval rating EVER. Had members of congress sided with Ron Paul on many of these issues, perhaps the people wouldn't think so poorly of them. Just because 534 members voted against the people, does not reflect on Ron Paul, but rather the 534.
The fact that he is elected over and over again by his constituents, vs Rick Santorum losing BADLY, tells us something?
As POTUS, Dr. Paul would have the bully pulpit to help get some of this legislation passed. He could do other things, such as not sign budget bills that further enslave our grandkids in debt, bring the troops home, and wake the walking dead citizenry up about the decline our nation is in, the true roots of the problems and solutions to get us out.

patriotsdaughter
0
Points
patriotsdaughter 03/25/12 - 05:20 pm
2
0
It frustrates me greatly that

It frustrates me greatly that Ron Paul does not receive more of the Christian vote.In my opinion he is the most "biblically based" Christian in this race,and if more Christians would read his "Statement of Faith",and compared it to his voting record,they would surely see that.I realize that he refuses to use his faith to obtain votes,and I respect that,I just wish people would bring this out about him more.Ron Paul=Peacekeeper="blessed are the peacekeepers for they shall be called the children of god." Mat 5:9

allhans
24050
Points
allhans 03/25/12 - 06:45 pm
0
4
We know that Ron Paul will

We know that Ron Paul will NOT be president, so what are we doing here. So he has good ideas, okay... He is much too Libertarian for me and most Republicans.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 03/25/12 - 07:20 pm
1
3
Well for one thing there are

Well for one thing there are his racist newsletters. From there we can move on to his short-sighted isolationist views.

Robert Fallin
0
Points
Robert Fallin 03/25/12 - 07:23 pm
0
0
The utter irony of those who

The utter irony of those who argue that Santorum or Gingrich bombing Iran will bring about "$1.25 gasoline" is that Santorum and Gingrich's remarks, along with the ill-advised sanctions against Iran are what has destabilized the oil market and brought about the high gas prices. That, along with the inflation brought about by Fed Chairman Ben Beranke's "quantitative easing," which is nothing more than debasing the US dollar. Santorum may talk a good story about "family values," but he also continued to back Coach Sandusky after Sandusky had been accused of sexually violating those boys. Santorum also repeatedly voted to fund Planned Parenthood. Gingrich's shameful treatment of his first two wives has been well chronicled and he has convicted himself on his respect for the rule of law by his support of the National Defense Authorization Act and his proposal to arrest federal judges with whom he does not agree. Nobody "puts the gun to you head" to force you or your children to use drugs or view pornography, yet you would readily do than to stop someone else. That is not the Christian way.

Little Lamb
47042
Points
Little Lamb 03/25/12 - 07:56 pm
0
4
Even though I like his

Even though I like his platform, I will not vote for a septuagenarian for president.

pff136
0
Points
pff136 03/25/12 - 08:44 pm
3
0
SCV Sam says: "Neither has

SCV Sam says: "Neither has Dr. Paul taken the strong stand on MORALITY that Santorum and Palin have. Will Dr. Paul outlaw abortion ( including forms of so called "birth control" ) and enforce laws against fornication, pornography, adultery, shacking up and divorce and restore America's moral greatness ?"

You cannot legislate MORALITY! What you suggest is for our government and president to be totally authoritarian. What you suggest we have is TYRANNY. Where's the freedom of choice? We have INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO AS LONG AS THEY ARE NOT HURTING ANYONE ELSE. Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government has the right to force morality on Americans? It doesn't.

You also said: "But unlike Senator Santorum (or Gov. Palin should the Lord's will be a brokered convention) he will not bomb Iran and liberate it , allowing us to see $1.25 gasoline."

You go on about MORALITY but you have no problem whatsoever of starting a massive war on Iran and killing millions of innocent people. What hypocrisy! And you're forgetting something; this would be starting a war with three other nuclear powers: China, Russia, and India. You're fine with another un-American pre-emptive strike to start WWIII just so because somewhere in the recesses of your mind, you really believe we'll have gas at $1.25? You obviously know nothing about the coming economic catastrophe and hyperinflation.

pff136
0
Points
pff136 03/25/12 - 08:55 pm
2
1
Bruno says: "Well for one

Bruno says: "Well for one thing there are his racist newsletters. From there we can move on to his short-sighted isolationist views."

And if you don't know what's going on, why speak? Dr. Paul had 12 years STRAIGHT of his newsletters on financial advice with not a single blurp about racism AT ALL. He left Congress in 1985 and the questionable content started 3 years after he had left D.C. to return to his ob/gyn practice in Texas. And the racist material showed up in only about 3 issues then it stopped for another 6 months and then the L.A. Riots issue came out which the author was found (and it wasn't Paul). This was during a time when people did NOT have computers in their homes, they didn't have the internet, they didn't have fast communication other than tv, telephone, and newspapers. I was here then. Knowing how much the establishment would LOVE to take him out, it wouldn't surprise me one bit to find that someone in the 1980s would put out questionable content in order to hurt Dr. Paul's reputation. This is a doctor who gave services to women of ALL RACES (oftentimes giving FREE SERVICES TO THOSE WHO COULDN'T AFFORD IT). It would only take one issue with questionable content to be put out and Dr. Paul to not catch it right away to hurt his reputation. Newsletters and newspapers were our internet at the time. It is very possible that Dr. Paul didn't read all those issues (which he said he didn't) because there had been no problems with them the first 12 years! He put too much trust in ghostwriters and he took moral responsbility for not keeping up with them. One of Dr. Paul's brothers is a CPA and did his financial records one year. He said Dr. Paul delivered nearly 350 babies that year (that's almost a baby a day!) and you think it couldn't be possible for him to miss reading an issue right away? Of course it could be.............And mentioning "Isolationist views" makes me think you're a neocon who is only here to knock the good doctor. Those who push sanctions endlessly on nations is an isolationist view. There are better ways to deal with other countries. With thousands of diplomats, it's about time we use them!

pff136
0
Points
pff136 03/25/12 - 09:08 pm
2
1
IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG said: "Now,

IMRIGHTYOUREWRONG said: "Now, more relevantly, Ron Paul has sponsored or co-sponsored 620 pieces of legislation during his tenure as a Representative from Texas. Of those bills, only 1 was signed into law. That’s a success rate of less than 0.2%. So please tell me, what Ron Paul brings to the table, other than unanimously unpopular ideas."

No, it shows the contempt towards the Constitution the rest have had for a long time. Spending money seems to be a very popular pastime of Congress. The one bill that passed last year was the partial audit of the Federal Reserve (Ron Paul's bill) and was the first time in the Fed's history that there has been ANY kind of audit on the one institution manipulating our money supply, stealing us blind with an invisible "Inflation tax" to bail out big bankers (both domestic and foreign) among many questionable places, and devaluing our currency to near nothing. That was a HUGE accomplishment for Dr. Paul. The so-called "popular idea" bills you refer to are generally 2,000+ page bills that no one seems to read. Congress doesn't even know what's in them! The reason Dr. Paul voted "no" to the vast majority of them was because he hires about 40 trusted individuals to read EVERY bill so he knows what he's voting on (you can't say that about the other members of Congress). They don't even know what they're voting on. And sadly, Dr. Paul's bills are extremely short and you can use the Constitution (our rule of law) as a litmus against them and Congress (who take oaths to uphold the Constitution) don't even understand what they are voting on. The people of this country would be better off with fewer bills passing because many do not serve the interests of the individual American citizen.

Ryan Treat
0
Points
Ryan Treat 03/25/12 - 09:09 pm
5
1
I like how SCV San says Ron

I like how SCV San says Ron Paul doesn't stand for morality and then says we should bomb Iran for cheap gas.

Bruno
780
Points
Bruno 03/25/12 - 09:38 pm
1
3
His racist newsletter was

His racist newsletter was published by him and bore his name. I do know "what is going on" and it is typical Paulistinian apologist pablum.

Ryan Treat
0
Points
Ryan Treat 03/26/12 - 09:07 pm
1
0
Just for your general

Just for your general knowledge.

Isolationism is a defined term that has three parts:

1. A non-interventionist foreign military policy

2. Trade protectionism

3. No immigration

Ron Paul believes in a non-interventionist foreign policy, but he believes in free trade, and controlled immigration such as work visas. The other candidates favor trade tariffs, sanctions, currency manipulation, and building walls on our borders, while promoting military adventurism.

By definition Ron Paul is the least isolationist of the current candidates as he only meets one criteria of an isolationist while the other candidates meet two.

EyeSee
0
Points
EyeSee 03/27/12 - 12:12 pm
0
0
Ron Paul is not an

Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he is a realist. The United States of America should have the strongest military in the world for our own defense- but our military has not been used just to defend us- it has been used to try to impose Western style democracy on the Middle East. How successful has that been? Freedom cannot be imposed- it must be bought and paid for with the blood and treasure of the very people who wish to secure it for themselves. While there may be strains of moderate Islam, this is not the strain of Isalm that dominates the middle East. The more the US interferes with the internal workings of Islamic countries the more we drive the people into the camp of the radical Islamists. Islamic fundamentalism is incompatible with Western style democracy. Look at what has happened in Nigeria. When Islamics are in the majority they vote in Sharia. Israel does not need welfare- they are a first world nation capable of defending themselves. Ditto for every other first world nation. They have got to start paying for their own defense- America can't afford to defend them, and it is morally wrong to send our own sons and daughters to their deaths to secure freedoms for anyone else but Americans. Our sons and daughters take an oath to defend this country and our Constitution- they do not take an oath to secure democracy for every oppressed people in the world. If the Neocons wants to try to help every oppressed people in the world let them pool their money and hire mercenaries- the US military should not be used in "Nation building."

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs