Ron Paul : Stop Dreaming

I think you have it backwards. Paul said he wouldn't endorse the republican nominee. Why then would they allow him to speak?

Actually they did say they'd let him speak, but the restrictions were ridiculous. But why shouldn't he have been allowed to speak, just because he won't endorse a neo-con? The convention wasn't supposed to be a coronation for John McCain, it was supposed to be where they elect the Republican nominee for President. And last time I checked Ron Paul had won some delegates in his bid for the nomination. They should have given him Giuliani's spot, considering Rudy had no delegates.
 
I can't imagine he would endorse him if they asked and I can't imagine they would take a chance by allowing him into the convention.

Which candidate will Ron Paul's supporters endorse?

Some will write in Ron Paul, some will vote for Chuck Baldwin, and others like me are voting for Bob Barr.
 
I'm a huge proponent of voting for who you agree with, rather than voting against somebody else. If more people thought this way then third parties and independents wouldn't be such long shots.
 
How close are the polls in your state? In mine, they are within three points, which is a statistical tie.
 
I thought Ron Paul was one of those few politicians with some real integrity; really believing what he said and saying what he believes. What really set him apart in my mind was his foreign policy views. By far the one of the only ones from a dozen candidates that knew what was going on and was pragmatic about it. He also had the whole civil liberties thing going on too, that's good. But, that said, I completely disagree with him on almost all economic positions. They'd probably be disastrous. But other than that, I really hope his understanding of foreign relations is given weight in the future.
 
Think what you want about Dr. Paul, but this is a man that foresaw this financial crisis 5 years ago. Now all of a sudden the media is interested in him, his ideas aren't so "nuts" anymore I guess.

Ron Paul deserves much credit for finally saying out loud what many of us have been saying for a long long time...the Federal Reserve is neither Federal nor is it a reserve.

His complaints about the abuses of this system are spot on.

Sadly his replacement for the Fed doesn't make much sense to me. State of private specie? Gold/silver based currency? I don't think they're the solution.

As to most of the other planks of his political philosophy?

Libertopian nonsense.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ron Paul was one of those few politicians with some real integrity; really believing what he said and saying what he believes. What really set him apart in my mind was his foreign policy views. By far the one of the only ones from a dozen candidates that knew what was going on and was pragmatic about it. He also had the whole civil liberties thing going on too, that's good. But, that said, I completely disagree with him on almost all economic positions. They'd probably be disastrous. But other than that, I really hope his understanding of foreign relations is given weight in the future.

Don't agree with his economic positions? He predicted this financial crisis 5 years ago. Disastrous is not listening to his economic positions. Sound money is the only way to go, paper money has been proven to fail time and again. First the Continental dollar and now our current dollar. We're headed for a Soviet like collapse because our money is worthless.
 
Think what you want about Dr. Paul, but this is a man that foresaw this financial crisis 5 years ago. Now all of a sudden the media is interested in him, his ideas aren't so "nuts" anymore I guess.

So did President Bush,so Ron Paul's opinion is really irrelevant at this point. Lots of people saw it coming,including McCain.

The media just likes him because he is a load mouth who helps them bash the President. If it weren't for that they wouldn't give a crap about the man.
 
Last edited:
I thought Ron Paul was one of those few politicians with some real integrity; really believing what he said and saying what he believes. What really set him apart in my mind was his foreign policy views. By far the one of the only ones from a dozen candidates that knew what was going on and was pragmatic about it. He also had the whole civil liberties thing going on too, that's good. But, that said, I completely disagree with him on almost all economic positions. They'd probably be disastrous. But other than that, I really hope his understanding of foreign relations is given weight in the future.

What positions would be disastrous? You can't just make a generalized statement like that without eleborating.

His economic positions are to quit artificially adjusting interest rates, and causing business cycles like we've seen two times so far in the last 10 years. His positions are to stop spending TRILLIONS of dollars on a welfare/warfare state, and to quit taxing the ever loving shit out of the citizens to pay for it. His positions are to stop bailing out wall street cronies, to the detriment of US taxpayers which were given no representation in the taxation burden that follows.

Yeah, those are just DISASTROUS. :rolleyes:
 
So did President Bush,so Ron Paul's opinion is really irrelevant at this point. Lots of people saw it coming,including McCain.

The media just likes him because he is a load mouth who helps them bash the President. If it weren't for that they wouldn't give a crap about the man.

I'm gonna quote the great Mike Tyson and say, "I doubt it seriously." So Bush saw this crisis coming and did nothing to stop it? The man's dumber then I thought. McCain saw it coming? Strange that he's admitted to knowing nothing about economics. The media likes him? Well this is the first I've heard about it.
 
I'm gonna quote the great Mike Tyson and say, "I doubt it seriously." So Bush saw this crisis coming and did nothing to stop it? The man's dumber then I thought. McCain saw it coming? Strange that he's admitted to knowing nothing about economics. The media likes him? Well this is the first I've heard about it.

Don't bother with that guy. It's pretty obvious he's got no clue what he's talking about.

Bush saw the crisis coming, but he just conveniently forgot to mention it to Greenspan while interest rates were being brought to nearly ZERO in 2002.

He also forgot to mention it to Bernanke while the Fed was handing OUR money out to failing companies, and then placing the burden of taxation on the citizens WITHOUT REPRESENTATION FROM CONGRESS.

Yeah. Bush saw it coming. :rolleyes:
 
Ron Paul is the last of the true conservatives in the GOP and most of today's Republicans consider him to be a fringe whackjob, which just goes to show how far the GOP has strayed from it's core principles of personal freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave at the current state of the GOP.
 
Ron Paul is the last of the true conservatives in the GOP and most of today's Republicans consider him to be a fringe whackjob, which just goes to show how far the GOP has strayed from it's core principles of personal freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave at the current state of the GOP.

By today's standards, Barry Goldwater would be a liberal!:eusa_whistle:
 
Ron Paul is the last of the true conservatives in the GOP and most of today's Republicans consider him to be a fringe whackjob, which just goes to show how far the GOP has strayed from it's core principles of personal freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. Barry Goldwater must be spinning in his grave at the current state of the GOP.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top