Thread: Ron Paul on the Issues

Did Ron Paul win GOP's national security debate?

Media-types seem to think Ron Paul more than held his own, which is no small feat, considering many of his ideas on national security are well outside the Republican mainstream.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / November 23, 2011


Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul of Texas speaks during the CNN GOP national security debate in Washington Tuesday. Jonathan Ernst /REUTERS

Did Ron Paul win Tuesday's GOP debate at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington?

OK, it’s hard to really say anyone “wins” a debate, given that there’s no scoring, and Wolf Blitzer doesn’t come out afterward and hand out a medal. In general, last night’s word fight was high-minded and good for everybody, except maybe Herman Cain, since he didn’t say much.

CNN’s Blitzer did well, too – drawing candidates into real conversations, and emceeing questions from assembled think-tank luminaries. The whole thing was a real debate in that it juxtaposed real differences of opinion.

Which is where Congressman Paul comes in. It was him against the Republican world last night. His positions are often very different from those of his GOP opponents, and he defended them with his typical well-honed points. You’re reminded once again that he’s been at this for decades. Even longer than Mitt Romney.

University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato tweeted last night that Paul tied with Newt Gingrich as last night’s winner. Sabato gave both a “B+.”
New York Times polling analyst Nate Silver similarly gave Paul a “B+.” He thought both Newt and Jon Huntsman rated an “A,” however.

Paul “sounded authoritative and made his points clearly” judged Politico’s Maggie Haberman.

Our own reaction to Paul was that nobody laid a glove on him, despite the fact that many of his positions are controversial both within the GOP and in US politics at large. (He said foreign aid is “worthless,” for instance. Really? Not even the other GOP candidates went that far. US cash is paying for much of Africa’s fight against HIV/AIDS, for instance. Is that not money well spent?)

But take the opening sequence, when most all the other candidates supported Patriot Act antiterror provisions as necessary intrusions on liberty at a time of danger for the US. Paul was having none of that.

“I think the Patriot Act is unpatriotic, because it undermines our liberty,” said Paul in the opening moments of the debate.

The longtime libertarian was just getting warmed up.

“So if you advocate a police state, you can have safety and security, and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms,” said Paul.

Paul then went on to differ with the crowd by saying the US should “let Israel take care of itself.” That meant, apparently, don’t meddle with Israel if it wants to bomb Iran, but don’t give it any money to do the deed, either.

(As an aside, we’ll ask this: Did the Texas congressman let slip some interesting and closely guarded info in his response? He said, “Israel has 200, 300 nuclear missiles, and they can take care of themselves.” That’s on the high end of the estimates experts outside the US government make as to the extent of Israel’s nuclear program.)

Then there was the whole defense budget-cutting thing, in which Paul and Mitt Romney went at it.

First Romney opposed the possibility of a trillion dollars being cut from the defense budget. That might happen because the congressional super committee didn’t figure out a way to reduce the budget by $1.2 trillion over 10 years, so automatic cuts might take effect next year.

“They’re not cutting anything out of anything,” replied Paul. “All this talk is just talk.”

Paul appeared to be referring to the fact that nothing is in stone yet – some in Congress want to repeal the automatic cuts, many of the “cuts” are reductions in growth as opposed to actual reductions in the size of government programs, and so forth.

Romney disagreed. He ticked off a list of weapons systems Congress has already trimmed. “They’re cutting ... into the capacity of America to defend itself,” he said.
So what do you think of Paul versus the GOP world? Leave a comment and let us know.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ecurity-debate

GOP debate: all but Ron Paul want Patriot Act extended

GOP debate touches on Patriot Act, which most Republican candidates agreed should be extended.

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press / November 22, 2011


Republican presidential candidates stand for the National Anthem before a Republican presidential debate in Washington, Tuesday. Evan Vucci/AP

Republican presidential hopefuls spoke up strongly for the anti-terror Patriot Act in campaign debate Tuesday night, saying it should be extended or perhaps strengthened to help identify and capture those who would attack the United States.

Only Rep. Ron Paul of Texas among eight presidential hopefuls dissented, arguing that the law is "unpatriotic because it undermines our liberties."

In a debate on national security, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann said President Barack Obama has "essentially handed over our investigation of terrorists to the" American Civil Liberties Union. "Our CIA has no ability to investigate," she said. Bachmann did not cite any examples to buttress either of her claims.

The debate unfolded six weeks to the day before the Iowa caucuses inaugurate the competition for delegates to the Republican National Convention. The venerable DAR Constitution Hall was the site — a few blocks from the White House and as close as most if not all of the GOPhopefuls are likely to get.

The Patriot Act is one of the nation's principal tools in ferreting out terrorist threats but has often provoked dissents from both liberals and conservatives who argue that in the name of national security it erodes constitutional protections.

Paul made that point, and said other investigative techniques captured Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

Gingrich jumped at that. "That's the whole point. Timothy McVeigh killed a lot of Americans," the former House speaker said. "I don't want a law that says after we lose a major American city, we're sure going to come and find you. I want a law that says, you try to take out an American city, we're going to stop you."

Neither Gingrich nor any other Republican mentioned that Obama, like President George W. Bush before him, signed legislation extending the Patriot Act. He did so while traveling in Europe last May, putting him name on a four-year extension of the law that gives the government sweeping powers to search records and conduct wiretaps in pursuit of terrorists.

In a race that is constantly in flux, Gingrich has emerged as Romney's principal rival atop the public opinion polls. As he looked around him, he saw other rivals who once held that position — Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and businessman Herman Cain among them.

The debate ranged widely over foreign policy issues, but neither the format nor the moderator permitted all eight candidates to answer any one question. That produced a somewhat disjoined event in which there was relatively little back-and-forth among the rivals.

Asked if he would support an Israel attack on Iran to prevent the Islamic regime from acquiring a nuclear weapon, Cain said he would want to know what the plan was and have an understanding of its chance of success.

Gingrich said he would bomb Iran only as a last resort and with a goal of bringing about the downfall of the government.

There was more disagreement when it came to the war in Afghanistan.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman said it was time for the United States to withdraw nearly all its troops.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said top generals disagreed with that and asked Huntsman if he was talking about a withdrawal beginning immediately.

"Did you hear what I said?" Huntsman asked across the debate stage, noting that under the Constitution the president is commander in chief. A few moments later, referring to Vietnam, he said a president had listened to the generals in 1967, and the outcome was not in the interests of the United States.

Also on the debate stage were businessman Herman Cain and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-New ... t-extended

bttt

Neal Boortz is AMAZED at Ron Paul's 2002 prediction of the housing bubble

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K2ktRZ4T48&NR=1



Nov 19, 2011

from the 11/18/11 edition of The Neal Boortz Show. Read Ron Paul's complete statement predicting the housing bubble and exactly how it would happen here:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-p ... july-2002/

Ron Paul Iowa Surge Discussed on Judge Nepalitano (11-19-11)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P9t6QVt ... re=related

Ron Paul Discussed on Neal Boortz Radio Show (11-18-11)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIU4tUz ... re=related



Nov 19, 2011

This episode of Neal Boortz Radio aired on November 18th, 2011.

Ron Paul Is Electable Because He's Delegatable. The Most important things to Know

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFtHmem2 ... re=related



Nov 18, 2011

This is a very informative video about Ron Paul and the current political system.

Watch This Video and LEARN what many already know

Brief Overview of Congressman Pauls Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

When Gov. Mitt Romney was Writing the Prototype for Obamacare in Mass; Ron Paul looked back over his carear of delivering more than 4,000 babys as a OBGYN Doctor

When Rick Perry was getting Ds in Economics 101, Ron Paul was writing books on Austrian Economics.

When Michele Bachmann was campaigning for Jimmy Carter, Ron Paul was one of four congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan on his second run.

When Herman Cain was working for the Federal Reserve, Ron Paul was trying to end it.

"Ladies and Gentlemen"

"The Man that has NO Corporate Endorsements"

"The Defender of the Constitution"

"The Thomas Jefferson of our Time"

"Ron Paul"

Chinese Professor ~ Banned US Commercial about the national debt

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTSQozWP-rM



Nov 2, 2010

A new television ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed "too controversial" by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels. The commercial is a homage to a 1986 ad that was entitled "The Deficit Trials" that was also banned by the major networks. Apparently telling the truth about the national debt is a little too "hot" for the major networks to handle. But perhaps it is time to tell the American people the truth. In 1986, the U.S. national debt was around 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 14 trillion dollars. The American Dream is being ripped apart right in front of our eyes, but apparently some of the major networks don't want the American people to really understand what is going on.

The truth is that the ad does not even have anything in it that should be offensive. The commercial is set in the year 2030, and the main character is a Chinese professor that is seen lecturing his students on the fall of great empires. As images of the United States are shown on a screen behind him, the Chinese professor tells his students the following about the behavior of great empires: "They all make the same mistakes. Turning their backs on the principles that made them great. America tried to spend and tax itself out of a great recession. Enormous so-called "stimulus" spending, massive changes to health care, government takeover of private industries, and crushing debt."

Perhaps it is what the Chinese Professor says next that is alarming the big television networks: "Of course, we owned most of their debt, so now they work for us".