The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[Coolio]

If people would stop being so pessimistic and jaded and actually support REAL candidates like Paul every election, and actually go vote in the primary, eventually there'd be no way to prevent the office of president being taken over by someone who isn't owned by corporate masters.

 

[foodisgood]

foodisgood, the audience was cheering mostly for Ron Paul, if that says anything.

yeah, at the end of the debate when the candidates were shaking hands, you could hear RON PAUL being shouted in the backgroud.

Also yeah people need to actually show some hope. Wana help? Go donate and help for the third quarter final. dont wait for someone else to do everyting for you

 

[mulberryman]

The answer is simple, he needs to get on TV, on tV, and on TV some more. He needs to get on so much TV, that there's TV's on TV with him on TV.

 

[Return_Of_SHATT]

I am a registered republican (so i can vote in primaries) and i will be voting for RON PAUL! HE is our only chance to turn away from our evil ways, and get us back on track. I suggest everyone donate to this candidate because he i up against big government who wants to silence him.

We can make a difference!! An email i got today:

September 30, 2007


Dr. Paul was campaigning in New Hampshire with his wife Carol and their family when our $1,000,000 goal was reached last night. As the time drew near, they watched on a laptop as the counter reached the $1 million mark. They, along with staff, supporters and volunteers throughout the country then celebrated this extraordinary accomplishment.

Over $1,000,000 raised in seven days for the Ron Paul 2008 presidential campaign. Remarkable!

On behalf of Dr. Paul and every member of the campaign staff: Thank you!!

Kent Snyder
Chairman
Ron Paul 2008

 

[Return_Of_SHATT]

You all may not like this Ron Paul quote, but like it or not he is correct:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

-Ron Paul (2003)

 

[mulberryman]

^^ I kinda doubt that the state of religion and secularism is quite as dire as the good Dr. Paul predicted in this quote. I have a good many liberal friends and associates, and most of them are religious or at least spiritual and don't have such Dawkinsian militant atheist beliefs. I would blame such 'good v evil' anti-religion nonsense on the conservatively controlled liberal media, another bipartisan design to instill fear in the people of this once great nation. Fear is the real enemy, not religion or secularism, which can -gasp- even work together in harmony.

 

[Return_Of_SHATT]

^^ I kinda doubt that the state of religion and secularism is quite as dire as the good Dr. Paul predicted in this quote. I have a good many liberal friends and associates, and most of them are religious or at least spiritual and don't have such Dawkinsian militant atheist beliefs. I would blame such 'good v evil' anti-religion nonsense on the conservatively controlled liberal media, another bipartisan design to instill fear in the people of this once great nation. Fear is the real enemy, not religion or secularism, which can -gasp- even work together in harmony.

You are right, fear is the real enemy..why on earth non christians are so afraid of some religious FREEDOMS is beyond me. Its the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Somehow, are the scared athiests somehow got that confused and have been attacking Christianity at its roots for many many years...is a slow thing to happen...but the evidence is CLEARLY there every year to show its existance. Its undeniable, even if you personally dont know someone who feels this way. Just open your eyes and look around...its not hard to find.

 

[Infernal]

You are right, fear is the real enemy..why on earth non christians are so afraid of some religious FREEDOMS is beyond me. Its the freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Somehow, are the scared athiests somehow got that confused and have been attacking Christianity at its roots for many many years...is a slow thing to happen...but the evidence is CLEARLY there every year to show its existance. Its undeniable, even if you personally dont know someone who feels this way. Just open your eyes and look around...its not hard to find.

Actually SHATT, its both a freedom of and freedom from.

 

[mulberryman]

yes, we must be free to find enlightenment for ourselves. For if that way is a Christian one, then good for you, though preaching how great Jesus was is bound to pass straight through my crainum,, hehe. Not that, well, sure there may have been a great many men that lived between now and 1 AD, its just that, for me enlightenment demands attention to the events of today over those now past. There are things to learn from great men, and then there are things that need done. Just my 2 cents, mind you, but I'd like to see an end to war, and that takes work, dammit!

 

[Return_Of_SHATT]

Actually SHATT, its both a freedom of and freedom from.

Never in our history has there ever been an organized religion being forced upon people by the government, to have to believe in, or face some sort of punishment or consequence. With no evidence of there being a threat of organized religion, and evidence of there being an attack on Christianity, i'd say at this point its the freedom of religion that we need to worry about.

 

[Infernal]

Never in our history has there ever been an organized religion being forced upon people by the government, to have to believe in, or face some sort of punishment or consequence. With no evidence of there being a threat of organized religion, and evidence of there being an attack on Christianity, i'd say at this point its the freedom of religion that we need to worry about.

Do you not consider the Puritans in Massachusetts prior to the American Revolution a defining reason of why Jefferson (in particular) and the other Framers ensured a clear definition of both the Establishment Clause and Free Expression Clause? I'd say that the view of a Pure Libertarian would default back to the position of the Framers saying that both freedom of and freedom from are equally important.

 

[mulberryman]

Yes, we really don't need to revert to puritanism, though we also shouldn't be meddling with other soverign states, as in the Middle East, they have such extremist religious based law we are protected from. Some Christians, I'm thinking now of the film, Jesus Camp, would equally be as repressive as the Ayatolas and such, if they were to attain power here. Fair is fair, though, non-theists can be repressive as well, as seen in the Soviet era and more recently with the followers of Richard Dawkins. Still, I would like to believe that none of these examples are the majority, though the majority seldom rules, the best we can hope for is a vocal minority that values equality and reason, freedom and moderation.

 

[5-HT2]

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

Congressional Control of Health Care is Dangerous for Children

by Ron Paul

October 1, 2007

This week Congress is again grasping for more control over the health of American children with the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Parents who think federally subsidized health care might be a good idea should be careful what they wish for.

Despite political rhetoric about a War on Drugs, federally-funded programs result in far more teenage drug use than the most successful pill pusher on the playground. These pills are given out as a result of dubious universal mental health screening programs for school children, supposedly directed toward finding mental disorders or suicidal tendencies. The use of antipsychotic medication in children has increased fivefold between 1995 and 2002. More than 2.5 million children are now taking these medications, and many children are taking multiple drugs at one time.

With universal mental health screening being implemented in schools, pharmaceutical companies stand to increase their customer base even more, and many parents are rightfully concerned. Opponents of one such program, called TeenScreen, claim it wrongly diagnoses children as much as 84% of the time, often incorrectly labeling them, resulting in the assigning of medications that can be very damaging. While we are still awaiting evidence that there are benefits to mental health screening programs, evidence that these drugs actually cause violent psychotic episodes is mounting.

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

As it stands now, parental consent is required for these screening programs, but in some cases mere passive consent is legal. Passive consent is obtained when a parent receives a consent form and fails to object to the screening. In other words, failure to reply is considered affirmative consent. In fact, TeenScreen advocates incorporating their program into the curriculum as a way to by-pass any consent requirement. These universal, or mandatory, screening programs being called for by TeenScreen and the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health should be resisted.

Consent must be express, written, voluntary and informed. Programs that refuse to give parents this amount of respect, should not receive federal funding. Moreover, parents should not be pressured into screening or drugging their children with the threat that not doing so constitutes child abuse or neglect. My bill, The Parental Consent Act of 2007 is aimed at stopping federal funding of these programs.

We don’t need a village, a bureaucrat, or the pharmaceutical industry raising our children. That’s what parents need to be doing.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst093007.htm

 

[kong]

A sad world gives its young children amphetamines and then puts its young adults in cages for the same thing.

 

[foodisgood]

A sad world gives its young children amphetamines and then puts its young adults in cages for the same thing.

very well said

 

[e1evene1even]

A sad world gives its young children amphetamines and then puts its young adults in cages for the same thing.

Very true. By the way there is an interview with Ron Paul in the new documentary "American Drug War: The Last White Hope".

The film is by Kevin Booth, Bill Hick's old friend and production partner. I just watched the pre-release DVD last night, really good.

 

[mulberryman]

I have to disagree with that last article, as just because childrens' healthcare is highly flawed, doesn't mean the solution is to deny it to our children. I don't think we need a universal healthcare plan for all Americans, but we do need more funding for the medicaid and medicare systems already in place, and making sure children are getting the medical care they need is a good thing, though amphetamines are over-prescribed to our kids. The fact that ADD and other disorders are becoming so common in our young people needs to be looked at. Its not enough to just blame pharmaceutical companies' greedy influence on our doctors' diagnosis', something really is changing the way we think, and nowhere is that phenomena present as it is in our childrens' psyches.

 

[foodisgood]

I have to disagree with that last article, as just because childrens' healthcare is highly flawed, doesn't mean the solution is to deny it to our children. I don't think we need a universal healthcare plan for all Americans, but we do need more funding for the medicaid and medicare systems already in place, and making sure children are getting the medical care they need is a good thing, though amphetamines are over-prescribed to our kids. The fact that ADD and other disorders are becoming so common in our young people needs to be looked at. Its not enough to just blame pharmaceutical companies' greedy influence on our doctors' diagnosis', something really is changing the way we think, and nowhere is that phenomena present as it is in our childrens' psyches.

While I agree that the change in the way children think and act needs to be addressed, I would contriute these changes more towards American culture an parenting rather than chemical imbalances and disorders.

 

[mulberryman]

Perhaps, if more parents had more time to spend with their children instead of working so hard to pay for their healthcare, there wouldn't be so many children diagnosed with these conditions.

 

[e1evene1even]

Many parents have very valid concerns about the drugs to which a child labeled as “suicidal” or “depressed,” or even ADHD, could be subjected. Of further concern is the subjectivity of diagnosis of mental health disorders. The symptoms of ADHD are strikingly similar to indications that a child is gifted, and bored in an unchallenging classroom. In fact, these programs, and many of the syndromes they attempt to screen for, are highly questionable. Parents are wise to question them.

Although I support universal coverage (I believe the only people against it are those that don't have it), I think Dr. Paul is correct. The situation in the U.S. is unique. Giving congress more control, when congress is largely bought off by the pill-pusher/drug dealing lobby, could be a very bad thing in my opinion.

Raiden wins!