Europeans For Ron Paul

[qwerty]

http://europe4ronpaul.blogspot.com/

There are also links for,

* Asia for Ron Paul
* Brazil for Ron Paul
* Canadians for Ron Paul

* Indians and Pakistanis for Ron Paul
* Ron Paul Venezuela

* Americans in Europe
* Bavaria for Ron Paul
* Belgians for Ron Paul
* Brits4RonPaul
* Croatia for Ron Paul
* Espana for Ron Paul
* France for Ron Paul
* Hidalgos y Piratas (Spain for Ron Paul)
* Holland4RonPaul
* Hungary for Ron Paul
* Ireland 4 Ron Paul
* Italian Bloggers for Ron Paul
* Italians for Ron Paul
* Latvia for Ron Paul
* Norway for Ron Paul
* Portugal for Ron Paul
* Romania for Ron Paul
* Ron Paul Finland
* RonPaul.blog.de (German)
* Ronpaulish.blog.onet.pl (POLAND)
* Swedes for Ron Paul
* Switzerland for Ron Paul

meetup groups,

* Amsterdam, The Netherlands
* Antwerpen, Belgium
* Athlone, Ireland
* Barcelona, Spain
* Berlin, Germany
* Bratislava, Slovakia
* Brno, Czech Republic
* Edinburgh, Scotland
* Hamburg, Germany
* Helsinki, Finland
* Kaiserslautern, Germany
* Lisbon, Portugal
* London, England
* Madrid, Spain
* Munich, Germany
* Oslo, Norway
* Paris, France
* Prague, Czech Republic
* Sion, Switzerland
* Verona, Italy
* Vienna, Austria
* Zürich, Switzerland

Even chinese, chineseforpaul.org

[AlanC]

If we wouldn't allow the French or the Germans to elect Kerry, what makes you think that anyone cares what foreigners think of Ron Paul?

So, your point would be?

[AnnEsthesia]

So I guess Europeans want to know what Americans think of their candidates? Who knew?

[AlonzoMourning23]

Wow, look at all those non voters!

[qwerty]

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Like i said this is a movement...

[Scorpion]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

In all seriousness, who cares what Europe thinks about any of our candidates? We'll elect who we want and Europe will, as usual, find some reason to hate that person.

[qwerty]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

In all seriousness, who cares what Europe thinks about any of our candidates? We'll elect who we want and Europe will, as usual, find some reason to hate that person.


Because, we are together in this planet ?

Do you like to be isolated from the rest of the world ?

[Scorpion]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

In all seriousness, who cares what Europe thinks about any of our candidates? We'll elect who we want and Europe will, as usual, find some reason to hate that person.


Because, we are together in this planet ?

Do you like to be isolated from the rest of the world ?


Isolated, no. We are electing our next president. The rest of the world are entitled to express an opinion as to whom they would like to see elected but they should not be under any illusion that their opinion will influence the election.

Given the attitude of many Europeans towards the US I'd be unlikely to vote for a candidate favored by Europeans.

[Elrathin]

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Like i said this is a movement...


A movement to nowhere considering foriegn folks aren't electing the next president of the U.S.

As I said before, Ron's Biggest Hurdle isn't the 08 election, it is getting the GOP nomination from the RNC and that isn't going to happen. Sorry, but while the "movement" is squealing it's tires, it ain't going nowhere.

[Scorpion]

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Like i said this is a movement...


A movement to nowhere considering foriegn folks aren't electing the next president of the U.S.

As I said before, Ron's Biggest Hurdle isn't the 08 election, it is getting the GOP nomination from the RNC and that isn't going to happen. Sorry, but while the "movement" is squealing it's tires, it ain't going nowhere.


Well said. Ron Paul hasn't got a chance of winning the nomination so his popularity anywhere is a moot point.

[qwerty]

A movement to nowhere considering foriegn folks aren't electing the next president of the U.S.

Hmmmm, actually this a movement and Ron Paul is just lucky to be part of it...

People are pissed off...most exiting thing is that perhaps these young people start getting more and more interested about the politics...

As I said before, Ron's Biggest Hurdle isn't the 08 election, it is getting the GOP nomination from the RNC and that isn't going to happen. Sorry, but while the "movement" is squealing it's tires, it ain't going nowhere.

As i said before, you will know it when the votes have been counted, not before...

[Scorpion]

A movement to nowhere considering foriegn folks aren't electing the next president of the U.S.

Hmmmm, actually this a movement and Ron Paul is just lucky to be part of it...

People are pissed off...most exiting thing is that perhaps these young people start getting more and more interested about the politics...
As I said before, Ron's Biggest Hurdle isn't the 08 election, it is getting the GOP nomination from the RNC and that isn't going to happen. Sorry, but while the "movement" is squealing it's tires, it ain't going nowhere.

As i said before, you will know it when the votes have been counted, not before...


What have Europeans to be "pissed off" about? For the most part they're ineffectual whiners who complain about the US yet they can't get their own houses in order. And if young Europeans want to become more involved in the political process I'd suggest that they tend to their own country's failures, mind their own business and leave the outcome of US elections to US voters.

You're right about the election being over after the votes have been counted. And thankfully the Europeans will have no effect on who gets elected.

[Buck Laser]

So where in Europe do you live? And what's your first language?

[AlonzoMourning23]

http://www.whowouldtheworldelect.com/

Like i said this is a movement...


Yup, and Obama is leading Hillary 4-1 as well.

College kids with too much time on their hands is all. And even then they still won't show up to vote.

[AnnEsthesia]

One has to wonder why someone in Europe is so rabid about something they have no hand in. It is just odd.

[lily]

Well, Anne...........if you stop and look at it......there are a lot of decisions made by the US that effect Europe and other countries.

[AnnEsthesia]

I understand why someone would pay attention... but not why someone would come onto a forum and try and convince Americans that he knows more about the candidate and the country than the actual people who are part of said country.

[micfranklin]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/1329417510_0e7095ab80_m.jpg

Now, now people Klingons have a right to be heard, too:thumbsup:

[lily]

I understand why someone would pay attention... but not why someone would come onto a forum and try and convince Americans that he knows more about the candidate and the country than the actual people who are part of said country.


You know.....reading some of qwerty's posts sometimes I am jealous. I wish I had that much passion for any of the candidates running. They're all blah to me.

[Elrathin]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1174/1329417510_0e7095ab80_m.jpg

Now, now people Klingons have a right to be heard, too:thumbsup:


Ok now, thx for the chuckle Micfranklin it was needed hehehe.

[qwerty]

What have Europeans to be "pissed off" about?

Iraq war, high taxes, big goverment etc etc...I really wish that Ron would move to my country...

For the most part they're ineffectual whiners who complain about the US yet they can't get their own houses in order. And if young Europeans want to become more involved in the political process I'd suggest that they tend to their own country's failures, mind their own business and leave the outcome of US elections to US voters.

You fail to see what i mean...

This is a worldwide freedom movement and europeans gives their support to where the mouth is. Of course we need to try chance our own politics but i see nothing bad to support other coutries. You we want to talk with people and trade with people just like Ron Paul!


We are in this planet together, you like or not...

You're right about the election being over after the votes have been counted. And thankfully the Europeans will have no effect on who gets elected.

They might give him a great amount of media coverage soon, if their plan works...Let´s see...

You know.....reading some of qwerty's posts sometimes I am jealous. I wish I had that much passion for any of the candidates running. They're all blah to me.

It´s more about the message/honesty to me. I have NEVER seen a politician like Ron Paul in my life NEVER !

Like Ron Paul says this is a movement and he is just lucky to part of it...

[Pookie]

Well, let's see...
Europeans, aliens...how about cats?
Naaahh, they're too smart. I wish I could get enthusiastic about one of the candidates on either side, but it's just not happening yet. I don't think Ron Paul will even get the nomination, but we'll see. The Europeans favored Kerry in the last presidential election, and you saw how far that went.:shame:
Purrs,
Pookie

[Buck Laser]

Why can't I get an answer to my question about where Qwerty lives?

[AnnEsthesia]

How do you know that Ron Paul is honest? Really? Show me proof that he will actually do what he says (or that he even *can* do what he says) he will do.

[Pookie]

An honest politician? Where? How do we know?
Some people are sensitive about giving info like that out, Buck, or he may have overlooked your question.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Scorpion]

Qwerty:

I, as lily, applaud your passion but the sad fact is the outcome will be determined by the candidates behavior, the US media and the electorates vote. Europe, indeed the broad international community, will have little if no effect on the elections outcome. And thank goodness for that.

Consider this. Most European countries consider being overly critical of the US great sport while they pay no attention to their own obligations, problems and failures. France under Chirac was a prime example. So why would you expect the US electorate to give any creedance to a group that has shown nothing but disrespect for the US? We won't.

But again, all this is a moot point. Ron Paul has virtually no chance of being elected US president. Perhaps you'd care to start a grassroots campaign to elect Ron Paul President of your country.

[qwerty]

I, as lily, applaud your passion but the sad fact is the outcome will be determined by the candidates behavior, the US media and the electorates vote. Europe, indeed the broad international community, will have little if no effect on the elections outcome. And thank goodness for that.

Thanks for the compliment.

Hey, the point is that we are VERY jealous to USA that you have candidate like Ron Paul, i´m so jealous that can´t find the words.

Least i can do is try to help him to get elected and hope that he will change the world too. USA has HUGE impact to the world, you can´t deny that...

Consider this. Most European countries consider being overly critical of the US great sport while they pay no attention to their own obligations, problems and failures. France under Chirac was a prime example. So why would you expect the US electorate to give any creedance to a group that has shown nothing but disrespect for the US? We won't.

Hey, i hate for example European Union and many other things in Europe...

We are FAR from perfect and i really hope that Ron gets elected and teaches European leaders!

What makes me very happy is to see that most of the people in this movement are YOUNG, that really makes me hope that these motivated young grass-root get into politics and show there their passion to the freedom-message!

Be the change you want see!

But again, all this is a moot point. Ron Paul has virtually no chance of being elected US president. Perhaps you'd care to start a grassroots campaign to elect Ron Paul President of your country.

I will do it if he comes to my country! If Ron doesn´t win, don´t expect that freedom-train will stop...

:thumbsup:

[lily]

I will do it if he comes to my country! If Ron doesn´t win, don´t expect that freedom-train will stop...

:thumbsup:


I'm not that good at international politics......a person doesn't have to be a born citizen of your country to run for president?

[quiet man]

Americans don't care what Europeans think about their polotics.

[qwerty]

I'm not that good at international politics......a person doesn't have to be a born citizen of your country to run for president?


I think so...It was just a joke... ;)

[lily]

.......as was mine.;)

[micfranklin]

How do you know that Ron Paul is honest? Really? Show me proof that he will actually do what he says (or that he even *can* do what he says) he will do.


Take a look at his voting record and tell me how consistent it is with what he says and suggests.....

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

[AnnEsthesia]

Voting and actually running the country are two separate things. So if there is a part of a bill that has foreign aid attached, he would veto it, even if it meant that seniors lost funding for health care. He would veto a bill to fund schools if it meant that something else he disagreed with was at all included.

He would either be a night mare, or he would fail to live up to his promises. Either way, no thanks.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I found this one interesting mic:

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion.

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions.

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.

Voted YES on replacing illegal export tax breaks with $140B in new breaks.

Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education.

Present scientific facts that support creationism.

Rated 5% by the LCV, indicating anti-environment votes.

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids.

Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released.

Foreign aid often more harmful than helpful .

Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations.

Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions.

Voted YES on preventing tipping off Mexicans about Minuteman Project.

No "sexual orientation" in Employment Non-Discrimination Act.



He's a nightmare candidate. I'll take Bush over Paul.

[AnnEsthesia]

There ya go. That is EXACTLY what I am talking about, Zo.

[micfranklin]

I see we're only looking at select parts of his voting record instead of the whole thing:grrrr:

I'll admit his environmental stances are weak and not a turn-on for me. For abortion I understand he is a pro-life candidate but he has also said that states are better left making that choice so give him credit for that.

Don't know the reasoning behind being against the nationwide AMBER alert or keeping the Cuba travel ban.

About foreign aid, I'm not sure if health care would even be mentioned in the same bill but you have to admit when it comes to foreign aid we do stick our noses in places that we don't belong.

[AnnEsthesia]

I see we're only looking at select parts of his voting record instead of the whole thing:grrrr:

I'll admit his environmental stances are weak and not a turn-on for me. For abortion I understand he is a pro-life candidate but he has also said that states are better left making that choice so give him credit for that.

Don't know the reasoning behind being against the nationwide AMBER alert or keeping the Cuba travel ban.

About foreign aid, I'm not sure if health care would even be mentioned in the same bill but you have to admit when it comes to foreign aid we do stick our noses in places that we don't belong.


Actually, I do not give him credit for wanting to let states decide things like the rights of citizens. Should we allow a mostly white state to decide civil rights? Should we let a mostly christian state whether all religions should be protected? Should we let a mostly male state decide whether women should still be allowed to vote?

Sorry, no. Government makes laws that may not be universally popular in order to GIVE rights to those who may not otherwise get them.

Ron Paul would be happy to let them be taken away.

[micfranklin]

Actually, I do not give him credit for wanting to let states decide things like the rights of citizens. Should we allow a mostly white state to decide civil rights?

Something wrong with the 10th Amendment? And about that mostly-white state we shouldn't and we can't do that anyway under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Should we let a mostly christian state whether all religions should be protected?

We shouldn't and we can't do that anyway under the 1st Amendment and the seperation of church and state.

Should we let a mostly male state decide whether women should still be allowed to vote?

We shouldn't and we can't do that anyway under the 19th Amendment.

Sorry, no. Government makes laws that may not be universally popular in order to GIVE rights to those who may not otherwise get them.

Ron Paul would be happy to let them be taken away.

But see here's the problem: what your examples stated above were suggesting were that states be allowed to do set laws that were already set in place, thereby making those actions you suggested illegal anyway.

[AlonzoMourning23]

And about that mostly-white state we shouldn't and we can't do that anyway under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No thanks to Paul, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964.

[AnnEsthesia]

Whatever. Sorry, my rights will not be handed to the state to do with as they wish. You think Bush is bad, just wait until nut job gets in and really fucks things up.

[micfranklin]

And about that mostly-white state we shouldn't and we can't do that anyway under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

No thanks to Paul, he opposes the civil rights act of 1964.


But not because of racism, moreso because it was forced integration.

Whatever. Sorry, my rights will not be handed to the state to do with as they wish.

Well since abortion has child's lives attached to it and you would be killing a baby I can understand why, even though I can't find a stance. And let me ask you this, would you feel better if the federal government had more control of that?

You think Bush is bad, just wait until nut job gets in and really fucks things up.

Bush has gotten us into an illegal war, is about to get us involved in another one, has lied about it, bankrupt the country, created a lazy Homeland Security, allowed for torture to occur and has flat-out shitted on our Constitution. Paul couldn't top that unless we actually got into a nuclear conflict.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yes he could. By turning everything over to the states, he would create a mess. By merging or dissolving federal Departments like Education and the like, he would toss any idea of standards out the window.

And his abortion stance is that he would like it illegal and will trust that the states will make it so for him. As for your statements about abortion, that is your opinion and belief. Not everyone holds the same philosophical and religious beliefs. Humans are not an endangered species that should be protected at all cost.

And yes, I know, I am evil for saying that. Ah well. Maybe if you heard the things I did on a daily basis, you would understand my perspective.

[qwerty]

Let´s, On education...

I rise today to introduce the Family Education Freedom Act, a bill to empower millions of working and middle-class Americans to choose a non-public education for their children, as well as making it easier for parents to actively participate in improving public schools. The Family Education Freedom Act accomplishes it goals by allowing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

MORE; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/259/the-family-education-freedom-act/

When parents control the education dollar, schools must be responsive to parental demands that their children receive first-class educations, otherwise, parents will find alternative means to educate their children. Furthermore, parents whose children are in public schools may use their credit to improve their schools by purchasing of educational tools such as computers or extracurricular activities such as music programs. Parents of public school students may also wish to use the credit to pay for special services for their children.

MORE; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/258/statement-on-the-congressional-education-plan/

The key to fixing our education system is to reduce the role of the federal government and expand local and parental control of schools. Funding decisions increasingly have been controlled by bureaucrats in Washington, causing public and even some private schools to follow the dictates of these federal "educrats" to an ever-greater degree to preserve their funding. As a result, curricula, teacher standards, textbook selection, and discipline policies have been crafted in Washington. Rigorous classes in basics such as mathematics, grammar, science, Western civilization, and history have been reduced or eliminated, while politically favored subjects have been forced upon students.

MORE; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/251/local-control-is-the-key-to-education-reform/

After more than 40 years of massive federal education spending, the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever. Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in Washington. I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in America is returning local control back to our public schools.

MORE; http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/249/the-federal-education-morass/

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=13


OMG, that´s so INTELLIGENT.[hr]ON ABORTION,

Once we allow federal control over abortion, we lose the opportunity for states to enact pro-life legislation. Numerous states already have laws that punish the act of murder against a fetus. Our focus should be on overturning Roe and getting the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/86/respect-for-life-begins-with-respect-for-the-constitutional-rule-of-law/

Abortion on demand is no doubt the most serious sociopolitical problem of our age. The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. As an obstetrician, I know that partial birth abortion is never a necessary medical procedure.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/83/the-partial-birth-abortion-ban/

First, we must return to constitutional principles and proclaim them proudly. We must take a principled approach that recognizes both moral and political principles, and accepts the close relationship between them. Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion. State legislatures have always had proper jurisdiction over issues like abortion and cloning; the pro-life movement should recognize that jurisdiction and not encroach upon it. The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/81/pro-life-action-must-originate-from-principle/

This is very intelligent too,

This is a PURE moral question, "what do you think is life ?"

Ron is VERY intelligent when he doesn´t want to CONTROL OHTHERS with his own moral principles. Instead of telling "you need to do this and that" he let´s local people deal with this moral issue.

This is a total moral question, worst thing that can happen is that federal goverment starts to tell everyone what to do, there are HUGE moral differences between different states...[hr]Environment

The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

* I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
* I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
* Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
* I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=980

:clapper:

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, but he DOES want to control others. Just because you agree with him does not mean he wants people free to make their own choices.

[micfranklin]

Yes he could. By turning everything over to the states, he would create a mess. By merging or dissolving federal Departments like Education and the like, he would toss any idea of standards out the window.

Department of Education hasn't done much to make things better if kids nationwide are failing what are considered to be easy classes, or can't even write a simple essay. As for Homeland Security, that's the biggest waste of tax money we've spent and it hasn't done shit for us.

And his abortion stance is that he would like it illegal and will trust that the states will make it so for him. As for your statements about abortion, that is your opinion and belief. Not everyone holds the same philosophical and religious beliefs. Humans are not an endangered species that should be protected at all cost.

Where? Where does it say he would like it to be illegal?

And yes, I know, I am evil for saying that. Ah well. Maybe if you heard the things I did on a daily basis, you would understand my perspective.

Never said you were evil and BTW I've heard plenty of things on the news, from my family and in class almost daily.

Sorry, but he DOES want to control others. Just because you agree with him does not mean he wants people free to make their own choices.

That is completely absurd. How is his voting against the Patriot Act wanting to control others? How is his stance against the War on Drugs wanting to control others? How is his letting the states decide on abortion wanting to control others? If he wanted to control others then he would've opted for a law banning abortion altogether by now.

[AnnEsthesia]

lol mic. Anyone with half a brain knows what will happen when you overturn the rules and allow states to decide. You can claim that he is being 'fair', but in the end he will get his desire.

[micfranklin]

lol mic. Anyone with half a brain knows what will happen when you overturn the rules and allow states to decide. You can claim that he is being 'fair', but in the end he will get his desire.


I do know what'll happen: we'd actually be following the Constitution, weird I know. And whether a state decides to allow abortion or not I'm sure the masses of people will come out and protest the opposite view and eventually get their way. And regarding the whole abortion debate with him, I admire the fact that he won't let that personal ideal mix in with what would be law.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Qwerty and mic, why did he vote to ban gay adoptions in DC? He seems to be perfectly willing to deny children of homes even though many agencies are willing to adopt to homosexuals.

And he seems willing to allow people to take away the right a woman has to control her own body.

Freedom isn't just about having choice, freedom is also about ensuring the people, majority or not, have choice in their own daily lives. Anti-discrimination laws, the civil rights acts, public education taxes etc. all can be argued to take away choice from some, but they also ensure that many other have more choices as well now and later on in life.

Do you really think that, with vouchers, inner city schools will get any better? Those who have transportation will travel, those with no car and little money will be stuck with whatever is nearby.

And do you really think that allowing people to deny others jobs due to race or gender will increase freedom? By default you will make the most disadvantaged groups have fewer job and career options. They'd have less choice in what they want to do with their lives, and face more restrictions by society.

It's overly simplistic to assume all freedom is good. Freedom needs restrictions to ensure the minority are not controlled by the majority. Without placing certain restrictions on the powerful the weaker group lacks the same freedoms in their day to day lives. They may have it on paper but, in practice, it will never be there.

[AlonzoMourning23]

I do know what'll happen: we'd actually be following the Constitution, weird I know. And whether a state decides to allow abortion or not I'm sure the masses of people will come out and protest the opposite view and eventually get their way. And regarding the whole abortion debate with him, I admire the fact that he won't let that personal ideal mix in with what would be law.

Mic, explain this:

No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion.

Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info.

That's from the link to his policies you provided. Seems like he does let his view of abortion influence him.

[quote]

[AnnEsthesia]

Exactly, Zo.

[qwerty]

Qwerty and mic, why did he vote to ban gay adoptions in DC? He seems to be perfectly willing to deny children of homes even though many agencies are willing to adopt to homosexuals.


The Constitutional answer is, naturally, that the Federal government has no authority to do anything with adoption laws. It is exclusively the jurisdiction of the states.

I really hope that you take a look at these videos, These videos help you,

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

And he seems willing to allow people to take away the right a woman has to control her own body.

Did you read those articles i posted... :rolleyes:

Freedom isn't just about having choice, freedom is also about ensuring the people, majority or not, have choice in their own daily lives. Anti-discrimination laws, the civil rights acts, public education taxes etc. all can be argued to take away choice from some, but they also ensure that many other have more choices as well now and later on in life.

Ron Paul talks ABOUT INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, so it means EVERYBODY...

Do you really think that, with vouchers, inner city schools will get any better? Those who have transportation will travel, those with no car and little money will be stuck with whatever is nearby.

Did you read any of the articles i posted...You seem to ignore the most important things...



And do you really think that allowing people to deny others jobs due to race or gender will increase freedom? By default you will make the most disadvantaged groups have fewer job and career options. They'd have less choice in what they want to do with their lives, and face more restrictions by society.

What´s this thing ?

It's overly simplistic to assume all freedom is good. Freedom needs restrictions to ensure the minority are not controlled by the majority. Without placing certain restrictions on the powerful the weaker group lacks the same freedoms in their day to day lives. They may have it on paper but, in practice, it will never be there.

It´s the most simplistic to think that GOVERMENT should run your life.

It´s most stupid to believe that LOOSING OUR FREEDOMS will make us more secure or anything like that. Just read what your founding fathers said.

It very simplistic to think that GOVERMENT makes the best choices for everyone.

The Constitution is the paper that made America GREAT! And following that intelligent paper will make America GREAT again.

It´s pretty obvious that you don´t know anything about constitution, cause you ask "why Ron voted this and that"...

READ YOUR CONSTITUTION! Study constitution if you want to know "why ron paul votes like he does, usually the answer could be found from there...

[AnnEsthesia]

If he was all up on individual freedoms, then he would support gay marriage and abortion rights. Since he does not, then he can hardly say he is about individual freedoms.

[Scorpion]

I am not a big fan of Ron Paul's ideology but I do agree with him that the organized and legal homicide committed every day in the US which we call abortion must be stomped out. Preservation of life cannot remain a matter of convenience, especially in a society that prides itself in protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

It's tragic and disgraceful that those of a certain political ilk favor disposable human life.

[qwerty]

If he was all up on individual freedoms, then he would support gay marriage and abortion rights. Since he does not, then he can hardly say he is about individual freedoms.


OMG...

You really should take a look at your constitution...

Ron says that GOVERMENT SHOULD NOT DECIDE THOSE THINGS, states should...

DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO I GAVE YOU ON MY LAST POST,

RON IS ASKED, SHOULD GAYS BE ALLOWED MARRY ?

RON SAYS, SURE...OMG WATCH THE VIDEO!

He has his own moral but when he allows states to do what they want they want, he doesn´t PUSH his moral to anyone...

This is getting very amusing, i provide you MATERIAL ALL THE TIME AND YOU IGNORE THEM EVEN WHEN THEY ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTIONS...


GOOD VIDEO ON ABORTION!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

[AnnEsthesia]

OMG! AND I DISAGREE WITH HIM! OMG!

You do realize that Ron Paul is not god and that a lot of very ethical, smart and important people disagree with him.

Get a grip.

[qwerty]

OMG! AND I DISAGREE WITH HIM! OMG!

You do realize that Ron Paul is not god and that a lot of very ethical, smart and important people disagree with him.

Get a grip.


Feel free to disagree, but do it with honour...

It´s pretty boring to have conversation with you when you LIE about Ron Paul and won´t read/take a look at the material i give you...

Check the videos i posted...

[AnnEsthesia]

Nice accusation. I have not lied. I have just not fallen in love with him and been willing to believe every thing that is said about him is truth, lol.

[micfranklin]

If he was all up on individual freedoms, then he would support gay marriage and abortion rights. Since he does not, then he can hardly say he is about individual freedoms.

Wait, wait, wait....regarding gay marriage he hasn't voted for a single amendment banning gay marriage or any amendment involving marriage so that point you made is moot. And like I said, with abortions he wants the states to decide not himself.

Qwerty and mic, why did he vote to ban gay adoptions in DC? He seems to be perfectly willing to deny children of homes even though many agencies are willing to adopt to homosexuals.

That, I honestly don't know the reasoning behind that but we can't base
everything we think about him on this one issue.

And he seems willing to allow people to take away the right a woman has to control her own body.

Again, he wants the states to decide, not himself. If you have to blame somebody blame the states for taking away rights, not him.

Freedom isn't just about having choice, freedom is also about ensuring the people, majority or not, have choice in their own daily lives. Anti-discrimination laws, the civil rights acts, public education taxes etc. all can be argued to take away choice from some, but they also ensure that many other have more choices as well now and later on in life.

I never said any of those laws or acts did or didn't take away choice. Like I said his reasoning behind the civil rights act was that forced integration didn't work out as well as expected, the first time around anyway.

Do you really think that, with vouchers, inner city schools will get any better? Those who have transportation will travel, those with no car and little money will be stuck with whatever is nearby.

Inner city schools can only be so good, with or without vouchers. Maybe if they hired better teachers to teach the subjects thoroughly and got students to actually pay attention in school maybe they'd be better off.

[AnnEsthesia]

If he was all up on individual freedoms, then he would support gay marriage and abortion rights. Since he does not, then he can hardly say he is about individual freedoms.

Wait, wait, wait....regarding gay marriage he hasn't voted for a single amendment banning gay marriage or any amendment involving marriage so that point you made is moot. And like I said, with abortions he wants the states to decide not himself.

Qwerty and mic, why did he vote to ban gay adoptions in DC? He seems to be perfectly willing to deny children of homes even though many agencies are willing to adopt to homosexuals.

That, I honestly don't know the reasoning behind that but we can't base
everything we think about him on this one issue.

And he seems willing to allow people to take away the right a woman has to control her own body.

Again, he wants the states to decide, not himself. If you have to blame somebody blame the states for taking away rights, not him.

Freedom isn't just about having choice, freedom is also about ensuring the people, majority or not, have choice in their own daily lives. Anti-discrimination laws, the civil rights acts, public education taxes etc. all can be argued to take away choice from some, but they also ensure that many other have more choices as well now and later on in life.

I never said any of those laws or acts did or didn't take away choice. Like I said his reasoning behind the civil rights act was that forced integration didn't work out as well as expected, the first time around anyway.

Do you really think that, with vouchers, inner city schools will get any better? Those who have transportation will travel, those with no car and little money will be stuck with whatever is nearby.

Inner city schools can only be so good, with or without vouchers. Maybe if they hired better teachers to teach the subjects thoroughly and got students to actually pay attention in school maybe they'd be better off.



That is a cop-out, mic. "Well, if they get banned, it would be the states, not him!" If you allow states/towns/ whatever to decide things, you know damned well that the interests of those who are not in the majority will always be hurt.

I will use my town for an example. We have the best schools in the state, yet consistantly, those who do not need the services any more (seniors) are out there lobbying to reduce the budget so that their taxes can go down. If they were legally allowed, they would demand that those using the schools pay for the whole thing. How does that serve the common good?

As for the gay issue, one has to just look at his comments to know his opinions.

[micfranklin]

That is a cop-out, mic. "Well, if they get banned, it would be the states, not him!" If you allow states/towns/ whatever to decide things, you know damned well that the interests of those who are not in the majority will always be hurt.

Well if the feds decide it the interests of the minority would be hurt anyway and one way or the other some group is gonna be unhappy. If Congress passed the law, Congress would be in your business.

I will use my town for an example. We have the best schools in the state, yet consistantly, those who do not need the services any more (seniors) are out there lobbying to reduce the budget so that their taxes can go down. If they were legally allowed, they would demand that those using the schools pay for the whole thing. How does that serve the common good?

I'm guessing seniors want benefits.

As for the gay issue, one has to just look at his comments to know his opinions.

Okay I'm looking and I see that he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. I'll admit I've seen some quotes against gay marriage but he's said that he also "doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense."

[AnnEsthesia]

The government has a history of protecting smaller groups from the whole. By tossing it to the states, you are no longer protecting the small from the whole. You will wind up with states that truly are homogeneous, since people who want more rights will move to states where they will get them. If you think we have problems with politics now, just wait.

[micfranklin]

The government has a history of protecting smaller groups from the whole. By tossing it to the states, you are no longer protecting the small from the whole. You will wind up with states that truly are homogeneous, since people who want more rights will move to states where they will get them. If you think we have problems with politics now, just wait.


Hold on a minute, what makes you so sure that he'll even have the subject of gay marriage on his mind at all, the first thing he would do would be to withdraw from Iraq and cut our spending.

Regarding groups, there are already states that are homogenous and let's envision this: Paul gets into the White House and either completely bans gay marriage or legalizes it for the country. That's all good and fine but he has no constitutional authority to do so, and since the issue is religious based, seperation of church and state.

Now if he says nothing about him legalizing/banning it but gives the states' decisions on what they want, that he has authority to do. States try to legalize/ban it but they are reminded of seperation of church and state.

[AnnEsthesia]

I guess that is your standard answer for everything? Yay! Ron Paul will just let the states decide and all will be well. Hazzah!?? lol

[micfranklin]

I guess that is your standard answer for everything? Yay! Ron Paul will just let the states decide and all will be well. Hazzah!?? lol


Would you be more comfortable if the federal government told you who you can or can't marry?

[AnnEsthesia]

I want the government to allow two loving adults to marry and have the legal rights like every other couple in the country. If we go by the constitution as it was written, women should not be voting and blacks should not be full citizens.

[micfranklin]

I want the government to allow two loving adults to marry and have the legal rights like every other couple in the country. If we go by the constitution as it was written, women should not be voting and blacks should not be full citizens.

The reason women have voting rights and because blacks are treated a lot better was through civil disobedience, what the government did was basically force integration and the like on the people. I'm not saying these were bad things but some things just don't work through force.

[AnnEsthesia]

Um... the reason women can vote now and blacks are treated equal is because the government stepped in and made them a right. The government could have sat back and said it was up to the states to decide and women and blacks could still be second class citizens. The Ann Coulter's of the world are certainly missing those times.

[Scorpion]

The reason women have voting rights and because blacks are treated a lot better was through civil disobedience, what the government did was basically force integration and the like on the people. I'm not saying these were bad things but some things just don't work through force.


Quite right mic. Even though women were given the right to vote and the Civil Rights Act accorded equality to blacks, the application of those rights is a source of irritation because of the bad taste left by the militancy of both movements and the mistaken liberal belief that equal rights can simply be legislated upon the population.

[AnnEsthesia]

Yeah! How dare those uppity women to demand equality! Shame on them!

*rolls eyes*

Thank god that those women were willing to stand up and be militant.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Kind of silly to advocate freedom for people and at the same time advocate allowing states to take away those freedom.

If Ron Paul enacts policies that take away freedom, while claiming he's giving people freedom to take away rights of the minority, I fail to see how he can really claim to advocate freedom for all.

[qwerty]

Kind of silly to advocate freedom for people and at the same time advocate allowing states to take away those freedom.

If Ron Paul enacts policies that take away freedom, while claiming he's giving people freedom to take away rights of the minority, I fail to see how he can really claim to advocate freedom for all.


This thing has been explained to you on this topic allready(what constitution says...)... :rolleyes:

Maybe this will help you...

What Does Freedom Really Mean?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

What Does the First Amendment Really Mean?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/238/what-does-the-first-amendment-really-mean/

Political Power and the Rule of Law
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/160/political-power-and-the-rule-of-law/

Let liberty ring loudly
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=102

Constitution must always be considered
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=9

I could give dozens of these articles to you but i know that you wouldn´t read those...

[micfranklin]

Kind of silly to advocate freedom for people and at the same time advocate allowing states to take away those freedom.

If Ron Paul enacts policies that take away freedom, while claiming he's giving people freedom to take away rights of the minority, I fail to see how he can really claim to advocate freedom for all.

He has no constitutional authority to do certain things that Bush and our current government have already blatantly ignored.

[AlonzoMourning23]

Kind of silly to advocate freedom for people and at the same time advocate allowing states to take away those freedom.

If Ron Paul enacts policies that take away freedom, while claiming he's giving people freedom to take away rights of the minority, I fail to see how he can really claim to advocate freedom for all.

He has no constitutional authority to do certain things that Bush and our current government have already blatantly ignored.


I think you can argue a lot about what the proper way of reading the constitution is, but the strict constructionist interpretation that Paul follows does little to benefit the people. As for the legitimacy of the view itself, I think Justice Scalia sums it up best:

"I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be . . . . A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means."

He describes strict constructionism as "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2005/10/i_am_not_a_stri.html

The constitution, and Scalia would disagree with this as well, is a living, breathing document. If it does not adapt to the times, if it uses meanings alien and foreign to the generation it is applied to, it will become little more than a quaint remnant of the past. Providing for the general welfare, for example, meant something entirely different 220 years ago. The society was entirely different 220 years ago. As time advances the constitution needs to allow for flexibility otherwise it will not be of much value, in terms of benefiting the country, as the country changes and evolves.

The constitution is a great document because it has allowed for a great nation. If the constitution becomes a hindrance to that, if it is to be used to restrict the freedom of whole segments of the population, perhaps it's time to move on. Thankfully though, the view advocated by Paul is a minority view, so there's no need for that.

The constitution is a means to an end. It is the means to a strong, free and prosperous population. It is not an end in and of itself. It it is to become one then many will rightfully curse the day it was written.

[qwerty]

I think you can argue a lot about what the proper way of reading the constitution is, but the strict constructionist interpretation that Paul follows does little to benefit the people. As for the legitimacy of the view itself, I think Justice Scalia sums it up best:

Does little benefit for the people ?

Let see,

Patriot Act = Unconstitutional

Some taxes = Unconstitutional

Iraq War = Unconstitutional

ETC ETC, yeah no benefit for the people, sure... :clapper:

The constitution, and Scalia would disagree with this as well, is a living, breathing document. If it does not adapt to the times, if it uses meanings alien and foreign to the generation it is applied to, it will become little more than a quaint remnant of the past. Providing for the general welfare, for example, meant something entirely different 220 years ago. The society was entirely different 220 years ago. As time advances the constitution needs to allow for flexibility otherwise it will not be of much value, in terms of benefiting the country, as the country changes and evolves.

Yes, Constitution can be changed, but it can´t be IGNORED...

There are SO many things the founding Fathers understood better than your current politicians.

Yes, world has changed but there are a lot of BAD changes which would have NEVER happened if people would have been following the advice of the founding fathers.

Your biggest problem is SPENDING, fighting wars everywhere and having a welfare state doesn´t work, your destroy dollar.

The constitution is a great document because it has allowed for a great nation. If the constitution becomes a hindrance to that, if it is to be used to restrict the freedom of whole segments of the population, perhaps it's time to move on. Thankfully though, the view advocated by Paul is a minority view, so there's no need for that.

You should think why Ron is minority...Let´s see what founding fathers said,

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

--Benjamin Franklin

What happening is USA now, you are doing EXACTLY what this quote says NOT TO DO.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

-- Thomas Jefferson

This is EXATCLY WHAT´S HAPPENING!

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our selection between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat in our drink, in our necessities and comforts, in our labors and in our amusements, for our callings and our creeds...our people.. must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live.. We have not time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow suffers. Our landholders, too...retaining indeed the title and stewardship of estates called theirs, but held really in trust for the treasury, must...be contented with penury, obscurity and exile.. private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance.

This is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle becomes a precedent for a second; that second for a third; and so on, till the bulk of society is reduced to mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering... And the fore horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in it's train wretchedness and oppression."

-- Thomas Jefferson

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

-- Thomas Jefferson

That´s why we need INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS...

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.

-- Thomas Jefferson

If would have done that, you would have NO terrorists attacking your country, i think...

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Every generation needs a new revolution.

-- Thomas Jefferson

It´s happening... :nana:

Never spend your money before you have earned it.

-- Thomas Jefferson

This is VERY good advice for USA...


I could go on and on...but i really can´t see a possibility that you miss the point after those quotes. Founding fathers still have many right answers to problems you are facing today...

[DRK]

You forgot space aliens for Ron Paul.

In all seriousness, who cares what Europe thinks about any of our candidates? We'll elect who we want and Europe will, as usual, find some reason to hate that person.


I think this shows that there are others out there, besides just Americans, who can appreciate particular candidates. That's all this is, and there is nothing wrong with that.