Ron Paul on Meet The Press

Congratulatioms. TM. But until you get at least three bone-headed lemming-like clones to register specifically to refute your position, I'm afraid you haven't got the golden ring. :)

I'll take a stab at that if you don't mind, Jim.

Any power not specifically granted to the Federal government within the Constitution is supposed to belong to the states. As soon as you start throwing out "the greater good" arguments, you tip the balance of power towards the Feds. It is vital that every level of government, from the Feds to the States to the Counties to the Towns vigorously defends it's own territory from the other tiers to keep everything in check and to keep one level from becoming too powerful. I, and many others, believe that over time the Feds have usurped far too much power from the states.

The Feds aren't supposed to have any say in education. What they do get around that, however, is withhold Federal funds from schools that don't meet certain criteria. How stupid is it that we kick money all the way to the IRS at the Federal level just so that it can trickle back down to our local schools? People are worried about school consolidation taking away local control?! Forget it - it's been gone for a long, long time.

As for abortion, that wasn't specified in the Constitution either and is supposed to be a state issue. Dr. Paul believes that abortion is an issue of violence, and those are always handled by the states unless there is a Federal employee or property involved. Roe v. Wade is absolutely unconstitutional law. If abortion is going to be handled at the Federal level, then the proper way to address it is by amending the Constitution.

I watched the show, I know what I heard I am not deaf.

They replayed it a couple of hours ago on MSNBC, I was flicking through channels and listened to what he said and that is what he said that Regean was a failure.

In my opinion he was the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party and America.

How's the job going? Remember whatever Paul said it was in 1987 during the Reagan Administration. 20 years ago alot of people though that Reagan was lame. Like a fine wine the view of his administration got better with age. I believe that he was a good president but saying that after watching a speech he gave while stumping for Berry Goldwater in 1963, he was a disappointment. He said a lot in that speech, 16 years before he was elected, that he did not live up to. Should we fault him on that?

The interview was a lot of so and so said this 20 years ago about you saying this? What? If Russert had to go back 20 years, that should tell you something about Ron Paul’s character. I believe that Ronald Reagan would vote for Ron Paul.

“No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income.”

“Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

“You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”

http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/speeches/rendezvous.asp

Jim, I personally feel the Civil War was the turning point in the experiment of self-governance in this country. We changed from the Jefferson model of government to the Hamilton model of government. It's my belief that the South should have gone and formed their own country, since it was understood that the federal government was the agent for the states, and the Southern states felt that the feds didn't act in that role.

The slavery issue was a thorny one, but it's well known that Lincoln wasn't going to do anything to stop it. (I think one of the stupidest pieces of legislation passed was the Fugitive Slave Act. That indirectly helped to keep slavery going, IMHO)

As per your question, it's my belief that if the Founders were to be alive today, they would only say one thing. And that is we must grab our muskets and do it again. I'm not for violent revolution, (which is why I support Ron Paul), but if it comes to this stage, then so be it. I believe this government places other interests over yours and mine. So, to the answer to your question is yes, I find this government abusive, and should be changed. Jefferson said it best when he said a revolution that takes place every 20 or so years is good. In this case, a revolution in the mind.

As far as the states go, the idea of leaving the Union was put to rest at Appomatox Court House. However, if a state wanted to leave, then I feel they should be able to leave if the people decide that, and then take responsibility for their decision. In fact, the Lakota Sioux have decided to void all the treaties, and leave and form their own country. Here's a link to the recent story. I support their decision to do so.
Sitting Bull's people break away from US

gop, one huge factor I just thought of, was that in the '80's there was still the media monopoly.

No Talk radio, no internet certainly, and I'm not sure if even Cable News was popular then.

Time and Newsweek and the NYT and the 3 broadcast news networks had power that I don't think you can imagine.

Had communications then been anything like today, Reagan might have succeeded. But his every move was vilified by media back then, and there was no balance.

I believe Ronald Reagan was a good man, but he failed as a president when he appointed 95% of his administration from the Council on Foreign Relations.
Bud

I found this exchange in the interview to be fascinating.

Who in Israel is saying "Go bomb Iran for us"?

REP. PAUL: Well, I don't know the individuals, but we know that their leaderships--you read it in the papers on a daily--a daily, you know, about Israel, the government of Israel encourages Americans to go into Iran, and the people--I don't think that's a--I don't think that's top secret that the government of Israel...

MR. RUSSERT: That the government of Israel wants us to bomb Iran?

REP. PAUL: I, I don't think there's a doubt about that, that they've encouraged us to do that. And of course the neoconservatives have been anxious to do that for a long time.

I could sense him fighting the urge to blurt out something about Zionists and the Israel Lobby controlling US policy, a favorite topic of anti-Semites.

This morning on C-Span I heard a caller who started out with an anti-Zionist rant and ended proclaiming his support for Ron Paul. It's small wonder the Stormfront creeps support Paul.

that is in the realm of possibilities....and nice way to call Ron Paul an anti semite...which is what anyone who wants to stop foreirn aid to israel is called I guess you missed the part where he said ALL foreign aid to ALL countries including the arab countries that do threaten israel. He only gets asked about Israel and always points out that he is against all aid.

"According to high-ranking defense officials, Gantz's new position will be of extreme importance for Israel in the coming years, ahead of possible Israeli or US military action against Iranian nuclear facilities, in addition to an American withdrawal from Iraq that could have potentially detrimental consequences for Israel. "

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847394850&pagename=JPost%...

Jim....like corvus said, the federal government doesnt have the authority to regulate abortion so constituionally speaking I too think it should be handled at a state level or the constitution should be properly amended. I have no problem with amendments but I would like to see them as actual amendments not implied amendments made by the judiciary branch....if they interpret something one way and make a decision then it should be put before the people to consider for amendment.

Many forget that Ronald Reagan did not always tell the American people the truth. In April of 1980, he said in an interview with the Christian Science Monitor, that he would shun the directioons of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. He the had George Bush, CFR and TLC as his Vice President and Bush was known as the darling of the Rockefeller crowd. William Casey, CFR, as his campaign manager, and Director of the CIA. For Secretary of State he choose Alexander Haig,CFR. Donald Regan, CFR, for Secretary of Treasury. Malcolm BaldrigeCFR forSecretary of Commerce. Casper Weinberger, TLC, Secretary of Defense. By the time Ronald Reagan was in office for 5 months he had 257CFR members serving as government officials in such positions as Assistant Secretary and Deputy Secretary posts in the State Department. He had James Baker III as CFR as White House Chief of Staff.

In 1981-82 he authorized for the Import-Export Bank to finance nuclear steam turbines for Rumania and power generation equipment for Communist China at the cost of tens of millions of American tax-payers dollars. Our tax dollars helped to pay for the industrialization of Communist red China under Ronald Reagan. And I could go on about the arms he sold China and refused to sell the Taiwanese, fighter planes to defend themselves from red China.
Bud

I would guess that 90% of the conservatives here idolize Reagan in way or another. For some of us, it's the younger, idealistic "Goldwater" Reagan. For others, it's the aggressive foreign policy, but unfortunately "big government" Reagan.

A lot of people consider Reagan to be the first of the Neo-conservative presidents. There's no question that he projected our power throughout the world. A lot of that was due to the Cold War certainly, and even Goldwater felt that the Communist threat needed to be aggressively confronted. A lot of the moves made during the Cold War set us up for the troubles that we have in the Middle East today, though. The short-sighted "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" policy bit us in the butt with Afghanistan and Bin Laden, and Goldwater labeled the Iran-Contra Affair as the worse foreign policy disaster in US History (that's from memory - don't quote me).

In my mind, the two most influential GOP figures are Goldwater and Reagan. Most of the GOP candidates try to mirror President Reagan very closely, but I feel that Ron Paul and his supporters go back even further to Goldwater. Unfortunately, the rest of the GOP field is actually mirroring Reagan through GWB's own interpretation and it's like a high-stakes game of telephone where the message has been garbled and distorted.

Like Reagan before him, GWB actually started out running on a Goldwater-ish small government and a Taft-ish humble foreign policy platform, but he too was unable to pull it off. Sadly, 8 years later there's only one candidate that is even *trying* to do so and he's out of step with the majority of the party.

This morning on C-Span I heard a caller who started out with an anti-Zionist rant and ended proclaiming his support for Ron Paul. It's small wonder the Stormfront creeps support Paul.

Roger S. I think we should stop aid to israel. Does this make me an anti-semite? I also think israel has a huge lobby, what dos this make me?

Can any Ron Paul fanatics name who # 2 is in Foreign Aid.....It's Egypt. Number 3 is Jordan. Amazing I never hear anything about them. It's either I'm against all Foreign Aid or I'm against aid to Israel. Hmmm...coincidence..... I doubt it.

Mickey - the Arab countries get 3 times as much aid as Israel, I believe. Ron Paul is always ASKED if he'd cut aid to Israel. That's not his fault. He always responds that he'd cut foreign aid to all countries and that the net benefit to Israel would be FAR less aid to their enemies.

Corvus,

My grievance wasn't with Ron Paul. He's been crystal clear about his feelings towards Foreign Aid.

My grievance is with "some" of the Paul supporters who only seem to mention Israel and none of the other countries that are recipients. At least Israel votes with the US somewhere in the high 90% range at the UN. Take a guess where Egypt, Jordan and the rest of the Middle East beneficiaries vote...I'm guessing somewhere in the low 50s. For the record I'm no fan of the UN.

Mickey, if you look back through my posts you will find where I posted who does and does not vote with the United States in the United Nations and I do agee with RON PAUL, cut out ALL foreign aid.
Bud

I didn't imply you Bud....btw did you ever find that "Israel threatens to use nuclear weapons" source?

No, and I quit looking. The last I saw there were over 4500 places to look.
Bud

I guess that the's closest will ever get to a retraction from you, huh Bud?

This has got to be the most vicious attack on Paul I've seen yet: YouTube

Bill Kristol on Fox News calls Dr. Paul a "crackpot", a "crank", claims that he hates America and repeats the false "isolationist" mantra. Most surprisingly, he also doesn't think that Paul would "matter in the end" if he ran 3rd party. I guess that Kristol believes that being a strict Constitutionalist means that you hate America? Very disturbing.

Merry Christmas!

Bill Kristol is an avid globalist.

Ron Paul scares the dickens out of globalists.

Corvus, Tracy, and Hatch - Thanks for your responses. I don't want to hijack the thread, but maybe we can continue the discussion in the new year. I don't disagree with anything that you have said. I do have some questions on how we would get from where we are back to where we want to be. Such a transformation would also require a transformation on the part of the people. State and local government would certainly have to be held accountable by the people; something that doesn't really happen now. Merry Christmas to all!

Ron Paul scares the dickens out of sane people.

Can any Ron Paul fanatics name who # 2 is in Foreign Aid.....It's Egypt. Number 3 is Jordan. Amazing I never hear anything about them. It's either I'm against all Foreign Aid or I'm against aid to Israel. Hmmm...coincidence..... I doubt it.

Yes, I could have named them. Check the post below out, it's from a couple on months ago. I listed the top 16. I know this because of RP. He advocates getting rid of all foreign aid, as do I. I think you need to go back and check out some previous threads. I mentioned Israel because it appears that certain AMGers believe that anyone who wants to cut foreign aid is anti-Semitic. This is not the case. I am not anti Arab either and I want to get rid of their aid as well. Don't assume to know what RP or his supporters believe. Co to his website and find out.

http://www.asmainegoes.com/node/17100t=

How so?? I think I'm pretty sane and I'm not scared of him. I am more scared of what this county will be in 20 years if we do not elect him.

My grievance wasn't with Ron Paul. He's been crystal clear about his feelings towards Foreign Aid.

My grievance is with "some" of the Paul supporters who only seem to mention Israel and none of the other countries that are recipients. At least Israel votes with the US somewhere in the high 90% range at the UN. Take a guess where Egypt, Jordan and the rest of the Middle East beneficiaries vote...I'm guessing somewhere in the low 50s. For the record I'm no fan of the UN.

Who are the "some" you are talking about?

Jim,

I really appreciate your candor and open mindness when it comes to the GOP nomination. I've found you to be someone not easily fooled, and pays attention. That deserves cudos. Looking forward to constructive exchanges in 2008.

Keep this in mind. At the first debate, Dr. Paul was asked a question about when he would do away with the IRS. He reply was immedidately, but then he mentioned in order to do that, we have to have a discussion on what the role of government should be in a free society.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with you in this forum, that I've termed as the "freemarket of ideas".

Roger, the only people Dr. Paul scares the crap out of are the MSM, government officials, and the bureaucracy. I think that is terrific.

Oh, and yes, he's insane.

It's insane for people to keep more of their own money, and to have more control over their own daily lives. Insane!!
It's insane for people to have the ability to defend themselves without complying with the "gang of men" known as the BATF. Insane!!
It's insane for people to have more control over their educational, medical and retirement needs, since those greedy monsters on Wall St will eat them alive. Insane!!
It's insane that we end the defense subsidization of some of our trading partners, and to keep the trade inbalance at a high level.
It's insane to have competing currencies since the Fed is doing such a bang up job at keeping the dollar at such a grand level. I'm better off for it.
I think Roger's wisdom is pronounced here. Three Cheers!!!!

So I suppose sane people like the prospect of carrying around a national ID card, losing Habeas Corpus, and paying nearly half of everything they earn to government?

Call me crazy - but that isn't the America I envision.

Only imbeciles believe we've "lost" Habeus Corpus.