Ron Paul

[American Patriot]

Yes it has. On the other hand, Islam IS the enemy. They have more than clearly stated this time and again. Western Civilization is their enemy. That includes the United States, Canada, Europe (pretty much all of it) and anyone else who would stand in the way of becoming "Islamafied".

[Ryan Ruck]

I saw Ron Paul on Neil Cavuto's show yesterday and I think it demonstrates in 5 minutes how, as I said earlier, when Ron Paul is right he's spot on and when he's wrong he's dead wrong.

First 2 minutes, he's 100% right. Last 2 minutes he does a good job of showing how far off base he can be.

Sorry for the quality. It's not my video, just found it on YouTube.

ETA: See video posted in next post by Backstop.

[Backstop]

Better version:

[Ryan Ruck]

Thanks Backstop!

I'm going to edit the video out of my original post.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ron Paul Says He'd Consider Putting Dennis Kucinich In His Cabinet

September 21, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says he would consider putting the liberal congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) in his Cabinet if he were to win the presidency in 2012.

Paul said his libertarian political philosophy helps him connect with some on the far left — including Kucinich, who shares Paul’s general anti-war stance.

Paul joked that if he brought the Ohio congressman aboard in his administration, he might have to create a "Department of Peace."

"You've got to give credit to people who think," he said.

"Being pragmatic is about forming coalitions," Paul said at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. "I probably work with coalitions better than the other candidates. I don't think I've said anything negative here about the president."

Paul spokesmen Jesse Benton later said the remark was a joke, and said Kucinich is too ideologically different from Paul to be a candidate for a Cabinet spot.

"Ron works with Dennis on some coalition issues, and respects him as a thinker, but was joking and would not consider him for Cabinet position. He made clear he did not want to name Cabinet officials," Benton said.

Paul’s bid for the GOP nomination has yet to catch fire, though he enjoys perhaps the most passionate following in all of politics. He has had difficulty elevating himself to the top tier of candidates and complained that the media is not taking his campaign seriously.

But the congressman said he’s playing the long game, and values bringing political change over winning the presidency.

"Politics doesn't drive me as much as economic policy," Paul said. "We're in a big mess, personal liberty is under attack."

Paul said his presidential campaign is more about an "educational effort" of libertarian philosophies than a reflection of his personal ambition.

"There are a lot of people who just don't want to hear this," Paul said. "Very few people understand this, they don't have an understanding of how free markets work."

The congressman said the fact that other Republican candidates are talking about the Federal Reserve or rolling back entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare are victories for his campaign. Paul also says his campaign — coupled with a financial crisis that has brought into question the stability of the American economic system — is changing the prevailing attitudes of voters.

"It requires a lot more education and a lot more inroads," Paul said. "But absolutely, I think the whole country has come this way."

But Paul continues to struggle in the polls, hovering around 9 to 10 percent of likely Republican primary voters. While his showing is consistently better than some candidates who have garnered more attention, he is unsure of how he will propel himself to the top of the field.

"The supporters believe it's possible, I don't know," Paul said. "There's no reason to rule out the fact this can explode. Something has to give here."

Paul attributed some of the problem to the media, arguing that significant campaign milestones and rallies were underreported. And he acknowledged that as a candidate, he is responsible for delivering his message in a way that voters can appreciate.

"It partially is my fault, and I think that's what I work on most, refining my message," Paul said.

But Paul rejected the idea that he should adopt a more pragmatic or conciliatory strategy that would enable him to either grow his base among those skeptical of some of his views — particularly in terms of non-interventionist foreign policy — or achieve smaller pieces of his domestic policy goals legislatively.

"If you give up your principles, you're not being very pragmatic," Paul said.

See, if I were President, I'd go in the opposite direction of Paul. I'd return the Department of Defense to it's previous name - The Department of War.

[American Patriot]

Dear Fellow Conservative,

You and I have only a few more days to make sure we send the establishment a clear message.

The truth is, today is a CRITICAL day for my campaign.

It's the end of the current fundraising period, and the results from each candidate will be reported on and examined by the media, voters and other potential donors and supporters.

I can't stress how important it is that you and I have a great showing - just as we did last filing period.

But in order to do that, we're going to need to raise an additional $1.5 million before September 30.

So can I count on your IMMEDIATE help?

I truly hope so.

Just last night, we launched our latest TV ad - "He Served" -which you can see below.



And we have more ads just like this ready to go.

In fact, over the next 30 days, my goal is to spend at least $2.5 million on TV ads, internet ads, phone outreach and targeted voter mail.

I'm now consistently polling in third place behind two establishment candidates in most national polls, and another recent poll has me running second in New Hampshire!

But I need to be able to count on you to raise the funds to capitalize on the momentum YOU helped create.

You see, I'm in this race to win it. I hope you are, too.

If you are, please agree to a special contribution to the campaign today.

Sadly, we don't have much more time in the fight for the future of our country.

Our fiscal house is in disarray.

The Fed is printing and spending hundreds of billions of dollars we don't have.

Our government continues to try and police the world with more trillion-dollar wars that make us weaker, not stronger.

But instead of cutting spending from the hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars our federal government wastes every year on unconstitutional activities - President Obama is going after our veterans!

And just like my ad shows, I've always done whatever I could to stand up for our veterans.

And I'm proud that I've received more money from our troops than all the rest of my opponents combined.

If elected President, I will do everything I can to keep our country strong.

After all, national defense is a primary responsibility of the federal government.

So instead of building up other nations, I believe we must protect our veterans, protect our country and protect our borders.

And our President should always follow the Constitution by declaring war before putting the lives of American troops on the line.

You and I can and must save our country.

But we must act.

So please make your most generous contribution to my campaign IMMEDIATELY.

Help me send a message this September 30 that my campaign is one to be reckoned with!

Thank you so much for all you do.

For Liberty,


Ron Paul


P.S. Today is a critical day for my campaign, as the results from this fundraising period will be reported on and examined by the media, voters and other potential donors and supporters.

I need to raise $1.5 million by the deadline to help me launch an all-out TV ad, voter mail and internet ad blitz.

So please make your most generous contribution to my campaign TODAY!

Paid for by Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee www.ronpaul2012.com

[Backstop]

While Perry thinks we should have open borders and passed Leg that gave in-state tuition to illegal aliens, Paul thinks this:

[American Patriot]

Ron Paul thinks now is the time to make his move

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas speaks during the Western Republican Leadership Conference at The Venetian hotel-casino in Nevada. ((REUTERS/Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus) / October 19, 2011)

• 
• 
• 

• Comments
  8
  

• Also
• Ron Paul reports raising more than $8 million in third quarter
• Vegas debate: Ron Paul rips Herman Cain over Occupy Wall Street
• At Values Voter event, Ron Paul calls war a threat to family

By Kim Geiger Washington Bureau October 21, 2011, 8:40 a.m.

Fresh off a $2 million-plus fundraising day, Ron Paul is planning an advertising blitz in four early voting states in an effort to build momentum for his 2012 presidential bid.
The Texas congressman is a longshot for the GOP nomination. Paul's support in the polls has hovered in the single digits and low-teens for the entire campaign. But he’s managed to draw heavily on grassroots fundraising, making him the third-ranking fundraiser in the GOP field.
Paul's campaign thinks now is the time to spend big.
The strategy, according to spokesman Jesse Benton, is to get on the airwaves now, while they’re quiet.
"We also think other candidates aren’t going [on the air] right now," Benton said. "There’s going to be a certain din toward the end where you’re going to have outside expenditures – it’s going to be a little harder to get the message heard."
Paul will be the first of the GOP presidential candidates to come out with a major ad campaign. He’ll spend more than $2 million over the next four weeks, much of it on television advertising. The ads will air in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as South Carolina and Nevada. (Videos below.)
One ad calls Paul “a visionary who predicted the financial crisis.” Another warns that “America is in trouble,” and casts Paul as the only consistent candidate in the race.
Paul has run for president twice before – as a Libertarian in 1988 and as a Republican in 2008 – and has generally been dismissed as a fringe candidate. But if there was ever a time that Paul’s message might gain traction, now seems to be it, as voters appear dissatisfied with the political establishment and the weak GOP primary field.
On Monday, Paul unveiled his “Plan to Restore America,” which would, among other things, cut $1 trillion from the federal government in one year, eliminate five cabinet departments, and lower the corporate tax rate to 15%. As a symbolic gesture, the plan cuts the president’s salary from $400,000 to $39,336, the average median income of an American worker.
“I think our debt is too big, our government is too big and that we have to recognize how serious the problem is,” Paul said Tuesday as he discussed the plan during a speech in Las Vegas.
Paul is known for his libertarian leanings and is considered the "intellectual grandfather" of the tea party movement. His relentless calls to shrink the federal government and reduce American military activities abroad have won him enthusiastic support from followers who he calls on regularly with online fundraising appeals called "moneybombs."
Paul's presidential campaign reported raising $12.7 million through the end of the third financial quater of the year, and closed the quarter with $3.6 million cash on hand. In the 20 days since, the campaign raised more than $3 million, Benton said, including more than $2 million off a "moneybomb” earlier this week.
Paul is not pulling in large-dollar donations – just 300 people have given him the maximum of $2,500 this year. But he's also not appealing to the types who write big checks. On average, Paul’s 110,000 contributors – that’s the largest donor base of any GOP presidential candidate -- have given about $110 each, Benton said.
kim.geiger@latimes.com

[American Patriot]

Probably moving to France or something....

/lol

[Backstop]

Paul does a pretty good job of explaining his position(s) here.

[American Patriot]

Ron Paul: Flawed policies helped lead to 9/11

By

Lucy Madison

.

• Del.icio.us
• Facebook
• Stumbleupon

• Newsvine
• Yahoo bookmarks
• Mixx

• Digg
• Reddit
• Google Bookmarks

• Twitter
• LinkedIn

Play CBS News Video

(CBS News) Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said Sunday he thinks flawed U.S. foreign policy "contributed to" the causes that led to the September 11 terrorist attacks, though he stopped short of saying the attacks were America's "fault."


Paul, appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," said there was a "connection" between U.S. policies and the 9/11 attacks, and that "policies have an effect."


But, he emphasized, "that's a far cry from blaming America."



"I think there's an influence," Paul, a staunch Libertarian, told CBS' Bob Schieffer. "That's exactly what, you know, the 9/11 Commission said. That's what the DOD has said... That's what a lot of researchers have said.



Just remember, immediately after 9/11, we removed the base from Saudi Arabia. So there is a connection."


The longtime Texas congressman, whose popularity has recently seen an uptick in the GOP presidential polls, suggested that American military presence abroad fostered anti-American sentiment - which in turn led to actions against the American people.



"You talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm, they say, 'Yes, we don't like American bombs to be falling on our country. We don't like the intervention that we do in their nations.' So to deny this, I think, is very dangerous - but to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we're free and prosperous, I think, is a very, very dangerous notion because it's not true."



When asked if he was saying "it was our fault" that 9/11 happened, Paul said, no. "That's a misconstruing of what I'm saying," he replied.



"America is you and I," Paul told Schieffer. "We didn't cause it. The average American didn't cause it. [But] if you have a flawed policy, it may influence it.



"I'm saying the policy-makers' fault contributed to it," he added.
Paul, who has long been vocal in his opposition to sending American troops abroad, argued that America should use diplomacy - not the military - to deal with countries like Iran.
He also decried sanctions as "the initial step to war."
"We have 12,000 diplomats. I'm suggesting that maybe we ought to use some of them," Paul said. "I think the greatest danger now is for us to overreact. This is what I'm fearful of. Iran doesn't have a bomb. There's no proof. There's no new information, regardless of this recent report. For us to overreact and talk about bombing Iran, that's much more dangerous."
The candidate said he doesn't think there is any place in the world where it "helps" the United States to have forces stationed - not only because "we can't afford it," but also because, he said, "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and all our troops back at home.


"I think a submarine is a very worthwhile weapon," Paul said. "I believe we can defend ourselves with submarines and [station] all our troops back at home. This whole idea that we have to be in 130 countries and 900 bases - now they've just invented a weapon that can hit any spot in the world in one hour. I mean, what's this idea? This is old-fashioned idea that you have to keep troops on 900 bases around the world. Makes no sense at all. Besides, we're bankrupt. We can't afford it any longer."



The famously outspoken congressman added that he'd bring home troops even from Japan and South Korea. "Absolutely. And the people are with me on that. Because we can't afford it. It would save us a lot of money. All those troops would spend their money here at home," he said.



Besides, he added, "Those troops overseas aggravate our enemies, motivate our enemies. I think it's a danger to our national defense. We can save a lot of money cutting out the military expenditures that contribute nothing to our defense."

[American Patriot]

I'm sorry... just when I was thinking he might earn a little more respect he starts mouthing off again.

Mr. Paul, get it through your thick fucking skull.... America has NOTHING to do with 9/11 other than our people were killed by a bunch of crazed, religious fanatics of the MUSLIM persuasion and I for one don't want another Apologist in Office of the President EVER AGAIN!

Go back to your kook house.

[Ryan Ruck]

Ron Paul: Bush Administration Was ‘Gleeful’ After 9/11 Attacks

December 9, 2011

Speaking in Iowa Thursday evening, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said that the Bush administration were “gleeful” after the September 11 attacks because it gave them an excuse to invade Iraq.

“Just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately before there was any assessment there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq,” the Texas congressman said. He also suggested that officials are currently setting the stage for an invasion of Iran.

CBS adds:

On “Face the Nation” last month, Paul said that while the average American didn’t cause the Sept. 11 attacks, ” if you have a flawed policy it may influence it.”

“I think there‘s an influence and that’s exactly what the 9/11 commission said that‘s what the DOD has said and that’s also what the CIA has said and that’s what a lot of researchers have said,” said Paul. “…our policies definitely had an influence and you talk to the people who committed it and those individuals who would like to do us harm. They say yes we don‘t like American bombs to be falling on our country and we don’t like the intervention that we do in their nation so to deny this I think is very dangerous. But to argue the case that they want to do us harm because we‘re free and prosperous is very dangerous notion because it’s not true.”

He added: “So I‘m saying policies have an effect but that’s a far cry from blaming America. I mean in America, you‘re supposed to be able to criticize your own government without saying you’re un-American.”

Watch the clip, courtesy of CBS:

Just when you think Ron Paul can't outdo himself, he does. And not in a good way.

[American Patriot]

Yeah, Ron, we get it... you're an idiot.

[American Patriot]

Ron Paul gets testy, walks out over talk of racist newsletters


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...+-+Politics%29

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, speaks during a campaign stop in Fort Madison, Iowa. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson / December 21, 2011)

By Kim Geiger December 22, 2011, 9:43 a.m.

Ron Paul is tired of being “pestered” about offensive statements that were mailed to supporters under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate told CNN yesterday.


In an interview with CNN reporter Gloria Borger, Paul unplugged his microphone after getting agitated when pressed to discuss the controversial statements. (Video below.)

The statements were written in newsletters that were called Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report, according to CNN. Among the offensive statements, the newsletters said, “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational,” and, referring to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”


Borger asked Paul to respond to a report that he had made nearly $1 million from the newsletters in 1993.


Paul was flustered. “I’d like to see that money,” he said.
He denied writing the statements or being aware of them at the time they were mailed out.


“I never read that stuff,” he said. “I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written.”


In 1996, the Dallas Morning News asked Paul about similar writings, including newsletters that said, “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” and “If you’ve ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Paul said the first statement was taken out of context; it was part of a column that cited statistics from a study by a criminal justice think tank.
Of the second statement, he said: “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them.”


Paul later distanced himself from the statements in the newsletters, saying he did not write them, but that he was morally responsible since they carried his name.


So when the topic came up in the CNN interview, an unusually grumpy Paul took to scolding the reporter for bringing it up.



“I never read that stuff,” he said “I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written. And it’s been going on 20 years that people have pestered me about this. And CNN does it every single time. So when are you going to wear yourself out?”


Borger pressed on: “Is it a legitimate question to ask, that something went out under your name?”


That’s when Paul got defiant. “And when you get the answer, it’s legitimate that you sort of take the answers I give,” he said. “You know what the answer is? I didn’t write them, I didn’t read them at the time and I disavow them. That is the answer.”


Borger defended asking about statements that “are pretty incendiary.”
“Because of people like you,” Paul said, later adding a “Goodbye” as he disconnected his microphone.

[Backstop]

There's a lot of history in this.

[American Patriot]

Hate to say it, but I know there is "history" and I still don't like Paul. The "history" is that he claims he had no idea what they were writing in his news letter. It's not just about blacks, but Jews too.

[Backstop]

Putting aside for a minute the question of authorship, what do you find distasteful in these?

Found here, and there are many more: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...ters-exclusive

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June92_p1.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Nov90_p3.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Dec90_p8.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Feb91_p7.pdf

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_Oct90_p4.pdf

[American Patriot]

I scanned through the links (at least the first four) and don't see anything specific there.

What I do see though on the very first link are some specific things. I read much of his stuff long ago and far enough back I don't remember all the specific points I found I disliked. I formed my opinion of Ron Paul a long time ago - Libertarians, in GENERAL are people who don't like rules, period.

True "Libertarians" like those I met and argued with under Reagan's administration were nothing more than violent druggies who were really anarchists.

I'm sorry, Backstop, I'm pretty jaded on this subject because of them. Ron Paul is NOT going to be President.... it's not going to happen. If he IS, however, selected over someone else, I'll certainly VOTE for him because he is running as a Republican.

But the truth is, he's too kooky for almost everyone.

While I certainly understand where he is coming from - and regardless of his so-called newsletters, my opinion of him is based on his beliefs in Conspiracy Theory and stating flat out that 9-11 was OUR fault because "we were over there"... that's bullshit.

He has a lot of good points... but the fact is, I simply don't like him any more than I like Romney. But at this point what do we have to look forward too?

Romney, a RINO.
Gingrich, a liar, adulterer, flip flopper and "compromiser"
Ron Paul, a kook who believes America was at fault for 9-11 among other issues.

I don't TRUST any of them.

But, I'll vote for whichever one gets the nomination - because any one of them would do a better job than Obama. With his eyes closed.

One other thing... I KNOW for a FACT that once someone becomes President they tend to get briefings on many things that make them "change their minds about their own thoughts".

While Obama pretty much ignored much of the briefings (from my point of view) and is a total disaster to this country, I'd rather have a fake Conservative than a hard core Socialist in office.

[Backstop]

...stating flat out that 9-11 was OUR fault because "we were over there"... that's bullshit.

Paul was refering to Blowback here.

The CIA has believed, and taught, that phenomenon for years


--------------------------------------------

1. Most important: there is basically no fundamental difference between the GOP and the Dems. Both parties are taking us to the same place: Socialism. Only difference is the amount of time the party will take to get us there.

2. Ron Paul (and slightly less so his son Rand) is the only politician with the ability, integrity, and motivation to turn this nation around.

3. If Ron Paul doesn’t make it to the White House, we’re toast. I guarantee it. It may just a few years at the hands of the Dems, or a decade or more at the hands of the GOP.

Let’s pretend Romney makes it to the White House. And for the record, I’m pretty sure he will.

Lots of folks say, “We gotta vote for whoever the GOP nominates to be sure we get the current Dem President out of the White House. After that happens, we can try to get a more conservative GOP nomination for the next Presidential election.”

How many times in the past have we said that?

And how many times is the next GOP nominee more Socialist than the previous one?

Every single damn time.

Do you think in the future a politician will win the GOP nomination that’s better than Romney?

Not gonna happen.

I don’t begrudge anyone their voting choice.

If people want to keep voting for Socialism (Dem) or Socialist-Lite (GOP), then more power to them. That’s one of the founding principles of this country: vote your conscience.

But I’ll be damned before I vote again for a Socialist-Lite, the lesser of 2 evils, vote just to get the Dem President out of office, etc.

We have only one chance to turn this nation around, and Ron Paul is it.

And all that said, I'm still undecided as to whether voting even matters, considering all the alleged and proven voter fraud.