I get a similar response down here in right-wing Southern Oregon.  In a county where Republicans outnumber Democrats 2to1, the only people I find willing to stand up for peace are the Paulistas. 

  Initially, I was suspicious of their motives, but as I became involved in their cause (RonPaul2008), they gladly have donated their time and effort to mine(StopThisStinkin'War).

  After getting used to the idea that we don't look or even sound alike, we've all discovered something:  We're all people that want a better world, and are willing to work for it.

  Peace and prosperity aren't Progressive or Conservative values.  They are Human Values. 

by Cagey B (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 5:20:17 PM

  (0+)

I agree.  We have many common values.  We just forget this sometimes.

I know the differences between right and left on issues such as the economy are important - but we should not let that sunder the common dedication to securing individual rights and liberties.  And this war is for foolish for many reasons - we all agree on that. 

by Dan Hansen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 6:55:50 PM

  (0+)

You make several good points - especially about the bizarre elevation of abortion over issues of war and peace.

However, as an independent leaning toward the Democrats, I will vote for Edwards. He remains a strong, focused candidate who has raised the question of corporate irresponsibility. I do hope, however, that Paul runs as a Libertarian in the general election to keep the banner of peace flying... especially if Clinton wins the nomination.

by Eric Roth (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 7:06:52 PM

  (0+)

About damn time we stand together!

Vote Ron Paul, that we might return this country to the essential freedoms necessary to argue another day.  Reward the only one promising to repeal the PATRIOT Act, end torture, stop unconstitutional wiretapping, return habeas corpus, bring the troops home from 130 countires!, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, etc. 

Even his economic ideas are the most humane because if substantial changes are not made to return this country to a fiscally-sound footing: 'aint nobody gettin' nothin.' Bankrupt nations, like bankrupt companies and individuals, can't do a whole lot to assist anyone.  

Thanks for the great article. 

www.ronpaul2008.com DONATE NOW!

by Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 8:05:37 PM

  (0+)

Hi Caleb,

 I am a Quaker but not the angry kind.

There is a lot to be said for the basic principle of a non interventionist foreign policy that Ron Paul advocates.  Paul is also to be commended for taking a firm position that we must end the war NOW, and devote those resources to doing good things for our own people in our own country.  Go to the website of the American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.org) for some examples of what we could be doing with the $720 million a day being spent on the war.

 Having said that, there are two planks of Congressman Paul's platform that hold me back from being able to support his candidacy.  The first is his pro-gun stance.  The NRA loves Ron Paul.  I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can be pro-peace and pro-gun at the same time.  It's seeing the instruments of violence as a viable solution to problems that got us into the mess in Iraq in the first place.  We need peace at home as well as in Iraq.  Guns are not making people safe.   Particularly not in Philly or Detroit or Compton or Camden or . . . (I could go on).  Do you know the percentage of guns used in crime that were manufactured for the "legitimate" market that Paul wants to protect?  One hundred percent!  How do I know?  Well, when was the last time you heard of a criminal forging a gun barrel in his garage?

The second is Paul's hostile and punitive position on immigration.  I do not even understand how that is a libertarian position.  It's funny how the biggest advocates of "free markets" have a block on this; they do not understand that much of the economic pain caused by globalization and outsourcing happens because capital can freely move across borders but people can't.

 I also think that Kucinich and whoever wants to be the next Kucinich really needs to figure out how Paul is tapping into the mood of a segment of the electorate and generating a buzz about his campaign (not to mention pulling in an impressive haul of money). 

And I recognize that perfect candidates are few and far between.  But the above two issues are too important for me to overlook, in good conscience.

-- Frank in GA

by Frank in GA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:32:17 PM

  (0+)

Good to see there are people who are calmly examining Ron Paul's positions.

In response:

1. On Guns: I too am troubled by Dr. Paul's position on guns, just as I was with Howard Dean's, which was identical. Dr. Dean said at the time that he saw things from the perspective of a Vermonter, where it is normal to have guns for protection from animals, etc. He said that it should be up to the states to decide what to do with guns. Also, he realized that opposing the NRA would sink his chances in the South. In Dr. Paul's case, I doubt it is as calculating as that - I am certain that he just believes that people have the right to bear arms, according to the 2nd amendment, which is certainly not very clear either way on the issue, maybe intentionally so. Lastly, I don't know that reducing the number of guns would really have much impact on crime; it is useful to look at Canada, where guns are plentiful, yet shooting are 90% rarer per capita (and per gun, I think).

2. On immigration. Libertarians are actually split on the issue. Ron Paul has stated that he would like to see more open immigration and movement across borders, but he believes that we cannot do so as long as we have a welfare state. I tend to agree with him, although I have always felt that it is wrong to prevent free movement of people across borders. In the absence of a welfare state, the flows of people across the border would be balanced according to the job market; the welfare state distorts this balance, and ends up causing tremendous resentment by the native-born population. Ron Paul realizes this, and never stoops to criticizing the immigrants themselves - he realizes that it is the system that is the problem.

by Someone Somewhere (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 9:54:00 PM

  (0+)

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government... Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."  -- Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778)

This is why we have the second amendment.  So the people have the ability to rise up against tyranny.  A militia according to Webster's dictionary of 1776 is:

MILITIA: a body of citizens organized to defend themselves against the tyranny of government.

As has been proven dramatically in England, A disarmed populace is also completely defenseless against the criminals who will still have access to guns.  To eliminate guns in any country, the whole world would have to disarm.  As long as any nation continues to manufacture weapons for warfare, a number of those weapons will fall into the black market to be purchased by criminal organizations in all countries.  I prefer to be able to defend myself against those criminals, and the tyranny of oppressive government.  If you believe that oppressive government can never happen in the USA, then you do not understand history, and should read the second part of Jefferson's quote again.

 To defend oneself is a god-given right.  The second amendment does not confer a right.  It simply says that the government shall not infringe upon that god-given right.

by J.R. Thompson (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 6 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:16:08 PM

  (0+)

"It's funny how the biggest advocates of "free markets" have a block on this; they do not understand that much of the economic pain caused by globalization and outsourcing happens because capital can freely move across borders but people can't."  (emphasis added)

Well said, Frank from GA, and a point which Arthur MacEwan made explicitly clear in "Neoliberalism or Democracy" (1999). 

I must admit tho, I gotta give a thumbs up to support of the 2nd Amendment.

by Rady Ananda (182 articles, 374 quicklinks, 49 diaries, 1718 comments [201 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM

  (0+)

You wrote: "I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can be pro-peace and pro-gun at the same time."

and

"Guns are not making people safe."

The problem is that you are operating under several misconceptions.

1) Paul is not so much pro-peace as he is anti-aggression. Dr. Paul has no problem with individuals or nations defending against aggression through the use of violent weapons.
In Iraq, we are the aggressors. We are the bad guys. Dr. Paul wants us to stop filling that role.

2) Your second misconception is the guns are not making people safe. That is pure lunacy. When guns were effectively outlawed in Australia, the crime rate soared. In the USA criminals are thwarted many thousands of times each year by citizens with guns.

3) Lastly, It is my understanding that Ron Paul merely wants immigrants to come here legally, not illegally. I too believe that it makes sense for the USA to be able to limit the number of criminals that come here. Crossing at a controlled boarder crossing and ensuring that we are not letting murders and career criminals enter seems logical. Also, under Dr. Paul’s reign, efforts would be made to remove the incentive for deadbeat immigrants to come here to take advantage of our social welfare programs and education system.

by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:42:04 PM

  (0+)

I took a test the other day on the candidates and the results can be seen here.

http://beachbumrealtor.spaces.live.com/

 You can take the test and find out which candidate matches your answers.

 What I thought was interesting was that there were only 3 candidates who agreed with me on Iraq, Ron Paul, Kucinich, and Gravel.

And I thought, now that would have been a debate.

As Dr. Carl Sagan said in his series Cosmos back in the 70's, choose life.

by Jay Rhizor (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:01:53 PM

  (0+)

I took the quiz for pure fun and here are the results:

 

	Barack Obama Score: 69 Video

Agree Taxes Stem-Cell Research Health Care Abortion Social Security Line-Item Veto Energy Marriage Gun Control Environment Education

Disagree Iraq Immigration Death Penalty

Ron Paul for me scored way down the list at 29 points. Sorry, I guess I fundamentally disagree with Ron Paul on most, if not all, issues.

Frank J. Ranelli, Senior Editor

by Frank J. Ranelli (66 articles, 143 quicklinks, 29 diaries, 383 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 1:42:49 AM

  (0+)

Ron Paul came in fifth for me at 18 points.  Kucinich was top with 30.  Obama and Clinton scored higher than Paul.

For obvious reasons these quizes have to be taken with a very large grain of salt.

I completely accept your personal rejection of Ron Paul, but would be interested to know the reasoning behind it.

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 8:58:29 AM

  (0+)

Thanks - great article!

We are collecting links to articles like yours at www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com for all the latest news about Ron Paul.

If you want to help ensure your future articles about Ron Paul are noticed by even more Ron Paul supporters and others following the Ron Paul message go to www.WhatTheySayAboutRonPaul.com and post links to your own articles as soon as they are available online.

by Lars Kristiansen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:14:23 PM

  (0+)

Caleb, for me you are so right on, I want to move back to Eugene and be your new best friend.

 Frank in GA, you're more than a little fuzzy on a couple issues about gun ownership and Ron Paul's stance on issues. Ron Paul doesn't claim to be a libertarian across the board so it's incorrect of you to make the tie between the liertarian platform and Ron Paul's stance on an issue. You also make the wrong connection about Paul being against the War in Iraq and the "right to bear arms". Think of Paul more as a constitutionalist, he was against going into Iraq for many reasons personally but his Congressional objection was that it was unconstitutional. You may persanally be for living in a country where there are no guns, but that's your little peaceful dreamland and I applaud you for visiting it. Oh Yea, immigration, Ron Paul is not hostile at all on this issue. He is for enforcing the law which every other country does. He also doesn't place any blame anywhere except on our government for making it a problem, by providing welfare to illegals we have made them more of a drain on our economy rather than an aid to it. It's simply rediculous to suggest that we continue this practice, we're broke, we can't feed the world. Again, a nice dream land you wish for, but what candidate is going to provide you with your fantasy?, no one. It's fine that Ron Paul isn't right for you, he's obviously not, but you are still confused about the issues and where he stands on them.

by Scott Miner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 10:32:48 PM

  (0+)

For Peace Voters, Kucinich dropping out this time is a near re-do of 2004 when Kucinich dropped out leaving us to work on Nader's ballot access to be in the race for PEACE.  Ron Paul rEVOLution was born against the war.

Ron Paul REVOLUTION (I think that word scares some folks) is offering PEACE voters a real opportunity, the enlightened are jumping on, the rest are debating how to divide.

by Jeanette Doney (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 307 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 26, 2008 at 11:38:50 PM

  (0+)

... back Ron Paul. Paul was not invited to speak at the NRA's Celebration of American Values forum last Sept., while every other candidate was. The only mention he gets on their website is as an afterthought, probably due to outraged Paul supporters.

The NRA is not singing Paul's praises for the same reason that Dobson's Focus on the Family ignores him: He represents a serious threat to the very existence of these powerful corporate lobbyists!

We can all agree that this war must end and government intrusion must be scaled back. I believe that Congressman Paul is just the man to do it!

by Dagny Taggart (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:26:03 AM

  (0+)

The real problem I have with Ron Paul, among other things, is his being a  strong supporter of Ronald Reagan. The man that started the deregulation of big business opening the door for all the corporate crimes and rip-offs we have been seeing. His incessant reduction of social programs while giving tax breaks and bailouts to big business .  His wasting Americas wealth on building up the military for no justifiable reason. I know that it is a conmen myth that that is why the soviet union collapsed. But the fact is that it collapsed under the weight of its own burocrasy and strong arm tactics and was showing all the signs of collapse before Reagan ever took office. Then there is his union busting. Now unions are not without corruption but they are the only thing between the workers and the greedy corporate masters. I can agree with the some of what Ron Paul says. But to me the only reason to have a government at all is to do things that are better done collectively than individually and for the good of  the greatest number of the citizenry. From what I can see that is the idea behind the constitution and Dr. Paul seems to have missed that point.

by arlen custer (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 466 comments [69 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:13:57 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul says that Reagan was a "failure", and defended that position when challenged about it on Meet the Press.  Reagan, like Bush, ran on one set of policies, but in office acted like a compeletely different person.  Paul likes his stated policies, but not his actions in office.

by Caleb Friz (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:39:50 PM

  (0+)

For all of you who think Ron Paul is such a fabulous guy, I suggest you visit the link below and review his stands on various things... 

http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

I must admit that I had rejected Paul initially out of hand because he is a Republican and at this point in my life I would *never* vote for anyone associated with the Republican party, but at the urging of a friend who thought he was really worth looking at, I went to do some research. 

I ended up writing a very long email to my friend after a careful review of Ron Paul's various stands on a variety of issues, and here's the summation:

It's good you've spurred me to educate myself about Ron Paul - before I had simply dismissed him out of hand because he's a Republican and at this point in my life, I would never vote for any Republican after they've so completely decimated our economy, ruined our standing in the world, given corporations billions of dollars in *our* tax money, redistributed the wealth of the country away from the middle class and to the top 1/2% of the wealthiest people, all the while doing everything possible to make sure that the average person in this country has no safety net whatsoever - but now I know all the reasons I truly do not like Ron Paul or his positions on various aspects of our government.  I find his stand against basic humanity to be completely skewed toward giving the Christians a free ride, with even more dole-outs of our tax money, while continuing to make sure that women, people of color, kids, seniors (read: people not like him) don't have equal (human) rights, or equal access to resources.  While his singular stands on Iraq and hemp might be appealing, at least for me, when I look at the totality of the agenda he's pushing, I find it just short of reprehensible and certainly not something I would ever endorse or vote for....

I hope you'll take the time to educate yourself about the rest of the candidates...

 

by Julianne Jaz (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 12:22:56 PM

  (0+)

I just visited the site you suggested and read Dr. Paul’s positions. I cannot see any of them that are not in harmony with the US constitution.

Perhaps it is the US constitution and the basic American core beliefs to which you object.

by Mark Bennett (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 47 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:05:14 PM

  (0+)

Ron Paul's anti--government views are unconstitutional. Simply read the preamble and it should become clear.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:26:02 PM

  (0+)

I HOPE YOU'LL TAKE THE TIME TO EDUCATE.

THE CFR IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES BE OBLITERERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED.

THE POWER AND INFLUNCE OF THE CFR IS MUCH LIKE A SHODOW GOVERNMENT. MOST OF THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES INCLUDING THE LIKES OF MITT ROMMEY, JOHN MCCAIN, FRED THOMPSON, CHRIS DODD, BILL RICHARDSON, JOHN EDWARDS, AND HILLARY CLINTON ARE EITHER MEMBERS OF CFR OR HAVE CLOSE AFFILIATIONS WITH THIS GROUP OF ELITES. WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT SO MANY PEOPLE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT WOULD BE LINKED TO THIS GROUP. THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FORMIING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION. SO A VOTE FOR ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES IS A VOTE FOR THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION AND OPEN BORDERS. NOW WHO DO WE HAVE LEFT TO PICK FROM, WHAT SAY YOU. 

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 7:56:14 AM

  (0+)

Okay, we read it for like the 2nd or 3rd time now and still agree with the majority of it. So what is your point? Let us know what is so appalling to you because most, if not all of his stands on the issues, are from a Constitutionalists point of view. What everybody, but a Dr. Paul supporter, does not realize is that his supporters know where he stands better than most other supporters know where their candidate stands. As for Obama or anybody that is left as a candidate, other than Dr. Paul, they are ALL a CFR Member and look to World goals first and USA second. We would rather support a STATESMAN that has written many books on Economics and is supported by Economists and other Academia scholars as well as Hard Money Investment Advisers than ALL the other CFR Member candidates that care more about being President than they do about the people. As we have said many, many times before We The People are running for President and Dr. Paul is merely our vessel that we have chosen to represent We The People in the White House. It TAKES A Doctor To HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:03:42 PM

  (0+)

Aloha!

Beside the fact that our election system is broke, broke, broke, and voting may be a joke.... there are many, many things to like about Ron Paul.

However, a couple of things I just can't get past... sick people, for one. Do we just let sick and dying people lay all over the streets because we're too cheap to help them; sorry, you're on your own dude, but thanks for your vote.

Or for the young girl raped by her papa who has to panhandle and hitch-hike through five states for her own survival; sorry little girl, freedom ends at your vagina, but thanks for your vote.

These two things in particular stop me cold. I know life and politics are a series of compromises but Ron Paul doesn't cut it, for me.

by Shannon Rudolph (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:11:45 PM

  (0+)

Although Dr. Paul believes life begins at conception if a rape occurred like you just posted we doubt Dr. Paul would even stop an abortion as long as it was early on. Dr. Paul wants to remove the Federal Government from regulating abortion and leave that up to the States themselves since they are much closer to their citizens. If you wish to have Pro-Choice in your state then just get together with like-minded individuals in your state and get a law passed to allow the state to be Pro-Choice. The Constitution says that "All men are created equal" so who is to say that a fetus is not considered in that definition. If you killed a pregnant woman you would have 2 counts of murder so to say a fetus is NOT considered to be a human being is totally hypocritical. There can be many extenuating circumstances that can call for an abortion but now a days, instead of practicing safe sex, the young people know that they can just have an abortion so why should they even worry about abstinence if they are extremely young or safe sex if they are older. That sick people quote of yours is way off base considering Dr. Paul has delivered over 4,000 babies and if somebody couldn't afford it he did NOT throw them out but did it for FREE. He comes from the generation where Church ran hospitals took care of the sick for FREE. If you are able to keep 100% of the money you earn don't you think that you could Donate more to more charitable causes including FREE Hospitals? One thing we do NOT want Universal Healthcare that is being controlled by our Federal Government. One reason that we are totally against Universal Healthcare is because we are Naturalpathic and almost NEVER even go to the Doctor or Hospital. Why should we, and Millions like ourself, have to be taxed through the roof for something we will most likely NEVER even use? By the way, CAFTA will be regulating our Vitamins and Nutritional Supplements and you will need a Doctor's prescription just to purchase them. Forget any Alternative Care under a Government Run Health Care. Also expect to way a very long time just to see the Doctor with Universal Healthcare. We have a few friends in the UK that tell us the waiting period is as long as 8 months. The UK ONLY has 30 Million people and we have 300 Million people in the USA. Also the fact that the USA is going bankrupt and can NOT afford Universal Healthcare. Every politician will tell you what you want to hear but when it comes down to it they will NOT deliver. With Dr. Paul there will be NO CAFTA and not only will you be able to choose Alternative Care you will also be able to choose Alternative Energy. NOT sure if many of you know this but Perpetual Motion Machines do exist but Our Government has been stopping inventors from allowing them on the market for decades. We know this for a fact because our father has invented one and tried to get a Government Grant to put it on the market over 30 years ago. They listened to him speak for about 2 hours but when they found out it was self-perpetuating they told him they could NOT give him a grant. Dr. Paul would allow these type of Alternate Energy Inventions to be marketed in the USA. There is a lot more going on than the average American even realizes. The Oil Cartel has eliminated many inventors in the past and even our own lawyer said that we could be eliminated if we tried to put it on the market. Dr. Paul is putting HIS LIFE on the line for ALL of us every day and NOT any of the candidates are even risking their lives. Dr. Paul is going AGAINST the Status Quo and some very powerful people. You vote for whomever you wish but our supporter and fortune WILL go to Dr. Paul's campaign because we KNOW that he is RISKING his life unselfishly for ALL of us. Get ready to have some fun. We are sending an email out to our extremely large group and they know what is going on even better than we do. It TAKES A Doctor To HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 2:58:40 PM

  (0+)

Dr. Paul wants to remove the Federal Government from regulating abortion and leave that up to the States themselves since they are much closer to their citizens.

You know the states were much closer to their citizens when they supported slavery too.  Slavery was unconstitutional prior to the 13th Amendment but the slave owner controlled Supreme Court wouldn't accept that so the 13th Amendment had to be adopted.

Similarly, Paul's view on abortion is unconstitutional becasue he doesn't believe in the right of privacy residing in the people. He accepts that states can unconstitutionally take away the right of privacy.  All very convenient for his Christian prejudices.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:30:49 PM

  (0+)

Anyone who thinks Paul should be supported just because he is against the war is a fool.  I agree that because of his views on Iraq and some other issues that Paul is the least objectionable Republican, but that is no praise.  Considering all the issues that face a president and our nation, such as abortionrights and appointing Supreme Court justices, even the worst Democrat -- the two-faced Hillary -- is better than Paul.

by Gregory Wonderwheel (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 99 comments) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:21:35 PM

  (0+)

 HA HERE A SIDE WHERE YOU CAN COMEPARE VOTING RECORDS FROM DAY ONE OF A CANDIDATES FRIST VOTE ON BILLS. google( PROJEST VOTE SMART)

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:10:08 AM

  (0+)

 (PROJECT VOTE SMART)

by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Monday, Jan 28, 2008 at 8:14:00 AM

  (0+)

Paul is not the sole peace candidate left. Mike Gravel is a peace candidate and he's still in the race. The institution of government is not the private. The problem is government controlled by corporations and other private interests.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:33:27 PM

  (0+)

We did NOT even mention anything about the war. LOL The War is major since it will free up hundreds of billions of dollars per year as well as bring money back to our economy by having over 400,000 military personnel spending their paychecks in the USA instead of the 144 countries they are in according to American Legion Magazine. Dr. Paul is NOT a 1 issue candidate and if you think that you have NOT even read his issues on his website. He is about more issues than just about any other candidate. It may sound like he is only about the War in the DEbates because the Republicans are NOT bringing up the topic of War so he brings it up. Considering the War is bankrupting us it is a major issue that MUST be rectified in order to improve our economy. It TAKES A Doctor To HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:34:19 PM

  (0+)

I meant to say the institution of government is not the problem.

by Ty (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 888 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:37:48 PM

  (0+)

We did a search on a site and it said Mike Gravel had also pulled out of the race. Guess that site was wrong. Go figure. LOL Well then there are still 2 Good candidates running for President. Is Gravel getting enough funds from his supporters to keep him in the race? It TAKES A Doctor To HEAL Our Country, Freedom4America Group

by Freedom4America Group (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 69 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jan 27, 2008 at 5:50:35 PM

  (0+)

The world will not be peaceful with the dependence on OIL and natural gas.  Peak oil arrived in May 2006.  And Dr. Paul's answer to that.  NADA. There will be SERIOUS problems changing the Department of Energy, Cheney has seen to that.  Who would be running it .. NEOCONS.

 The world will not be peaceful with mlitary keynesianism gold standard back or no.

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174884/chalmers_johnson_how_to_sink_america

The world will not be peaceful without a SERIOUS serious redraft of the US State Department .. and his Secretary of State problem gets solved HOW.  More neocons who are employing a full one half of all military used by the United states. Do we see Dr. Paul getting involved in ending the use of mercenaries to be used in an illegal war?  No, we do not.

 Do the military JAGs agree with his strange strange silence on the use of torture? NO they do not.  The use of torture leads to many other horrible consequences

 www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/91/1425.pdf 

The world will not respect anyone who does not put heavy time and effort into a new diplomatic effort while sitting in the Oval office. Will he?  Highly doubtful - he'll be so very very busy dismantling the INS, the Department of Education and everything else his selfish and short sighted constituency DEMANDS he do for THEM.  Did this happen before in US history, yes it has.

My observation is this:  If Karl Rove had sat down and had the biggest wetdream in his life of HOW to completely destroy American ideals of equality under the law for all he could not have done a better job.

I wonder who called Dr. Paul and said .."Oh, Ro you must run your country needs you." Who does anyone suppose that was?!!!

Sure wasn't some anti imperialist .. it was someone with an agenda all their own.  Nothing has proven so divisive since BuZh stole the election.

 Genius, pure genius.

by ladybroadoak (39 articles, 20 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 394 comments) on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2008 at 2:27:51 PM

  (0+)