Comments on: Do You Really Know Ron Paul?

By: kai

kai — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 18:50:36 +0000

it seems to me that most of the issues with Ron Paul from this article are social. I totally get it but when it comes down to it we need someone to fix the ECONOMY. Social issues have distracted us since the Clinton administration and it all went downhill from there. If we focus on whats socially wrong with Paul we wont be able to listen to the good things he can do for us financially. I’m fine with having states vote and decide what they want because that is WHAT THEY WANT. If you dont like it, move to another state. Or try to fix it. Here in Ca we overturned Prop 8 with no problem =]

By: Phun

Phun — Tue, 04 Oct 2011 01:29:58 +0000

Anybody changed their minds about not supporting Ronny? Anybody ready for real change? Take back AMERICA!!!!

By: James, the dumbass

James, the dumbass — Wed, 04 May 2011 09:13:50 +0000

“Probably because they are the ONLY state with a State Bank. This is Paul’s Theory in action and the results are marvelous.”

NO. It’s the Non-Partisan League’s Theory in action and the results are STILL marvelous.

By: James

James — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:32:15 +0000

Wilder K. Wight :

We already have refugees from all the liberal failed states.

IE NY, CA, IL heading to the more fiscally sound states TX, AZ, NC, ND–North Dakota.

Can you believe North Dakota is doing great economically compared to all other states? Probably because they are the ONLY state with a State Bank. This is Paul’s Theory in action and the results are marvelous.

And no, it’s not socialism–it’s following the Constitution.

You can’t be for a state’s rights and against it at the same time.

By: Danny Gins

Danny Gins — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:41:10 +0000

were just talking present some explore a site as long as number of your articles email me.

By: Javier

Javier — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:36:14 +0000

It is really good that people is starting to see Ron Paul as a real option and need to start bullshiting.

By: soft_guy

soft_guy — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:16:00 +0000

I think everyone knew this stuff already. And most of this stuff is what makes Paul the perfect candidate because of two things. First, he’s NOT a liberal democrat. Second, he is for honestly facing up to America’s most fundamental problems and solving them.

By: Wilder K. Wight

Wilder K. Wight — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 04:45:58 +0000

I just want to focus on something every Ron Paul apologist seems to keep saying: “He wants to leave this issue up to the states.” which they say about abortion, separation of church and state, and other issues that are very important in this country.
The ONLY reason Ron Paul says “leave it up to the states” is because he is a neo-Confederate, and KNOWS that if these issues were left to states instead of being federally mandated, that a large number of southern states would make abortion a criminal offense, break the separation of church and state in major ways, and may well begin to persecute people of a non-Christian persuasion. He wants to leave it up to the states because he knows how his home state, and several of the states of his most rabid followers, would abuse such a gift.
Under a Ron Paul Presidency, we’d have fifty little city-states, all with different laws regarding abortion, separation of powers, and other similar issues. We’d have refugees fleeing from some states to go to others so that they can live without the kind of persecution this would invite.
Ron Paul wants to leave it up to the states NOT because he values freedom, but because he understands perfectly that this would serve his fundamentalist Christian goals a lot better than challenging these laws at a federal level has in the past. At least with a “states make their own laws” ideal, he can get SOME states to roll back Roe v. Wade, and he can get SOME states to remove evolution from public schools and reintroduce prayer instead. His agenda is clear– He’s in favor of states’ rights because the states he caters to are still fighting the Civil War, and would love to see a return to the days when a bigoted near-theocracy was acceptable and legal.
No matter how many excuses you make for Ron Paul, the record stands for itself: He’s a neo-Confederate, and NOT a mainstream libertarian. If you’re multi-ethnic and STILL support this man, then you’re the worst kind of self-deprecating, deluded sheep in the political game. You hear what you want to hear (legalized drugs, resist the NWO, whatever) and tune out the rest, even though it will mean a turn toward fascism, bigotry, and fundamentalist ideals that would most certainly harm your freedoms as an American.
We’re the UNITED States. Federal laws are necessary to ensure that we remain so.

By: A.B. Dada

A.B. Dada — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:17:26 +0000

A few comments from a Paul supporter:

a) “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception” — This is a non-issue, though, since Paul has said, vehemently, that all abortion/life issues are handled by the States according to the Constitution. Paul admits to making an error once in supporting a pro-life bill at the Federal level, and he has been sincere at battling BOTH sides by pushing legislation out of the Federal Congress. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, those should never be Federal issues since the definition of murder is a State’s right.

b) “Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program”

Where in the Constitution is there allotment for any Federal official to expend these funds?

c) “limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts,”

All Paul was doing here was confirming that we are a Republic of 50 independent countries that unite only for defense, minting of coins, protection of civil liberties, and a few other minor powers. The Federal judges should be SEVERELY limited.

d) “prohibit spending federal tax dollars on companies doing business with genocidal warlords in Darfur”

And we prohibit legislation like this, since it creates a slippery slope. Individuals should never be barred from sending THEIR money to anyone, anywhere. That is how freedom persists and grows — by giving individuals the freedom to support the groups and individuals of their choice.

e) “which would have legally protected network neutrality”

No it wouldn’t, it would legally enforce the monopolies that exist today with greater power to control competition. If you read the bill, and I’m fairly sure you didn’t, you could see that the intent was not net neutrality but more control of the infrastructure to limit what the future will bring, i.e. change. Net neutrality is a non-issue, as true competition would not allow for a non-neutral net. Instead we give monopoly powers to a few big corporations, and Paul is against that.

f) “vote against the FISA amendment ”

I think this was definitely an error on his part, but NO Representative is present for every vote. Congress is always in a mad rush to push new bills to the floor, and that’s a tragedy. Paul was not present for this vote.

g) “all federal taxation should be eliminated”

Untrue, he is mostly against Federal income taxes that are not evenly levied. The Constitution is clear on the taxation issue, as are decades of debate by the founders’ generation. Income taxes are anti-freedom and pro-State. Paul should be heralded for this view.

h) “eliminate the federal reserve and replace the U.S. dollar with a currency based on the gold standard”

Good. The U.S. dollar has plunged since the FedRes was enacted in 1913, and is in a freefall in the past 16 years. The Constitution is clear on what is legal tender, and unbacked paper money is not.

i) “amend the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship”

I have no opinion on this issue as I don’t care either way. I don’t believe in citizenship to begin with, as I don’t understand what the point is of declaring one’s support for one State over another. The only point I can see of citizenship is deciding who to dole out welfare to, and welfare is unconstitutional at the Federal level.

j) “end US membership in the UN”

Excellent. The UN has gotten us into too many police actions, and is a worthless organization of the powerful with zero care for the troops or citizens.

k) “Ron Paul opposes universal health care.”

Ron Paul is a doctor who sees that over his life, more Federal regulation of health care means less care and more expense. We had the greatest health care in the world until the lobbies stole it from us by over-regulating and over-mandating certain types of care.

l) “Ron Paul wants to build a 700 mile wall between the U.S and Mexico.”

Non-issue for me. Walls don’t do anything, won’t do anything, but I have no knowledge of what the purpose really is other than defense, which I can accept as a Constitutional allotment. I don’t like walls, but I can’t debate that one.

As for who supports him, it’s supposedly a free country. White supremacists harbor ZERO power over others, so it doesn’t both me that people with wacky ideas support someone who isn’t wacky. I’d rather live next door to a racist than to someone who wants to steal from me via taxes, control my life, and threatened jail or death if I disagree. I’m multi-ethnic myself, but I’ve never once felt threatened by racists. I feel threatened every day by the growing police state.

As for the newsletter comments, again a non-issue as that matter was put to rest years ago. Paul didn’t write it, but he accepts full responsibility for the bigotry that was penned in his name, and has made apologies for not screening his newsletter better. Now, he writes most of his articles himself, but approves everything before print.