Why RON PAUL?

I've been asked this question so many times over the past 12-months, that it has long since lost any shock or surprise for me.

***DISCLAIMER***DISCLAIMER***DISCLAIMER:: Marathon post follows

Now, before the self-appointed Thread Police descend and unilaterally declare something to the effect of "Politics violates the [link=http://boards.theforce.net/ASP/tos.asp]TOS[/link]", it doesn't. If you don't care for politics (as I myself didn't a few short years ago), then please for your own sake, READ NO FURTHER. Just turn around right now. Hit the ole Back Button and be on your merry (translation: blissfully ignorant) way.

If I absolutely MUST justify this thread, then look at it this way. For better or for worse, Politics, Tyranny, Despotism, Freedom, and Liberty were all central themes to the Star Wars films. If you don't believe me then just pop in Episodes I or II, and if you're not COMPLETELY bored to tears during the Senate scenes, you'll have some basic notion of what I'm referring to. Apart from those sleep-inducing moments, the rest of the franchise is just chock full of wonderful (or despicable depending upon how you look at them) analogies, comparisons, and metaphors for our contemporary Societal and Political landscape.

So, it is solely in the spirit of fostering healthy, educational, and informative discussion that I post what follows...




"Those who cast the votes decide nothing.
Those who count the votes decide everything."

[hl=black]?COMMUNIST TYRANT AND MASS MURDERER JOSEF STALIN[/hl]



Now, this isn't to say that we shouldn't vote, for we absolutely MUST. However, it DOES mean that as voters we need to be cognizant and conscientious of the system in which we are participating.


First off, let me state emphatically that I NEVER thought I?d see the day where I would vote Republican. Given the track record of the GOP over the last 50-years, and even more recently within the latest span of 20 post-Reagan years, to say I was disenchanted with the party would be a gross understatement.

Therefore, it is with great surprise, yet also with great pride that I actually find myself not only open to voting for, but actively endorsing and campaigning for a Republican Presidential candidate. That candidate is Dr. Ron Paul.

Ron Paul was the most successful fundraiser among the Republican presidential candidates in the last three months of 2007. Paul brought in $19.7 million?compared to $9.9 million for Mitt Romney, $6.8 million for John McCain, and $6.6 million for Mike Huckabee.

By framing some of the HOTBED political topics within their historical context, I will illustrate why Dr. Paul is the right person for the job.

THE CONSTITUTION:

This is the framework; the backbone; the very foundation of our country. Without this document, we are ensured NO LEVEL of rights, privileges, or freedoms. Our founding forefathers knew this well, having only recently emancipated themselves (via the Declaration of Independence in 1776) from the tyrannical rule of Great Britain?s King George III.

Ron Paul believes wholeheartedly in our Constitution. If it?s not in there, he votes NO against it. So much so that he has earned the nickname Dr. No on Capitol Hill. He is the ultimate champion of liberty and freedom, as set forth in our grand document.

The Constitution establishes those Rights (as in the Bill Of) to which every U.S. citizen is guaranteed as being inalienable. Yet, since it?s drafting in 1787 and subsequent ratification in 1789 how many times has the Federal Government trampled on its premises? The right to free speech; to bear arms; freedom of religion; warranted search & seizure; speedy & public trial; bail bond; etc. These are the grounding tenets by which we allegedly live, yet the government?s fervently brazen and blatant disregard for its core values continues unabated and unchecked.

If Thomas Jefferson were alive today and invited to participate in a presidentia

 

My eyes are bleeding! OK, break over, I will continue to read it.

 

Well said.

And I agree completely.

When I raised my right hand to enlist in the military, part of the oath was to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies: foreign and domestic.

Too bad they won't let us go against the domestic enemies that are destroying our country and trampling on the Constitution.

 

I agree that the ban on politics has nothing to do with the TOS. It's not a rule.

What it is, is a loose agreement between everyone here that we have is a relatively civil area on the Denver board, marked by discussion, news, blathering, chatter, and generally speaking FRIENDLY DISCUSSION.

The tacit agreement is that the best way to end the friendships established on this board, and in this group, is to engage in POLITICAL or RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.

I respect your political opinion and zeal, and you know Stacy that I completely appreciate you as a person and your intellectual discourse has been sorely missed on this board in my opinion.

What I don't appreciate or respect, is that after so long an absence on the board, you don't return to engage in something friendship related, going to an event, taking part in an existing discussion etc, you return to bring politics onto the board.

In nothing more than my personal opinion or preference, there are lots of other places to take that.

I realize you feel strongly about it, but what's to stop the front page now being covered with the following threads:

Why Clinton? (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why Obama? (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why Romney? (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why McCain? (Political Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why Catholicism? (Religious Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why Moslem? (Religious Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)
Why Taoism? (Religious Opinion - Enter at your own Peril)

There's nothing wrong with that, I just don't want that to be what this board becomes.

I'm not protecting a rule, i'm protecting the friendships.

 

Hear, hear.

Also, my candidate will consume yours.
[image=http://faroutshirts.com/images/cthulhu4Prez-preview-5.png]

 

I sorely missed sitting in his lap in the hot tubs.

Great times...great times...

 

What was Ron Paul's lap like?

 

Darn nice to "see" Stac
I will admit I like some of the things that Mr. Paul has to say.....certainly not all....but some.

OK....I am off to caucus

 

**Adjusts snark hat**

No.No, sir. You dont get to play that hand. And I quote:

You have no problem with making numerous threads about a celeb deaths, yet when someone wants to discuss the person who could be the leader of our country its not okay? This IS the news. Its getting way more coverage than anything else at the moment.And yet when I made my point about the front page being covered in random threads I was ridiculed and had the mods called on me (on a side note. I wear my user notes and near ban as a badge of honor). Who cares if he hasnt posted in a while or been to an event. Are you saying if someone leaves they should have some type of probation period? Who is the thread police now?!

We are adults here. Why cant we have a politics thread? If you dont want to discuss politics dont go into it. There are threads that dont interest me, so I dont go into them.


Stac, I ask you. Please change the title of this thread to make it the politics thread.I will be more than happy to talk politics with anyone. I LOVE IT. I will be more than happy to post a reply when I get my big ole post ready.


Oh, and to not clog this very useful thread up PM me any rebuttal not politics related.

 

I don't think theres anything wrong with talking about politics. What happened before that made us agree to not talk about them was awful, true. But it happened a long time ago when our friendships were young and fraught with insecurities. Speaking of which, SORRY ZOO! I was a jerk about that.

So go for it, talk about it. I think Zac is right. This is history in the making. We are making it, and it is happening.

Just my two cents.



One more thing. If you get your feelings hurt by something one of your brothers/sisters in fandom believes and types down, call them on it...but leave the mean stuff for pm's (we dont all like watching car crashes...hard to believe, but its true)

 

I myselft am leaning towards Obama for President. Here are his Political Positions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama

 

Scott is convinced that within the next 5-10 years the people will rise up no matter what the gubment says and take em all down... and/or the country itself will collapse into chaos and all this craziness will disappear as a result.

 

Romney just dropped out, which leaves McCain as the "Republican" candidate in the lead. Now considering that he is far more Deomocrat on Amnesty to illegals, and a host of left-wing ideas and policies, it will be interesting to see what the rest of the Conservatives do.

I may respect McCain for his service and time as a POW, but I can NOT stand him as a politician. He is a RINO --a Republican In Name Only. So voting for him or Obama or Hillary still gets us the same left-wing social policies.

 

That is ok,

We need someone different and something different then Bush has given us the last 7 years.

 

Of all our choices, I have only had the chance to meet McCain, and that was in a non-political setting. It was actually kind of nice.


I am still trying to figure out where my vote goes. There are things I like about all of the candidates and things I don't like.

We will see what happens.

 

Funny thing about ?unspoken? rules...

They tend to produce the most confusion, and subsequently the most transgressions.

I completely understand that two of, if the not THE two most controversial topics for discussion involve both Politics and Religion. Does that however, mean that we must completely abstain from them, particularly in a Forum that claims, at least on the surface to be ?open??

Are these not in fact by their very nature and design, Star Wars related Forums? Does that therefore imply (again within the confines of the TOS) that topics unrelated to Star Wars are inappropriate? If that were in fact the case, I venture that the MAJORITY of threads present would fail to meet such a criteria.

That is of course a purely rhetorical argument - for clearly, such is not the case, nor do I believe it to be so.

As the TOS does not specifically prohibit political discussion, I feel this remains an appropriate thread. However, I also firmly believe that ANY discussion within it should ABSOLUTELY adhere to the TOS, as well as the RULES OF THE JC, whose Posting Rules and Regulations state as follows:

6. Baiting or intentionally stirring up other users isn't allowed. Debates are fine, but argue with the point, not the person. Threads with no purpose other than flaming, subtle or otherwise, will be closed It's important to remember, however, that a person disagreeing with your opinion is *not* trolling. Try to keep it civil even if you're sure the other person is wrong.
Michael, My primary aim here is to engender that very same ?FRIENDLY DISCUSSION? of which you spoke. I agree that this is NOT a political forum, and you are absolutely correct in stating that, ?there are lots of other places to take that?.

I appreciate that you...appreciate...me as a person as well as for my ?intellectual discourse? (not sure I agree with your second point but hey ? your words, not mine and I can accept a compliment as well as reciprocate with one). I?ve always respected the straightforwardness with which you post your opinions. There?s rarely, if ever, been any confusion as to what your words really mean, at least in my experience.

That having been said, I suppose I too must counter with a tit-for-tat of my own.

I have to ask ? Michael ? did you even read my post? If so, I?d love to hear your views on the subject, as I truly do value your intelligence and opinions. For all of our differences, I?ve also found many similar interests and things upon which we do mutually agree. Or, was the mere topic itself enough to warrant [hl=black]DefCon-3[/hl], and your subsequent response?

Do you feel that by engaging in the discussion yourself, it undermines or contradicts your own position that it is inappropriate? Or, do you just not care about it as a topic? Although the latter opinion would sadden me, I can nevertheless respect it.

Additionally, I confess that I?m having difficulty NOT viewing your comment that follows as anything other than a personal attack (which may in fact violate the aforementioned, and now beaten-as-a-dead-horse TOS). If I?m wrong, please by all means set me straight:

[hl=yellow]?What I don't appreciate or respect, is that after so long an absence on the board, you don't return to engage in something friendship related, going to an event, taking part in an existing discussion etc, you return to bring politics onto the board.?[/hl]

That is your opinion, and you are most certainly entitled to it. Yet, I must ask you why do I need to justify why I choose to return to the boards, and when? If memory serves, many ?members? go months, if not longer without ever physically attending an ?event?. Would it have instead been more appropriate for me to have attended a recent event, or even say the Holiday Party and forced my political filibustering on unsuspecting attendees? I think (most assuredly) not. Technically speaking, I did initially return to acknowled

 

Well, He has suspended his campiagn. While Im not suprised he did it, Im suprised he did it this soon. I figured on him holding out until mid-march. I think he might as huckabee to be the VP, he has the christain base that McCain will need to try and win. The only way I see him asking romney is if he needs the money, but huckabee seems to be doing OK in that area.


I actully used to like mccain. He had a good mix of both nutty conservative and nutty liberal policy ideas. But after bush stole a second term he started selling out those beliefs to try and sway the republican base. He lost me at that point. I remeber when he openly opposed people like jerry followel (sp?) and ... that guy on the 700 club who says he has visions, but then he started sucking up to them and playing nice. Nothing more than cheap pandering.

 

this is how i am looking at it. it is a seperate thread...we had one at the last election...i specifically remember it. I don't see why it is such an issue.

Either read the thread or don't. as long as people are keeping their opinions in here i think that is sufficent.

just my two cents...

 

BF88, there are distinct views of Obama's that I really do like. Of the mainstream "frontrunners", I also feel that he is the most sincere in the sense that I think he honestly believes most of what he says. Unfortunately, there are just too many of his positions (for my taste) that smack of corporate influence. It's too bad, as I really believe he started his career with noble intentions.

Don't be lulled into a false sense of comfort with what ANY candidate says during their campaign. I recommend that you take a look at Obama's voting record while in the Senate, and see how much it does or does not align with his current rhetoric at the podium.

For me, one of the primary determining factors for a candidate is if their past deeds CONSISTENTLY back up their current words. They need to have walked the walk in addition to talking the talk.

His voting record (as with all of the Congressional/Senatorial candidates (except Huckabee & Romney, since they were Governors) can be found here:

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

Please make no mistake - sincerity or not - if this man wins the office, he will still end up doing the will of the Special Interest paymasters that put him there.

Romney's views can be seen here (perhaps a moot point given his withdrawal today):

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm

The Huckster's views can be found here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm

 

I dont know much, but I'll tell you what I know.

Steering clear of republicans. The last two elections..... ended unfortunately , and Ive had quite enough of those guys.
CHECK PLEASE!!

Where does that leave me?
Its a two party system. Wish there were more choices.

Id like to see Obama win.
If he is elected this country would be force to look at itself differently, and the rest of the world would (hopefully) see us differently also. Socially, to have a black man as president might level the playing field a bit. I think a lot of people, here and all around the world, are getting sick of seeing rich old white guys as our president. We need that change.
At the very least, in america, it would be tougher for anyone to argue that they couldnt prosper, simply because of their race. That'd sure be nice.
I think electing a black president is a necessary step for this country to take and I think he'd do a great job.

He just seems like a smart guy with a family who is trying to do something "good". Like a guy I could have a beer with.


Also, on a social level, it would be nice to see a woman take office some day, but I'd prefer one who isnt there because of who her husband is. Plus, her timing is horrible. We'd be fools to put a woman at the head of the table when we're at war with a people who.... arent really that impressed by women.

 

I feel your pain, my brutha! I was in the EXACT same anti-Republican boat for a LOOOOOOOOOONG ole time. In fact, it took me quite awhile to reconcile with myself that I could actually BACK a Republican candidate, ESPECIALLY given their track record.

What I ultimately had to ask myself was, "what do I feel is best for the country?" In order to answer that, I had to do a LOT of soul searching and ultimately - research - on the history of our country, what we stand for (allegedly, anyway), and what it truly means to be an American citizen. At the end of that process, it all came back to the Constitution, since this was supposed to be the document that has the final say on how we are to be governed.

What that also meant was that I had to overcome my own longstanding Party bias. I had to at least consider the possibility that a Republican might still be able to get the job done. In order to do so, I had to really take a long close look at what true Republicanism was about. It's actually as conservative as you can get as far as Economic/Monetary policy, Foreign policy, taxes, and government presence. So, sound fiscal policy means our money is being not only well-spent, but spent on the things that we, the people want it to; We engage in open relations and trade with countries, but don't interfere in their internal affairs (this saves us hundreds of BILLIONS-with a "B" dollars); Lower taxes means more money in my pocket = ALWAYS a plus!; Smaller government means more civil liberties (again, per the Constitution) = NO BIG BROTHER.

Unfortunately, the Republicans of the last 20+ years have lost sight of those principles. Bush Sr.'s "Read my lips" platform of "No new taxes" sure made for some great sound bites and Dana Carvey skits, but what did he ACTUALLY do while in office. Oh yeah, baby, PLENTY of new taxes - at least for us. He DID actually reduce taxes for CORPORATIONS. How about the Republican campaign of Bush Jr. in 2000, where he advocated a "Humble Foreign Policy"? Humble??? Ex-queeze me? How HUMBLE have we been in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Iraq, and now Iran? How HUMBLE is NAFTA, subjugating our rights to the Canadian AND Mexican government? I could go ON AND ON about how the Republican party has drifted FAR away from it's grounding principles. So, for me to actually REGISTER as a Republican for this election is a GI-NORMOUS deal!

I also had to accept the fact that in addition to Party not deciding my vote, I couldn't let race, sex or religion do the same. I don't have ANY problems whatsoever that Hillary is a women, Barack is black, Romney is Mormon, or Huckabee is a Christian. What I do have a problem with i

 

I understand what you are saying. But to run for president you need a lot of money. So where are they supposed to get thier money. In the end who are you going to vote for? I mean if it is Obama and McKain, I am going to have to vote for Obama. What choice do I have?

 

No offense, but aside from the uber hardcore spam for Paul, this is also pretty one-sided. You know nobody's gonna look up this stuff so they can argue with you. LOL.

[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00006424&cycle=2008] McCain's Contributors[/link]
[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008] Obama's Contributors[/link]
[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008] Hillary's Contributors[/link]
[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000286&cycle=2008] Romney's Contributors[/link]

The fact of the matter is, is that every politician is where he/she is because of some level of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." Every single one of them is going to play to their own respective special interest groups at some point in time or another.

As a voter, a voter isn't voting for an individual -- they're voting for that individual's supporters and interest groups, and placing their trust in that individual do as little damage as possible with the power they might be given. While a President on his own doesn't have much power at all, they have enough to be dangerous, and we still have to be wary of which organizations are supporting the majority of people in the actual government itself.

Even Ron Paul would have played to his own interest groups...

[link=http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00005906&cycle=2008] Paul's Contributors[/link]

I see a lot of defense contractors; tech companies, too. Stuff that I, too, dig. If I were looking at a person's supporters, I'd probably also say, "Yippee for Paul."













But the words Constitutional Republic give me nightmares of compounds in Montana with motion sensors and razor wire around the perimeter.

 

im gonna vote this time and make my vote for turd sandwich count

but really im gonna have to read this thread, its probably the only place i will understand what im being told