Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Ron Paul - Foreign Policy - If you listen to media, you will never get it! - YouTube



Jan 12, 2012 Paul is warning you! The media only spouts the Neocon preemptive philosophy of war. They believe in MILITARISM, not TRUE DEFENSE! There is a big difference!

Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Views Explained in 13 Minutes
http://youtu.be/d8RAog2RnRc

PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses:
http://tinyurl.com/ca7knj5

Is Romney a Neocon? He uses PNAC terminology in this video:
http://youtu.be/HF6Dge07Pog

Neocons - What you need to know about their philosophy on war:
http://tinyurl.com/6uuqbsy

They lied to us then (2003), they're lying to us now (2011) (Iraq)
http://youtu.be/NgOfLLphJvs

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.
http://youtu.be/8y06NSBBRtY


"You Want him" (Cover to Military Article on Paul):
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/2205/ronpaulranger.jpg

Vision for 2020 - US Space Command: (Military Industrial Complex?)
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf

Drinking The Koolaid By W. Patrick Lang (Group-Think Dangers; Mentions PNAC!)
http://www.mediafire.com/?499ym9ybsy1ym4n

PNAC,, You have got to see this! It is WILD!
http://youtu.be/1uT7kcAu4i8

The Mitt Romney Myth, He's not electable, Ron Paul is

ElectionOracle / US Presidential Election 2012
Jan 17, 2012 - 02:38 AMBy: LewRockwell

Mark R. Crovelli writes: Republicans sure have short memories. It was just four years ago that they went to the polls in the primaries and elected the most "moderate" and "electable" candidate they could find in the hope that they had a man who was palatable to the general population. Their reward for their unprincipled pragmatism was an ass-kicking in the general election that few Americans will ever forget. John McCain and Sarah Palin certainly won’t forget it.

Four years later, having learned absolutely nothing from the election of 2008, Republican voters are once again lining up behind the most moderate and supposedly "electable" candidate that they can find in the pragmatic hope that they can beat Obama in the general election. They have become so unprincipled and pragmatic, in fact, that they are lining up behind the very man who brought European-style socialized medicine to our fair shores, simply because they have been told that he is more "electable" than anyone else in the field. How they can expect an outcome that’s better than four years ago is difficult to fathom, unless they think that their new moderate’s plastic hair can compensate for his obvious blandness.

In one respect, moreover, the selection of this particular "moderate" is even more ridiculous than the selection of the kooky moderate four years ago. This guy came in second place in the primaries to the "moderate" who got his ass handed to him in the general election. Think about that for a minute. This guy was moderate enough to come in second in the primaries two years ago, when the Republicans first decided to eschew principle and select a moderate, and yet he was deemed less "electable" than the guy who lost so badly.

In other words, if the more "electable" moderate got his ass kicked four years ago, how badly is the second-place moderate going to do this time around?

Here’s a novel idea for Republicans: Vote based upon principle, not based upon whatever the bobble-headed morons in the media establishment say is strategically expedient. Your strategic pragmatism got you nowhere four years ago. Young people and independents in this country are not any more impressed with bland flip-floppers from Massachusetts than they are impressed with nut-job moderates from Arizona. These guys don’t even impress Republicans themselves. If they want a "moderate" who stands for war and socialized medicine, they might as well stick with the moderate, warmongering socialist they already have.

How about nominating someone who has a record of standing up for individual liberty for once? How about nominating someone who believes in the Constitution for once? How about nominating someone who opposes liberal nation-building and warmongering for once? How about voting for a real capitalist for once?

In other words, how about voting based upon your own damn principles for once, instead of voting like pragmatic Trotskyites taking strategic orders from the political-media establishment? Forget this ridiculous, immoral and futile idea of "electability" and vote for Ron Paul and the principles of your own party.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article32662.html

$1,875,258.72 VICTORY LIES AHEAD

http://ronpaul-2012.org/mbpledge_sc.html?pid=0110

Ron Paul Highlights in 1.19.12 Debate (Video)

News Link • R3VOLution
Ron Paul Highlights in 1.19.12 Debate (Video)

01-19-2012 • StopTheLie.com
Visit RonPaulNow.com for past highlights plus other interviews.




Ron Paul Highlights in 1.19.12 Debate (Video)

Ron Paul Poised for an Upset - More SC Senators Come Forward to Endorse Ron Paul for President - YouTube



Jan 18, 2012

South Carolina Senators are Willingly coming out to show their support for Ron Paul. This Momentum Is Unstoppable. Ron Paul is likely to cause an upset in South Carolina and yet the Media is still trying to ignore this trend. Vote Ron Paul to Restore America !!!

Jesse Benton On MSNBC Talking South Carolina Vote 01/20/12 - YouTube

Jesse Benton Ron Paul Is Surging in South Carolina! - YouTube



Jan 18, 2012

Ron Paul Votes Against Debt Ceiling Increase - YouTube

RUSH LIMBAUGH Endorses RON PAUL Economic Plan - YouTube



Oct 18, 2011

Ron Paul Plan Is Needed To "Save Country"

See Article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-releases-the-only-presidential-candidate...

Ron Paul has been calling for the abolishment of these programs and agencies for three decades now, but Rush feels the need to take credit for those right ideas..going so far as accusing Paul of stealing them from him!

Ron Paul on Lower spending and smaller government:

Paul believes the size of federal government must be decreased substantially. In order to restrict the federal government to what he believes are its Constitutionally authorized functions, Paul regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes,[80] often opposed by a heavy majority of his colleagues. For example, on January 22, 2007, Paul was the lone member out of 415[81] voting to oppose a House measure to create a National Archives exhibit on slavery and Reconstruction, seeing this as an unauthorized use of taxpayer money.

Paul would substantially reduce the government's role in individual lives and in the functions of foreign and domestic states; he says Republicans have lost their commitment to limited government and have become the party of big government.[82] He would eliminate many federal government agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Education,[83] the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce,[84] the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,[84] the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service,[85] calling them "unnecessary bureaucracies". Paul would severely reduce the role of the Central Intelligence Agency; reducing its functions to intelligence-gathering. He would eliminate operations like overthrowing foreign governments and assassinations. He says this activity is kept secret even from Congress and "leads to trouble".[86] He also commented, "We have every right in the world to know something about intelligence gathering, but we have to have intelligent people interpreting this information."[87]

Paul has asserted that he does not think there should be any federal control over education and education should be handled at a local and state level.

As a free-market environmentalist, Paul sees polluters as aggressors who should not be granted immunity or otherwise insulated from accountability. Paul argues that enforcing private property rights through tort law would hold people and corporations accountable, and would increase the cost of polluting activities—thus decreasing pollution.[228] He claims that environmental protection has failed due to lack of respect for private property:

The environment is better protected under private property rights ... We as property owners can't violate our neighbors' property. We can't pollute their air or their water. We can't dump our garbage on their property ... Too often, conservatives and liberals fall short on defending environmental concerns, and they resort to saying, "Well, let's turn it over to the EPA. The EPA will take care of us ... We can divvy up the permits that allow you to pollute." So I don't particularly like that method.[229]