• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: tryptakid | Foreigner

The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

Ron Paul: U.S. In "Great Danger" Of Staged Terror
Congressman & presidential candidate warns of economic collapse precipitated by bombing of Iran

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, July 13, 2007

Presidential candidate Ron Paul says the U.S. is in "great danger" of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation while also warning that a major collapse of the American economy is on the horizon and could be precipitated by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.

Speaking to The Alex Jones Show, the Texas Congressman was asked his opinion on Cindy Sheehan's recent comments that the U.S. is in danger of a staged terror attack or a Gulf of Tonkin style provocation that will validate the Neo-Con agenda and lead to the implementation of the infrastructure of martial law that Bush recently signed into law via executive order, as well as public pronouncements from prominent officials that the West needs terrorism to save a doomed foreign policy.

"I think we're in great danger of it," responded the Congressman, "We're in danger in many ways, the attack on our civil liberties here at home, the foreign policy that's in shambles and our obligations overseas and commitment which endangers our troops and our national defense."


"Every day we're in worse shape and right now there's an orchestrated effort to blame the Iranians for everything that's gone wrong in Iraq and we're quite concerned that the attack will be on Iran and that will jeopardize so many more of our troops, so I would say that we're in much greater danger than we even were four or five years ago," asserted Paul.

The presidential candidate expressed his despair that the situation in Iraq will not change until there is a total collapse of the American economy.

"There's no way we can afford what we're doing, whether it's domestic spending or the international spending and very few people talk about the real cost of this economically speaking....this is unsustainable and it will be a threat to our dollar," said Paul, adding that the onset of the meltdown could be sparked by the bombing of Iran and the closure of the Persian Gulf.

The Congressman added that the collapse was in its early stages with the major indication being a reduction in the living standard of middle class Americans but that "one single major world event" could change things overnight and precipitate a major downturn.

Paul added that there had "not been a national discussion on monetary policy in many many years" and the increasingly bleak outlook for the U.S. economy was also bringing more attention to the solutions the Congressman has proposed for reducing the burden of the mammoth national deficit.

Paul said that national and world events, especially the degrading situation in Iraq, were attracting support for his presidential campaign due to his resolute position on embracing a non-interventionist foreign policy.

The Congressman concluded by surmising that record lows in approval ratings for Bush, Cheney and Congress showed that, "The American people are alive and well and disgusted yet they haven't had good alternatives....it's justifiable, they are looking for true answers and options and quite frankly I think that's probably one of the reasons why our campaign is growing by leaps and bounds right now."

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/130707greatdanger.htm

MP3 of the interview with Ron Paul.
http://prisonplanet.com/audio/130707paul.mp3



paulheart_dees.jpg


and also:
Ron Paul On Tucker Carlson 7/11/07
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3vU6S-O0c
 
Last edited:
Tucker Carson, Wolf Blitzer... Man you must have some really idiotically named people on TV over there.
 
Ron Paul More Popular Google Seach Term Than Paris Hilton, iPhone

KVUE segment on Ron Paul revealing that the Texas Congressman and presidential candidate gets more Google search hits than Paris Hilton or the iPhone. Paul's runaway popularity is growing every day and his chances of beating the other frontrunners are realistic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv0oCVeoGOM


2008 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul in discusion with Google executive Elliot Schrage as part of the company's Candidates@Google series. (60 min)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg


Ron Paul On MSNBC's Tucker July 17, 2007
Ron Paul appears on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show to discuss the Bush administration's failure to catch Osama bin Laden and what he'd do differently as President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CQ_Ya-LGN0
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul emerges as GOP's unlikely rock-star candidate
Long-shot libertarian iconoclast pulls in surprising cash totals, eclectic young crowds

Michael J. Mishak
Las Vegas Sun
Wednesday, July 18, 2007

LAS VEGAS -- The punk-band members, with spiked hair, tattooed arms and piercings, stood with a crowd of more than 300 and cheered at the rock star on stage, especially when he called for abolishing the Federal Reserve -- you know, the banking system that for nearly a century has helped stabilize the U.S. economy, give or take a Great Depression.

Presidential candidate Ron Paul didn't stop with the Fed. The devout and suddenly popular libertarian-running-as-a-Republican also wants to repeal the Patriot Act. (More cheering.) And the IRS and NAFTA-like trade deals. (Loud applause.) And bring home American troops, all of them, from Iraq and from every last spot on the globe. (Standing ovation.) And that national ID card, forget about it.

What the crowd heard was the testimony of a carved-in-granite libertarian who disdains the a la carte politics and deal-making of mainstream candidates, a physician whose political beliefs exist at that whiplash point on the political spectrum where the far right meets the far left.

Abolish the IRS, the Fed, the Patriot Act? Is that libertarian or a lefty anarchist?

The crowds he's drawing across the country are often an unusual mix of 20- and 30-something lefties and righties. Some are drawn to his beliefs. But many said that they admire him most for sticking to a clear set of principles, even if they disagree on some issues.

"He's consistent," said Jennifer Reilly, a 23-year-old student at the College of Southern Nevada who attended a recent rally here. "I actually believe everything he says."

Thus Paul has become the early surprise of the 2008 campaign.

Beyond the consistency, he is filling a void in a Republican field dominated by mainstream candidates who are reluctant to break ranks with President Bush. He's the only Republican who opposes the war in Iraq. ("We just marched in. We can just march out.")

Paul describes himself as a strict constitutionalist, but his views can be traced to the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 GOP presidential nominee and father of the modern conservative movement.

As Paul puts it: "Freedom is popular."

"I agree with his message of freedom and limited government," said Jennifer Terhune, a 22-year-old dental-hygiene student in Reno. "People are dependent on the government for everything, and they need to start standing up for themselves. The country is getting so far away from that."

Paul raised $640,000 in the first quarter of the year, a paltry sum compared with his party's front-runners. But when the second quarter closed last month, Paul had $2.4 million cash on hand, besting Arizona Sen. John McCain.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070718/POLITICS01/707180319
 
^ that tells you something.

There is a HUGE difference between contributions from individual soldiers, and the gigantic parasitic beast known as the Military Industrial Complex.


The sum of the money contributed to pro-war candidates exceed the amount going to anti-war candidates but because Ron Paul is the lone anti-war Republican, he comes out the winner. This is precisely the reason why Ron Paul can not be discounted in the primaries. By being the only voice in opposition to the war, he does not need a majority but rather more votes than everybody else. With more voters siding against the war, Ron Paul has got to be looking like a more attractive candidate.
 
anyone on here go to the rally or lunch today? I just got back after a 4 hour drive. They were both amazing. It's freaking amazing to actually talk to the man in person and shake his hand.
 
^^^because he's honest, and sincere, and has been consistently opposed to imperialism abroad and a police state at home. He is the ONLY candidate from either party who has explicitly taken the first-strike "nuclear option" off the table.

All of the Democratic politicians who have demonstrated a similarly principled opposition to an aggressive foreign policy and domestic oppression of civil liberties tend to be proponents of unsustainable pie-in-the-sky socialism.

Besides, the actions of the Bush administration have shown how policies that were originally enacted with a well-meaning socialistic central-government intent can be co-opted for far more sinister purposes.
 
the thing i like is that ron paul addresses the issue of inflation and the federal reserve, while no one else actually does. We are printing money and causing mass inflation. Our country is going backrupt but he is the only one pointing that out.
 
He's also opposed to the war on (some) drugs.

One would think that would be an important issue to your average Bluelighter.

He also introduced the "Industrial Hemp Farming Act"

There is an entire section of his writings regarding the "War on Drugs" here:

http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=23
 
thanks guys.

i can see why some of his policies are attractive, and why some of his decisions set him aside from the rest. but he still sounds somewhat nuts to me and i can't imagine voting for him.

Paul also supports the U.S. converting to a free market health care system and increasing competition and thus opposes centralized universal health care.[56]

Paul is pro-life, yet most recently got a 65% pro-choice score from NARAL.

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman" and has stated that he "would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act" if he had been in Congress at the time."[57]

In addition, Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level. Paul opposes illegal immigration, voted "yes" on the Secure Fence Act of 2006, and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Paul supports a non-interventionist foreign policy and opposes foreign aid.

all from wiki etc.

it seems like a lot of the support is based on the fact that he didn't vote for the iraq war... i guess congressmen who didn't are in short supply ;) e1evene1even, i understand the war-on-some-drugs connection... but i really don't think this guy is the answer. how much good will decriminalising medical marijuana do if millions of women are criminalised for having abortions? what use is a non-interventionist foreign policy without any provision for the international community?

it seems as though the fact that some of his ideas are palatable and distinctive blinds people to the unpleasantness of the rest of them.
 
p.s. when i say 'blinds people' i wasn't inferring that the people in this thread aren't fully aware of the positions they're supporting - rather i'm talking about increasing chatter on left-leaning blogs etc.
 
I'm guessing the reason that NARAL gives him a 65% on pro-choice is b/c he's a state's rights guy, and therefore is probably (though I haven't checked this) opposed to federal regulation of abortion.
 
he did not take a pro-life stance, AFAIK, he is against a federal stance on the issue though.

as to opposing foriegn aid, IMO it really depends on the situation. America pours billions into africa (private and public money) and it does nothing but feed the already corrupt and it improves nothing. Not a single thing. China does more for Africa by investing in it and givng the people jobs and raising their quality of life. America is too busy feeling sorry for them to give them the help they truly need, the ability to provide for themselves and to have an education so they can be self sufficient rather than dependent on never ending aid in the hands of their dictators.

Give a man a fish.....

All in all i have a love/hate relationship with Paul. I do think america needs to leave the rest of the world alone, that we need to decriminalize drugs, bring our troops home, and Paul has the guts to stand up for these among other issues. But he's got qualities i don't necessarily like either (take on the gay marriage amendment, abortion as a state right)
 
Last edited:
Dr. Suess, I think you have the same misunderstanding about Ron Paul's position as many people do when they are first exposed to his ideas. He is a constitutionalist. Not a nut.


Tenth Amendment: provides that powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from exercising, are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Paul's underlying theme is that, if the Federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to control and regulate something, its up to people on a state or local level to do so.

-He's not pro-drug, he's against Federal control of drugs
-He's not against there being a minimum wage, he's against it being decided federally. Check your local state laws, the state minimum wage is probably higher than the federal one. Should California and Alaska necessarily have the same minimum wage?
-He's not against public education, its just something for the Federal government to interfere with.
etc.

Who would you rather have deciding issues for you, some plutocrats in Washington or people on a more local level? Where can you as a citizen, have the loudest voice and the greatest impact?

The Federal government should not be controlling education. If you look at statistics, the U.S. school system was MUCH better, before the Dept. of Education was created. Remember before 1980 there was no Dept. of Education, have the schools improved? Almost any statistic or international ranking on student aptitude would suggest otherwise.

Furthermore, Paul's personal position may be "pro-life", but that doesn't mean he would pass some Federal law banning abortion. This would be unconstitutional.

Again, Paul is against redefining marriage on the Federal level. Starting to see a pattern? Where the hell does the Federal government get the power to define marriage? Certainly not from the constitution.

The more Federal laws passed and the bigger government gets the less freedom and liberty the citizens generally have.

On the issue of Foreign aid, you might want to take a look at where the money often goes and how its spent. I bet the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are just loving the aid they are getting. 8)

For developing nations, Foriegn aid from places like the US controlled World Bank, is often akin to a pawn shop, pay day loan or a mass of credit cards. Much of the aid gets stolen by a corrupt few and the country is swamped in debt, many countries are now hopelessly in debt and can barely pay the interest on their loans. I think a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best foreign aid the U.S.could currently give.

When it comes to Ron Paul, its unlikely a person will agree with all of his positions, but the more you understand the logic behind his positions and his track record, its easy to disregard a few issues you disagree with, in favor of the coherence of the overall message. Freedom.

Hope that helps some.

http://ronpaullibrary.org/
 
DigitalDuality said:
he did not take a pro-life stance, AFAIK, he is against a federal stance on the issue though.

Ron Paul said:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

as to opposing foriegn aid, IMO it really depends on the situation. America pours billions into africa (private and public money) and it does nothing but feed the already corrupt and it improves nothing. Not a single thing.

according to what criteria? as stated by whom? are you suggesting that nothing has been achieved whatsoever in Africa as a result of US foreign aid and private donations?

i'm fully aware that the main recipients of US governmental foreign aid have historically been US companies. reform is not the same as abdication.

China does more for Africa by investing in it and givng the people jobs and raising their quality of life. America is too busy feeling sorry for them to give them the help they truly need, the ability to provide for themselves and to have an education so they can be self sufficient rather than dependent on never ending aid in the hands of their dictators.

i'm not sure you're talking about foreign aid in the same terms as i am...

plenty of government projects cover things like sanitation and clean water supplies, internet access and education, and all manner of projects unrelated to simply handing over cash. it is a simplistic reduction to suggest otherwise.

Paul's underlying theme is that, if the Federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to control and regulate something, its up to people on a state or local level to do so.

thanks for your response e1evene1even.

i understand Paul's statism. well, i say understand, but to be honest i don't think we outsiders can ever really appreciate the 'i'm a Virginian first and an American second, and god-damn if those federal busybodies want to force me to wear a seatbelt' mentality ;)

seriously, i do realise his approach is constitutionally-orientated. that doesn't make it any less nutty, imho. you are the united states of america, after all! if people really want it, secession is just a vote away* ;)

i'm not convinced that the best response to any particular issue is 'well, leave it up to your neighbours to decide'.

-He's not pro-drug, he's against Federal control of drugs

does that make him more or less attractive to your average bluelighter? if he was elected president, how many states do you think would willingly decriminalise drugs?

-He's not against there being a minimum wage, he's against it being decided federally. Check your local state laws, the state minimum wage is probably higher than the federal one. Should California and Alaska necessarily have the same minimum wage?

an interesting point; i can only look to the situation in the UK at the moment. we have a vast gap between rich and poor (although not US-sized) and a huge disparity between very affluent areas and impoverished ones. yet there is a workable minimum wage which covers the entire kingdom.

Who would you rather have deciding issues for you, some plutocrats in Washington or people on a more local level? Where can you as a citizen, have the loudest voice and the greatest impact?

obviously it's not practical to have Congress debate the demolition of that old house with the creepy windows on Main Street, Fucksville. but when it comes to specifying the standards to which my children are educated - well, i don't think it's such a bad thing that central government takes control. again, i guess i keep coming back to the difference between reform and abolition.

Furthermore, Paul's personal position may be "pro-life", but that doesn't mean he would pass some Federal law banning abortion. This would be unconstitutional.

Paul clearly sees Roe v. Wade as being responsible for 'the deaths of 45 million' (his words). what kind of impact do you think a potential administration orientated around his viewpoint would really have on reproductive rights in the USA? and why did he compose legislation, in Congress, seeking to define life as starting at conception?

Again, Paul is against redefining marriage on the Federal level. Starting to see a pattern? Where the hell does the Federal government get the power to define marriage? Certainly not from the constitution.

certainly not from this version of the constitution and the amendments to it which currently stand.

god, you text-fetishist documentarians... ;)

i do see the pattern. i don't think it's any less silly, though; above all else it seems to be a wilful 'hands in the air' abdication of serious decision making.

The more Federal laws passed and the bigger government gets the less freedom and liberty the citizens generally have.

according to whom?

On the issue of Foreign aid, you might want to take a look at where the money often goes and how its spent. I bet the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are just loving the aid they are getting.

For developing nations, Foriegn aid from places like the US controlled World Bank, is often akin to a pawn shop, pay day loan or a mass of credit cards. Much of the aid gets stolen by a corrupt few and the country is swamped in debt, many countries are now hopelessly in debt and can barely pay the interest on their loans.

i'm well aware of some of the negative aspects of foreign aid; i have written aboud them in this forum ad nauseum. again, i don't think the answer is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. if you had a genuine chance to ensure that more of the money / resources went to the right places, wouldn't you take it?

I think a non-interventionist foreign policy is the best foreign aid the U.S.could currently give.

i believe that a responsible US presence is important, and that the US can be a force for good in the world. not a military force, necessarily... but isolationism is pointless and harmful, imho.

When it comes to Ron Paul, its unlikely a person will agree with all of his positions, but the more you understand the logic behind his positions and his track record, its easy to disregard a few issues you disagree with, in favor of the coherence of the overall message. Freedom.

i'm not sure it would be that easy, really. but essentially tis all irrelevant since i'm not a US citizen ;)






*this statement may be bullshit.
 
dr seuss said:
but essentially tis all irrelevant since i'm not a US citizen ;)

Neither am I.


does that make him more or less attractive to your average bluelighter? if he was elected president, how many states do you think would willingly decriminalise drugs?

In 1973, Oregon became the first state to decriminalize marijuana possession.[3] By 1978 Alaska, California, Colorado, Mississippi, New York, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio had some form of marijuana decriminalization.[4] Certain cities and counties, particularly in California, have adopted laws to further decriminalize marijuana.

Its a start. How many people are put in jail for marijuana possession each year in New York and California alone? Perhaps more states would move to decriminalize or legalize marijuana and other drugs if they knew the DEA wouldn't disregard the laws and arrest doctors, grandmothers and the terminally ill.


Paul clearly sees Roe v. Wade as being responsible for 'the deaths of 45 million' (his words). what kind of impact do you think a potential administration orientated around his viewpoint would really have on reproductive rights in the USA? and why did he compose legislation, in Congress, seeking to define life as starting at conception?

There have been many "pro-life" administrations and none have overturned Roe v. Wade. My personal position is that I support choice but also life. This is one of the positions I differ with. Also living in Canada, its hard for me to argue against universal health coverage.

i'm not convinced that the best response to any particular issue is 'well, leave it up to your neighbours to decide'.

Are you not your neighbor's neighbor? If people saw themselves as actually having real power and a voice that could make a difference, rather than simply an unheard voice in a crowd of 300 million other unheard voices, perhaps the current pervasive attitude of hopelessness and complacence towards politics could be shifted in a more positive direction...
 
Ron Paul teams up with Dem candidate to end war

David Edwards and Adam Doster
Raw Story
Wednesday July 25, 2007

Ron Paul, a Republican Presidential candidate who is opposed to the war in Iraq, believes that lawmakers can reach across the aisle to pass legislation that will bring American troops home as soon as possible.

"Sometimes, those [liberal and conservative] labels are misleading," he told Joe Scarborough on MSNBC Tuesday. "I think if you approach this from a constitutional viewpoint, we can join hands with the left as well as the right and come up with a solution and get our troops home."

As the host mentioned, the Texas Congressman has co-sponsored a bill with another presidential contender, Democrat Dennis Kucinich, that would repeal President Bush's authority to use force in Iraq within the next sixth months. Besides Kucinich, 18 other Democrats have signed on.

Paul has garnered a lot of interest on the Internet. As a result, he now has more cash on hand than the campaign of the once favored John McCain, Senator from Arizona.

"I know the daily fundraising over the Internet has remained strong," he said. "You know, for us, if we can . . . raise $50,000, that's a lot of money and since we spend it very conservatively, it's been very helpful to us."

A strict follower of the constitution, Paul also bemoaned how Republicans have neglected their commitment to fiscal conservatism. "We're a big government party of big government conservatives and this war is a disaster," he said. "It's part of the big government . . . We're fiscally irresponsible. The Republican Party has lost its way. If it expects to do any good at all next year, it has to be a party of limited government."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33HqsteHFfg
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Ron_Paul_teams_up_with_Dem_0724.html


Those two should team up more often in my opinion.

Imagine if Kucinich was Paul's running mate in an independent bid for the Whitehouse? However unlikely, if they could take the best from each others platform, I think they would have a better chance together than alone. How interesting and refreshing would that be?

I'm only dreaming of course. :|
 
Top