Ron Paul (2010-2011)

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

The majority of avalonians on here give me hope that the future will be better than anything we've experienced so far. Take heart avalonians! We have the power to make the world a better place and i believe we will!

[sygh]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Posted by vortex surfer (here)
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

Paul's got 12 years of political experience. He's stuck to what he's said all that time. Ron has never once said, vote for me and I'll fix everything. What he has said is no one person will change this -and change takes time.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by sygh (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Posted by vortex surfer (here)
I think Paul has some good points. But on an aside note it's curious that he mentions Grover Cleveland as his favorite president of all time:

*When Grover Cleveland, a Democrat, ran for President in 1884, the general impression in the country was that he opposed the power of monopolies and corporations, and that the Republican party, whose candidate was James Blaine, stood for the wealthy. But when Cleveland defeated Blaine, Jay Gould (leading American railroad developer and speculator) wired him: "I feel ... that the vast business interests of the country will be entirely safe in your hands." And he was right.

*One of Cleveland's chief advisers was William Whitney, a millionaire and corporation lawyer, who married into the Standard Oil fortune and was appointed Secretary of the Navy by Cleveland. He immediately set about to create a "steel navy," buying the steel at artificially high prices from Carnegie's plants. Cleveland himself assured industrialists that his election should not frighten them: "No harm shall come to any business interest as the result of administrative policy so long as I am President ... a transfer of executive control from one party to another does not mean any serious disturbance of existing conditions."

*In 1887, with a huge surplus in the treasury, Cleveland vetoed a bill appropriating $100,000 to give relief to Texas farmers to help them buy seed grain during a drought. He said: "Federal aid in such cases .. . encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character." But that same year, Cleveland used his gold surplus to pay off wealthy bondholders at $28 above the $100 value of each bond -a gift of $45 million."

(*Excerpts taken from A people's history of the United States of America, by Howard Zinn)

Hi vortex,

That's part of our problem really...making historical comparisons. I think in fairness to Ron Paul, he should be allowed to stand on his own merits. In my opinion his merit is a very basic, very simple, very straightforward political message. Unfortunately, our real world life is not just basic or very straightforward and simple. Paul is compelling, though, I would love to be able to solve all my personal problems with a sweep of a principled hand.

Paul's got 12 years of political experience. He's stuck to what he's said all that time. Ron has never once said, vote for me and I'll fix everything. What he has said is no one person will change this -and change takes time.

well said.

[vortex surfer]

Posted by Unified Serenity (here)
I think there is more to the Grover Cleaveland issue than simple snippets taken possibly out of context. I say that based on observing that many times things can be put in such a way that if you don't do the research those bit of information are not giving a complete picture, but a very skewed one.

Yes, of course this isn't the definitive story of Grover Cleveland, and I'm certainly no expert on him either. My intention was to point to an aspect of Cleveland that I found kind of opposite of what Paul is trying to do. I'm not implying that Paul is of the same ilk, but I just found it curious that a man who is such an outsider in many ways, and against the whole federeal reserve system, is a fan of a long gone president with such ties to big business. Then again Cleveland probably had little choice but to play ball with the industrial and financial sector, and he's certainly not unique in this case. As Zinn points outs repeatedly in his book there has always been a financial ruling class in the US in some form or fashion, with their own agendas and interests no matter the ruling party or president.

But I agree with you, electing Paul would be a first climb out of the hole as far as US domestic and foreign policy is concerned.

[alienHunter]

Posted by AlternativeInfoJunkie (here)
The majority of avalonians on here give me hope that the future will be better than anything we've experienced so far. Take heart avalonians! We have the power to make the world a better place and i believe we will!

well, he's got at least 20 votes...I'm pretty sure I could round up that many for myself (so i've been told by friends that run the political gamut...but alas, no Ron Paul advocates)

many people on the left have their 'special' choices...My opinion remains unchanged, 'special' choices don't mean sh*t. The change in our society has to come from within and as a culture we have a long long way to go. After 58 years of social abuse, I have learned to be very very patient.

Alternative...let's be friends...just don't try to make buy something I'm not gonna buy. It's my human nature.

Before you come back and say I'm not responding to your claim above...let me explain it for you:

"While there are many areas of agreement with the Committee, the Administration would have
serious concerns with provisions that would: (1) constrain the ability of the Armed Forces to
carry out their missions; (2) impede the Secretary of Defense’s ability to make and implement
decisions that eliminate unnecessary overhead or programs to ensure scarce resources are
directed to the highest priorities for the warfighter; or (3) depart from the decisions reflected in
the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request. The Administration looks forward to working with the
Congress to address these and other concerns, a number of which are outlined in more detail
below.

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war. It has always been under the purview of the executive branch if not by constitution by historical interpretation of it. Abraham Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy, after all.

Under the current bill what would have been codified is that the MILITARY had precedence over that decision and it was not something that the current Democratigator-in-chief chose to let happen. The main conceptual difference which is the primary impetus for the disagreement is the notion of 'indefinite detention'. Due to the nature of the war...when can we declare it over and thereby release any 'enemy' combatants. In any case, he will be gone in a timely fashion dictated by imperative of the U.S. Constitution. What then for his codified power grab.

I had a bad night's sleep.

[Unified Serenity]

THE Constitution of the United States of America

Article 1 section 8

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This appears very hard for you to understand alienhunter, but the constitution of the United States of America clearly spells out which branch of government does what. The President does not declare war, the Congress does. It is a check and balance system because while we Americans are fast to fight when necessary, we are not wanting to go fight for GM, Ford, Exxon, Mobile, or Haliburton! It's a lot easier to buy 1 guy (the President) off than hundreds (The Congress) and our founding fathers were not stupid to that fact!

[alienHunter]

you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun


It also occurred to me that was the reason for the bill's concern about 'timeliness'

[jackovesk]

Posted by alienHunter (here)
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

[alienHunter]

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by alienHunter (here)
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

I have no problem with taking action quickly to defend our country, but that is NOT what has gone on the last 60 years. Vietnam was a police action, not a war. The Gulf of Tonkin incident which was the catalyst to get us into that "War" is now known to have never happened! We lost 50,000 Americans fighting that bull**** of a "war". There is a difference of the President needing to call out the Military if we are in imminent danger. When has American been in imminent danger of attack in the last 100 years? Please do tell me when we needed the President to call out our military, commit our sons and daughters, husbands, wives, and fathers lives and not go through a proper vote of Congress in the last 100 years.

The President has entered these wars on his own, the media plays up the "Patriot" game and anyone who questions our actions is labelled a traitor, unsupportive of the Military, and treated as an outcast attacked for having a view differing from the sheeple (Gee, I saw that same energy here yesterday attacking me for daring to question DW and Kerry's interview and what what really going on, but I digress). Congress is then put between a rock and a hard place. If they don't fund the bastard's war then can be painted as not supporting the military and defending our interests. So, they fund the war budget and 10 effing years later we are still fighting a war in Iraq and Afghanistan over another lie that there were weapons of mass destruction and we needed to take them out. That the nebulus terrorists need to be weeded out of the middle east! Give me a break! That's like saying we are going to weed out all the drug dealers in the country and they go kicking every door down from New York to Florida to Minnesota to California, Hawaii and Alaska and oh, lets say we lose 3 million innocent American's lives but by golly we are winning the war on drugs! Yes, tell me Alien hunter how all this sounds to you? And don't effing tell me that Obama is getting us out of Iraq, because he said that was the FIRST thing he was going to do as President. This is nothing more than a political stunt and photo op at the expense of our sons and daughters lives and those of the people over their who have died needlessly. For Shame on Obama. For Shame on America. For shame on me.

[alienHunter]

ok, I won't tell you...but that is what he is trying to do...his next step, if allowed, will be a pull out from Afghanistan...No one in their right mind wants incessant war...Obama is in his right mind.

[Unified Serenity]

Posted by alienhunter (here)
ok, i won't tell you...but that is what he is trying to do...his next step, if allowed, will be a pull out from afghanistan...no one in their right mind wants incessant war...obama is in his right mind.

d.n.f.t.t.

[alienHunter]

Is that meant for me...if it is that's a first for me...interesting. I'll give you another first...I'm not going away feeling like a winner like I would normally. you guys have acquitted yourselves well on behalf of your beliefs. I just don't share them.

I think Obama is essentially good...you think Obama is essentially bad.
I think Paul is naive, living in and for a world that doesn't exist outside his womb of influence.
you think Paul is the answer to mankind's fundamental illness...well, I certainly disagree with that.

[Lifebringer]

I'd vote for him if he could stop those of racial or gender hatred from harming others. We have laws against it, but the hiring and ethnic coding on applications has kept us African Americans and minorities. That backward exclusion of the human species has kept this planet in the dark for ages and needs to stop. If the judiciary shows this bias, is there really any chance to rise above it where i too, can have a safe America for my children. I don't agree with any crime of violence on any ethnic human being, yet still today at 53, i yearn to have a homeland where I am accepted by my charecter, and not color. I have an ancestry of Native American, African American and Irish American. Three continents that either call me a "cafa" or enslaved American African, or rejected through my 50 percent Native American Ancestry (Mom and grandparents full blooded Cherokee)and kicked out of tribe because of drop of African blood as if being part of the 1st man, is something to be ashamed of, or totally ignored, when I wear my green on St. Patrick's Day.

I and my people have this dream or vision as Martin did, to be at peace in life and death is not the only answer for us. Acceptance, just as the Jews have been accepted, is the only future in this country, i will accept. If I could take my social Security and live in Canada, or Mexico, or even Haiti for that matter, I would leave just to have peace in my later years. I would teach the natural green energy efficiency and conservation to the island people to continue to have pristine waters for the fish and mammals that also share this planet.
I pray the only Heaven on Earth I recieve, isn't denied me in my lifetime. It just wouldn't be just. It would be totally hopeless and unfair.
Ron Paul is a doctor that told the republicans during medicare part D that if the middlemen deniars of care would get out of the way, and the payment to doctors cut down in repaying the doctor, the system would work fine. The man is consistent because he also said that cutting the doctor in payments on his care, doesn't guarantee his options of treatment for the patient if there isn't money for him to buy better equipment for diagnosage.
He makes a lot of sense and cares for the patients, the insurers screwed up the system, under Nixon, Kissinger for privatization of healthcare and how the stocks for it would take the payment from the doctor and government to a share holder investing in the middle man, who has absolutely "nothing to do with treatment of the patient, therefore can't be sued."

Crooked party ideology of scamming people as they get older, frailer, and more feeble minded. I remember bed sores and bad treatment from privatized health facilities during Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush II like the pregraduating student with a liver transplant and insurance company that wouldn't pay for the organ transplant. This heartless nature of the beast of greed, is a bad dark aura for our country on this planet and everyone sees US for what we now, have become under these heartless leaders.

Morally depraved since I was able to vote.
Pray for common sense, compassion, caring, tolerance equality and freedom to come back to America before it's too late.

[alienHunter]

Hi Lifebringer,

One thing I'm not quite sure about Paul...does he say that he would treat free of charge any patient that is genuinely without resources. Say, for example, in a national emergency?

I am actually German/Irish, Italian and was raised in an Hispanic family. My stepmother is Hungarian, I have people of all ethnicities including Asian, African, Southeast Asian, South Asian and Native American in my family of origin. I have a VERY good perspective on what ethnicity means in the United States.

May you find the peace you seek. We all deserve that...even Unified Serenity.

[AlternativeInfoJunkie]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Posted by jackovesk (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)
you're right, I was very wrong about that from a strict constitutional perspective. But would you argue that the MILITARY does currently have any auspices of war other than implementing the dictates of the Congress and the Executive branch.

I just checked my history...4 of 5 declarations of war have been 'requested' by the commander-in-chief after hostilities had already begun

Your right alienhunter - you were wrong again...

Semantics is one thing, the Constitution is another..!

the Constitution...another analogue to the Bible. I don't believe in a strict interpretation of either. They are both living documents and subject to contemporaneous perspective. As I have pointed out in various threads...the only wisdom not amenable to change is wisdom from the God/gods. Can you tell me which documents attain that level of sacrosanctity.

Ok wow hunter... I do want to be friends. I mean this in the most friendly way possible. I thought you had more common sense than to think our republic could survive with a loose interpretation of the constitution. That line of thinking is the same one that allows the patriot act to exist and allows wars of agression carried out by the US to continue. I want to continue friendship and i'm sorry if my arguments sound a little harsh sometimes. I like our debates. I find them helpful for me because they force me to formulate my arguments in a precise and coherent way. This is good because next time i have to do that i'll already have had some practice! Our debates cerainly solidify my beliefs because i think "well if this is the antithesis to what i believe, my beiefs certainly make more sense." No offense. But i do not take any of them personally and i hope they continue. Someday you'll take the red pill and see obama for what he is and if not, that's fine too. In the meantime i just like talking about what i believe.

[jackovesk]

Have Trouble With Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=I8NhRPo0WAo

by Jack Hunter
This is a beautifully done grassroots video outlining the different aspects of Ron Paul’s foreign policy that some Republicans have trouble comprehending.

If there is another terrorist attack it will be because America did not follow the foreign policy proposed by the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul. The reason there would even be another terrorist attack in the future would because America did not follow the foreign policy of the Founding Fathers and Ron Paul.

Confused? You’re not alone. Our media and political elites seem to love keeping Americans in the dark on so many important issues regarding foreign policy. This video is well worth the 13 minutes and clears up much of the confusion regarding Ron Paul’s positions on this subject:

You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy?



So, you'd vote for Ron Paul if it weren't for his wacky foreign policy?

U.S. military veterans and active duty soldiers overwhelmingly support Ron Paul for President in 2012. Find out why.

This video 'above' explains why they support Ron Paul so overwhelmingly, including a discussion of "blowback" resulting from U.S. interventionist foreign policy.

http://www.degaray.com/misc/144-Ron-Paul.html

PS - What better endorsement on Ron Paul's 'Foreign Policy' can you get from those who are actually on the ground in the 'Dust & Dirt' putting their lives on the line each and every day..!

[T Smith]

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

[GlassSteagallfan]

shows how smart they are

[alienHunter]

Posted by T Smith (here)

Posted by alienHunter (here)

Detainee Matters: The Administration objects to and has serious legal and policy concerns about
many of the detainee provisions in the bill. In their current form, some of these provisions
disrupt the Executive branch’s ability to enforce the law and impose unwise and unwarranted
restrictions on the U.S. Government’s ability to aggressively combat international terrorism;
other provisions inject legal uncertainty and ambiguity that may only complicate the military’s
operations and detention practices."

This is called executive authority to declare war.

Oh, wait. I'm confused. Who are we at war with again? Oceania? Or Eastasia?

I'm bacckkkk...really, that's a good question. Many would say we are at war with the ephemeral (a.k.a. Terrorists)

By the way...I was seriously dinged by my usage of 'declare'...it should have read 'wage'. Thank you for the opportunity to redeem myself.