We need Ron Paul for President and here is why

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We don’t ‘need’ anybody for president.

The original intent of he Framers was for the Executive to do as little as possible – sign a few bills, give a speech about the state of the union ‘from time to time,’ etc. He was not to be a leader, role model, or policy-maker; it’s not the Executive’s role to solve problems or ‘fix’ the country. That aberration manifested itself at the advent of the Cold War, now long over.

It’s telling and ironic that the right, in its obsession for ‘small government’ never applies that dogma to the Executive and invests so much in that office; particularly when the right also obsesses over Constitutional original intent.

 

[ShackledNation]

We don’t ‘need’ anybody for president.

The original intent of he Framers was for the Executive to do as little as possible – sign a few bills, give a speech about the state of the union ‘from time to time,’ etc. He was not to be a leader, role model, or policy-maker; it’s not the Executive’s role to solve problems or ‘fix’ the country. That aberration manifested itself at the advent of the Cold War, now long over.

It’s telling and ironic that the right, in its obsession for ‘small government’ never applies that dogma to the Executive and invests so much in that office; particularly when the right also obsesses over Constitutional original intent.

Actually, Ron Paul has consistently said exactly what you are saying. He always reminds his supporters he cannot do everything because the power of the executive is limited, and argues that the executive order is grossly abused, as are the military powers of the president. Libertarians constantly make the argument that the Presidential office has usurped authority unconstitutionally. You bet we apply small government to the executive.

Looks like you are a Paul supporter after all.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

We don’t ‘need’ anybody for president.

The original intent of he Framers was for the Executive to do as little as possible – sign a few bills, give a speech about the state of the union ‘from time to time,’ etc. He was not to be a leader, role model, or policy-maker; it’s not the Executive’s role to solve problems or ‘fix’ the country. That aberration manifested itself at the advent of the Cold War, now long over.

It’s telling and ironic that the right, in its obsession for ‘small government’ never applies that dogma to the Executive and invests so much in that office; particularly when the right also obsesses over Constitutional original intent.

I agree with this, and that's one reason I support Ron Paul.

 

[007]

I kind of like Ron Paul, however, I just can't see him as a President. He has his good points and he has his bad. But, if by some odd twist of fate he did become the republican nominee for President, I'd vote for him in a heart beat over ODUMBO.

 

[Harry Dresden]

I like Paul's economics, but his foreign policy is just dangerous in this day and age.

Not only that but Ive been talking to people and he come across as a crochety old man to alot of people.

He IS a crochety old man. He should be. He spent most of his adult life watching his country turn into a piece of shit since murkins( including the famous 535) don't have a clue how to make an informed decision.

did you get your 17 year old Girlfriend a Lint Roller yet asshole.....and what big informed decision did you make?.....run when the going gets tough?.....

 

[harbarjaphar]

We can have the strongest military in the world stationed right here at home and in the oceans around the world. We can have a complete base anyplace there is an ocean with the deployment of a carrier group. Think of the money that would go into our economy if most troops were stationed here and the jobs created building Air Craft Carriers and support vessels. Unemployment 0%

Aircraft carriers will likely become obsolete soon due to advancements in hypervelocity missile technology. Bad idea to base your economy on them... It makes more sense to spend much less on military and foster emerging green technologies, for example.

 

[Paulie]

I like Ron Paul a lot but during this last debate he really lost a lot of people with his comments about Iran.

Iran is the source of much of the terrorism and attacks on our troops. He is living in a dream world if he thinks Iran getting a nuclear bomb isn't going to happen. We saw that same story already in N. Korea, only this time the nukes will be given over to terrorists.


And by the way we could easily win the wars in the middle east if we just carpet bombed and don't do this stupid street patrol/nation building crap.

What reason do you have to assume N. Korea wouldn't sell nukes to terrorists?

Why is it only Islamic countries that are assumed to be a direct threat? If Kim Jong Il wanted to deal a blow the US before he died, you think he'd turn down the opportunity to give a weapon to terrorists and let them do the work for him?

We have a nuclear nation right now that has enough firepower to get the end of the world kickstarted, a crazy lunatic in power there who we know hates the US, but instead of talking about bombing THEM, we beat the drum against Iran who hasn't even been proven to own 1 single nuke.

 

[Zona]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

It's 2011. The Civil Rights Act of 1967 is not an issue.

Agreed but he said if it were up to him, he would not have allowed it to pass. That is 2011. That is scary.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

It's 2011. The Civil Rights Act of 1967 is not an issue.

Agreed but he said if it were up to him, he would not have allowed it to pass. That is 2011. That is scary.

I know I'm petrified.

 

[Zona]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

And do you know why he held that position, or are you going to just ignorantly assume it has to do with racism?

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

And do you know why he held that position, or are you going to just ignorantly assume it has to do with racism?

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

Boo!

 

[Zona]

It's 2011. The Civil Rights Act of 1967 is not an issue.

Agreed but he said if it were up to him, he would not have allowed it to pass. That is 2011. That is scary.

I know I'm petrified.

If you are a white male, why would you be worried. You and your group are fine under Ron Paul.

NO thanks.

 

[Zona]

And do you know why he held that position, or are you going to just ignorantly assume it has to do with racism?

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

Boo!

Says the ghost in the white outfit.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

Boo!

Says the ghost in the white outfit.

 

[Stashman]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

It's 2011. The Civil Rights Act of 1967 is not an issue.

Agreed but he said if it were up to him, he would not have allowed it to pass. That is 2011. That is scary.

Ron Paul's view on the Civil Rights Act:

The Trouble With the '64 Civil Rights Act by Rep. Ron Paul

 

[ShackledNation]

I do not want a president who would have voted against the civil rights act. Period. Fuck ron paul.

And do you know why he held that position, or are you going to just ignorantly assume it has to do with racism?

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

I will take that as a no. Ron Paul has consistently argued that the Civil Rights Act worsened race relations at the expense of individual liberty. He makes the argument that without it (more specifically title II, he was not against the whole thing), we would have better race relations today.

Ron Paul was all in favor of repealing Jim Crow laws which mandated segregation. But the position is you cannot have forced segregation or forced desegregation. Because of Jim Crow Laws in the south, if you WANTED to open a restaurant (or run a hotel) that served blacks and whites equally, in most Southern states, you COULDN'T. Do you really think every single business in the south refused to serve blacks because they all voluntarily agreed not to? No, the reason was because treated blacks equally was illegal. That was the problem, and ending those laws was something the act did right. But turning around and also forcing integration of private property (public forced integration is fine because it is owned by government) was a step in the wrong direction.

The State should neither force segregation in the private sector, nor force force integration in the private sector. You simply cannot regulate behavior like that, no matter how stupid it is. If you try, people will just get even angrier. Martin Luther King Jr. practiced the libertarian principles of nonviolence and civil disobedience, a form of private nullification of law. Ron Paul praises King for this. The key point is that it was all voluntary.

Voluntary business integration would have been inevitable. It would be highly unprofitable to deny service to such a large consumer base. With the large number of white people upset with racism, you would also have massive boycotts of businesses that refused to integrate, making them lose profits. They eventually would not have been able to segregate even if they wanted to. In today's society, this is even more the case.

 

[Zona]

And do you know why he held that position, or are you going to just ignorantly assume it has to do with racism?

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

I will take that as a no. Ron Paul has consistently argued that the Civil Rights Act worsened race relations at the expense of individual liberty. He makes the argument that without it (more specifically title II, he was not against the whole thing), we would have better race relations today.

Ron Paul was all in favor of repealing Jim Crow laws which mandated segregation. But the position is you cannot have forced segregation or forced desegregation. Because of Jim Crow Laws in the south, if you WANTED to open a restaurant (or run a hotel) that served blacks and whites equally, in most Southern states, you COULDN'T. Do you really think every single business in the south refused to serve blacks because they all voluntarily agreed not to? No, the reason was because treated blacks equally was illegal. That was the problem, and ending those laws was something the act did right. But turning around and also forcing integration of private property (public forced integration is fine because it is owned by government) was a step in the wrong direction.

The State should neither force segregation in the private sector, nor force force integration in the private sector. You simply cannot regulate behavior like that, no matter how stupid it is. If you try, people will just get even angrier. Martin Luther King Jr. practiced the libertarian principles of nonviolence and civil disobedience, a form of private nullification of law. Ron Paul praises King for this. The key point is that it was all voluntary.

Voluntary business integration would have been inevitable. It would be highly unprofitable to deny service to such a large consumer base. With the large number of white people upset with racism, you would also have massive boycotts of businesses that refused to integrate, making them lose profits. They eventually would not have been able to segregate even if they wanted to. In today's society, this is even more the case.

So you agree with ron paul. A business owner should have the right to not serve blacks/Asians gays etc.

Really? I cant even attempt to make you see clearly then. Good luck in 2012 and I guess we will see who is more correct...you or I.

Fuck some ass hole posting a sign saying he does not accept me or my family in their business because I am black. Imagine me trying to explain to a young son how I, a black man who is a vet of 20 years in the Navy fighting for this fucking country, cant go in to eat because I am black.

Fuck that. What year does that idiot live in? Fuck Ron Paul and fuck libertarians.

 

[Google]

We need Ron Paul for president as he is the only one that is not a globalist piece of crap that wishes to spend our wealth and blood on nation building. We've been in Afghanistan for over a decade and you have to ask yourself for what? The leadership hasn't had the balls to win the damn thing and the nation building that we're doing IS NOT advancing the nation at all. These people once we leave- either tomorrow or 50 years from now will be ruled by extremist islamic thugs one way or the other. Truth is It's UP to them to rebuild there nation and to fight for there freedom, and not for us to do for them. We need a president that will give a damn about our nation and defending our nation through closed borders. As Ron Paul said in the debate---Iran doesn't have a airforce that is able to attack us or any thing else that can. All they have like the rest of our enemy is a bunch of fucking thugs that will cross our open borders.

Why is all these men and woman saying that we must attack another nation, while our borders are open. That is the only way they can hurt us at all here half way around the fucking world. Ask your self seriously, why? He is right about China, Russia, Pakistan. You fucking think that Pakistan is stable? but we live with it. Truth is the world has nuclear bombs and the best way to deal with it is to let the other nation know that you will use YOURS if they ever try it. This is another area I agree with Ron Paul. Seriously, we have 6,000 nukes and ways to knock them down if need be. Why does the United states need to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of more troops blood into another war. Seriously, after the past 10 years any one that is running for president that said that they would outright start another one should be laughed off the fucking stage.

We need to withdraw from these wars. As they cost us a lot of blood and treasure and we GET NOTHING FOR IT. Iraq gave China the oil and shit. Let other nations handle there wars them selfs and worry about our problems for once. Lets stop the invasion of mexico into America. That is a trillion times more important then getting into a pissing match with Iran.

We need to go back to the gold standard to back our money and end the fucking fed. Ever since 1913 our value of our money has gone, down, down, down. You wonder why our grand fathers talk all the time about buying bread for penny's, while you must pay two plus dollars for it or of buying a house for thousands--- instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars. You wonder why family's in the old days only needed a man to provide, but today both need to work there ass off to get anything off the ground. Theres your answer. It is called inflation and it is killing this nation. The worthless fed thinks it can print trillions on trillions of dollars that are worthless to buy or pay for everything out of thin fucking air. Guess what the truth is it's going to cause us to be a very sorry and poor nation if we don't stop soon. Look up wiener republic before, nazi germany or Zimbabwe(Mugabe) that is our future if we we can keep doing what we're doing with the fucking fed. The fed is evil. Andrew Jackson and many of our founding fathers did everything in there power to keep us away from it and a central bank.

Idiocy. Ron Paul will end it and back our money with mental that will make it strong.

We need Ron Paul in 2012 because the rest of the idiots(globalist, money loving assholes) will give us a nation that is poor. You people all grew up in a nation that is richer then any other empire that had came before--- Greece, Rome, Holy roman empire, French empire, British empire, but if we're not careful we will fall and our children and grand children won't have that.

Vote for Ron Paul to get our troops home with there family's and to strengthen our economic system. He is a true believer in what the founders imagined our nation to be.

The answer to these wars is not "let's surrender to an inferior force" because I guarantee you that is a recipe that will end up costing far more lives. There is a HEAVY penalty to be paid for failing to win a war. Our refusal to win in Vietnam and handing victory to an enemy that would never have gotten it unless we did - cost 4 million people their lives! Refusing to win in Afghanistan will not only embolden our enemies, but confirm EXACTLY what Bin Laden predicted would happen. YOUR mentality is exactly what Bin Laden predicted would end up carrying the day and would demand the US just HAND them victory -a victory they can't get unless we do give it to them. It is why they never worried about the fact they are the inferior force -he understood American instant oatmeal brains and predicted they would up GIVING them the victory. When I saw his videotape predicting it -I hoped he was wrong, but I knew in my gut he was absolutely right.

If we hand them victory then we totally deserve everything that results from it -I only wish the people who will end up paying for it with their lives were the ones insisting we hand victory to our sworn enemy. Apparently these are the very people who don't understand what they meant when they said it was a war to the death -and they intend to make sure it is OURS. And unlike stupid Americans, they don't care how long it takes or how much it costs.

Americans have an instant oatmeal mentality that has been BRED into them over the last few decades -that unless it can be done fast and cheap, its just not worth it. That even if its the right and best thing to do, if it can't be done on the cheap and fast, then don't bother and do the WRONG thing instead. Because the wrong thing usually is the fastest and cheapest thing to do. The idea that what is the right and best thing to do just shouldn't be done unless it can be done cheap and fast is breathtakingly stupid, arrogant, short-sighted, lethally STUPID and a sickening American trait that didn't exist prior to the 60s. And it is a delight to our enemies who will never put a time schedule or price tag on THEIR goals -but believe this trait will result in Americans demanding we just HAND them victory!

Instant oatmeal brains that Americans have cultivated as part of their culture costs real people their very real lives. We totally deserve the revolting reputation we have regarding our state of moral decay. The proper response to seeing leaders who refuse to get off the pot and just win the damn war -is NOT to demand we just surrender.

Libertarianism is a good model for one's own personal political ideology -but it is incapable of forming and being an effective party actually leading and controlling government beyond the local level. Libertarians are about 1/3 of the office holders in local government in the western half of my state -but like all states, they fail on the state and federal levels. Libertarianism by definition demands a government that is weak and we learned the hard way it only leads our enemies to believe we are vulnerable and can be victimized. Ron Paul better serves this nation right where he is, keeping his voice in Congress which is the branch most inclined to expand its powers beyond those given it by the Constitution and needs constant watchdogs in place to try and keep that natural tendency in check. I could never support him as President though.

Members of Congress -House or Senate -have produced some of our WORST Presidents -if voters understood the difference better between the branches of government maybe they would realize being elected to the legislative branch is NOT a qualifier for the executive branch! The skills needed to be an effective legislator are NOT the same skills and traits needed to be an effective EXECUTIVE -and Americans would do well to make sure the person they elect even HAS any executive skills before casting a vote for that guy! Obama is in over his head and NO leader of any kind -all because so many people wanted to vote for his skin color without consideration for his qualifications. In fact his strongest supporters insisted it was irrelevant -this is what it looks like when you have a President with zero executive skills. Pathetic, whiny speeches constantly blaming everyone and anything else for HIS failures as President and someone who has never once stopped being a partisan HACK -because THAT is the only skill he really has - and was never able to assume the role and BE President. The best Presidents stop being partisan hacks and become STATESMEN instead. Obama is no statesman. Because he CAN'T.

My first choices for a candidate are ALWAYS from the ranks of governors and former governors -for a reason -after which I weed them down by their policies. Governor is the second highest executive office in this country -and IMMEDIATELY qualifies someone for the top one. It doesn't matter what state because the job is interchangeable and nearly identical from state to state -regardless of size, population or wealth. All governors have to deal with nearly the identical problems a President faces plus the individualized ones particular to that state -with the exception of foreign policy. All new Presidents have to learn that one on the job since even Congressional experience which is basically sitting on some oversight committee - amounts to jackshit for that. If your candidate has no CEO or equivalent experience in the private sector and no executive office experience in government -then that person has not yet proven they even have the BASIC skills and experience necessary for the HIGHEST executive office. President is not an entry level job where you find out if the person even has the basic skills to be an effective executive after the fact.

Obama doesn't sound so eloquent when giving speeches anymore, does he? In fact he sounds pathetically whiny, petty and small. That is because his ability to read off a teleprompter was his only real "qualification" -one the left actually believes is more important than substance and definitely more important than PROVEN EXECUTIVE SKILLS. Ron Paul doesn't have those skills either -I refuse to get behind him. In spite of the fact Bachmann can claim some soft business skills, she doesn't have any proven executive skills either and I refuse to back HER either. Liking a candidate's policies are WORTHLESS unless they have the PROVEN abilities to get them done in the first place!

Back to the wars though -the proper response to failed leadership that refuses to just win the war is NOT to demand our surrender. And let's not try to delude ourselves on this one, ok? You can call it any touchy-feely phrase you want pretending to retain some shred of dignity to the process -but I guarantee our enemies will see it as nothing BUT the surrender it really is. This is NOT like Vietnam where we at least knew that the enemy would not continue coming after us upon our surrender. Vietnam was unique and THIS isn't Vietnam! Our enemy has PROMISED they will continue this war to OUR death. It is truly a monumental American STUPIDITY to believe that if we just call it off -so will they. Jaw dropping stupid to believe that. So those demanding we surrender and no longer allow the best trained for that confrontation, best armed and most likely to survive that confrontation carry it out - are in reality demanding the war be fought on OUR soil and those who will be confronted must be men, women children who are not trained, unarmed, the least likely to survive unless it is by sheer LUCK. Our enemy has no problem with that -last time we let them set the terms for confrontation we lost thousands in a matter of hours and they CHOSE to lose just 9. Those are kill odds THEY would certainly prefer -and would certainly support your insistence that we give it to them.

What does victory in Afghanistan look like?!?

 

[Google]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aG3P-LuyCo]END WAR Troops Smuggle Heroin From Afghanistan Using Military Aircraft To Ship Drugs Out - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Stashman]

A bonafide racist said he would not vote for it.

Ron Paul (for his reasons and i know what they are) said he would not vote for it.

End result is it not being passed by the racist and Ron Paul. Same end result.

His sons thoughts on blacks/asians/gays/jews etc not being served in restaurants if the business owner says so scares me as well. Libertarians scare me and I dont want one in the white house. Period.

I will take that as a no. Ron Paul has consistently argued that the Civil Rights Act worsened race relations at the expense of individual liberty. He makes the argument that without it (more specifically title II, he was not against the whole thing), we would have better race relations today.

Ron Paul was all in favor of repealing Jim Crow laws which mandated segregation. But the position is you cannot have forced segregation or forced desegregation. Because of Jim Crow Laws in the south, if you WANTED to open a restaurant (or run a hotel) that served blacks and whites equally, in most Southern states, you COULDN'T. Do you really think every single business in the south refused to serve blacks because they all voluntarily agreed not to? No, the reason was because treated blacks equally was illegal. That was the problem, and ending those laws was something the act did right. But turning around and also forcing integration of private property (public forced integration is fine because it is owned by government) was a step in the wrong direction.

The State should neither force segregation in the private sector, nor force force integration in the private sector. You simply cannot regulate behavior like that, no matter how stupid it is. If you try, people will just get even angrier. Martin Luther King Jr. practiced the libertarian principles of nonviolence and civil disobedience, a form of private nullification of law. Ron Paul praises King for this. The key point is that it was all voluntary.

Voluntary business integration would have been inevitable. It would be highly unprofitable to deny service to such a large consumer base. With the large number of white people upset with racism, you would also have massive boycotts of businesses that refused to integrate, making them lose profits. They eventually would not have been able to segregate even if they wanted to. In today's society, this is even more the case.

So you agree with ron paul. A business owner should have the right to not serve blacks/Asians gays etc.

Really? I cant even attempt to make you see clearly then. Good luck in 2012 and I guess we will see who is more correct...you or I.

Fuck some ass hole posting a sign saying he does not accept me or my family in their business because I am black. Imagine me trying to explain to a young son how I, a black man who is a vet of 20 years in the Navy fighting for this fucking country, cant go in to eat because I am black.

Fuck that. What year does that idiot live in? Fuck Ron Paul and fuck libertarians.

I posted a link to an article of Ron Paul explaining his actions as far as the Civil Rights issue goes. Apparently you didn't read it, because if you had you would of seen clearly what his motivations were. He did NOT disagree with the civil rights act because he is a racist. He did so because the way it was written would have violated the personal rights of others.

Correct if I'm wrong but if you advocate violating the rights of someone else than doesn't that make you racist? Ron Paul is not racist and you seem to be wanting it to be so even though the article clearly shows that's not the way it is.