PRESIDENT
seriously

after reading about him today I think I'd vote for him

too bad he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell

http://www.ronpaulexplore.com/

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 6:42 PM. Reason : I HATE THIS DAMN KEYBOARD]

2/26/2007 6:42:39 PM

He's a strict constitutionalist if there ever was one. I have a lot of respect for Rep. Paul, he's definitely a good man who isn't a party first kind of guy, he reminds me a lot of Rep. Walter Jones...

2/26/2007 8:02:55 PM

lol constitutionalists

Quote :

"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

2/26/2007 8:28:29 PM

lol at those who want to morph the constitution and tout it as a "living and breathing document" so they can circumvent the laws of the land...

2/26/2007 8:30:56 PM

^ lol

2/26/2007 8:35:36 PM

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=991

Here's Ron Paul questioning Bernanke last week.

2/26/2007 8:48:27 PM

wow

I didn't know libertarians/constitutionalists had a problem with the fiat money system until EarthDogg said something about it recently, and now this guy.

Is it because it involves a central government power, or for some rational reason that I'm not aware of?

2/26/2007 9:04:55 PM

Our system isn't backed by silver/gold and is only worth something because our gov't says so, or at least that is my understanding.

I saw a blurb about the manipulation of the printing of currency by the Fed as a government control over the economy and it may have been Ron Paul who wanted an audit of the Fed, basically saying that there isn't any oversight over the one single bank that has so much control over the economy...

2/26/2007 9:14:57 PM

hahah

so it's basically the National Bank debates all over again rather than any real economic issues.

I love Libertarians

2/26/2007 9:20:17 PM

^ The Fed is actually a private bank.

And you didn't hear the $800 billion number?

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 10:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/26/2007 10:53:41 PM

he questioned the iraq war. must be a terrorist.

seriously though, his speech on the floor of the house and some of his other comments in 02 show some amazing foresight.

[Edited on February 26, 2007 at 11:07 PM. Reason : ps- is he even gonna be able to get on the ballot here?]

2/26/2007 11:02:20 PM

Here is a January interview with Ron Paul where he discusses a possible prez. run, his support of strong national borders, and why the republicans deserve their current fate.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/118086.html

2/27/2007 12:31:19 AM

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 2:27 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on March 15, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : asdf]

2/27/2007 2:27:13 AM

what the hell did you post all the RuPaul pics for?

2/27/2007 8:32:24 AM

what? this thread isnt about Ru Paul?

oh...


whoops.

2/27/2007 11:46:20 AM

not really


thanks for posting a bunch of bullshit in a thread though

2/27/2007 11:47:29 AM

Have you ever found yourself late at night convinced of the certainty of a course of action...

... then wake up in the morning to find that all you did way just totally gay up someones thread?


sorry man

2/27/2007 12:30:40 PM

another thread ruined by joe_schmoe

2/27/2007 12:45:31 PM

you aint seen nothin

2/28/2007 12:56:29 AM

"better than the other options"

ron paul in 08!!!

3/11/2007 8:45:30 PM

RuPaul is running for what?

3/11/2007 8:49:14 PM

president

3/11/2007 8:53:47 PM

I would definitely vote for Ron Paul. Seems like just the kind of guy that I'd like to see step up to the plate.

3/12/2007 1:00:08 AM

Quote :

""Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.""

To think that human nature has ever changed is just fucking silly. Humans have made technological and orginizational progress but the nature of the human mind remains the same.
We are just as barborous as we ever were, perhaps even more so. The constitution, and the difficulty found in amending it, exists for a very good reason.

3/12/2007 8:52:38 AM

Quote :

"Humans have made technological and orginizational progress but the nature of the human mind remains the same. We are just as barborous as we ever were, perhaps even more so."

Oh thats right, when I get pissed off at someone on tdub, I challenge them to a dual where they may die....BECAUSE THAT IS MY MINDSET, MY MENTALITY, MY WAY OF LIFE

durr

Deep down, the DNA might be the same, but we've come a long way in overcoming that which compels us.

3/12/2007 10:15:29 AM

Quote :

"Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill. Ron Paul was born and raised in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Gettysburg College and the Duke University School of Medicine, before proudly serving as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force during the 1960s. He and his wife Carol moved to Texas in 1968, where he began his medical practice in Brazoria County. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, Dr. Paul has delivered more than 4,000 babies. He and Carol, who reside in Lake Jackson, Texas, are the proud parents of five children and have 17 grandchildren. While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president. During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve's inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice. Dr. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles. Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few." Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s 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. Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress."

Quote :

"Message from Rep. Paul: Thanks for joining me. After serious consideration with my family, and in response to many requests, I have agreed to form a presidential exploratory committee, as a preliminary step to becoming a candidate in the Republican primary for the 2008 election. My concerns for the future of our country are deeply held. The Republican Party has floundered in its effort to shrink the size of government and restore our constitutional republic. Instead, in recent years our deficits have exploded, entitlements are out of control, and our personal liberties are threatened. We have embarked on a dangerous and expensive foreign policy, acting as the world's policeman and nation builder. Very simply, we no longer can afford the extravagance of this ever growing and intrusive government, both at home and abroad. Last year alone our long-term obligations increased by $4.6 trillion dollars. The problems seem overwhelming, but in reality they are not complex. We only need the will to go forward with the solution. We have lost our way and strayed from the free society our Founders secured for us in the Constitution, but there's no reason the principles that made us the greatest nation ever can't be restored. We merely need to respect and follow the rule of law – the U.S. Constitution – and elect leaders determined to stand firm in its defense. Liberty once again must become more important to us than the desire for security and material comfort. Personal safety and economic prosperity can only come as the consequence of liberty. They cannot be provided by an authoritarian government. To expect government to take care of us from cradle to grave undermines the principles of liberty. 2 Returning to the dark ages of dictatorship is no substitute for resuming the most modern and grandest experiment known to man – promoting human liberty by strictly limiting the arbitrary power of government. Political and economic conditions today are at a crucial crossroads. A financial crisis is looming, and our foreign policy of empire building cannot last. Both conditions threaten our prosperity, safety, and above all, our liberties. The foundation for a police state has been put in place, and it's urgent we mobilize resistance before it's too late. But today's problems need not lead to despair. Instead we must become energized, and use this time of turmoil to offer the American people the solution found in freedom in all that we do. We must reject the bureaucratic management of our lives and the economy. We stand on the threshold of a true revolution of ideas. As the welfare/warfare state loses its steam, we now see how the seeds of the freedom movement over the past 40 years are starting to bear fruit. A nation under great stress is ripe for a change. A major change in direction is not a theoretical dream, but actually quite possible. Central planning is intellectually bankrupt – and it has bankrupted our country and undermined our moral principles. Respect for individual liberty and dignity is the only answer to government force, force that serves the politically and economically powerful. Our planners and rulers are not geniuses, but rather demagogues and would-be dictators-- always performing their tasks with a cover of humanitarian rhetoric. The collapse of the Soviet system came swiftly and dramatically, without a bloody conflict – surprising many. It came as no surprise, however, to the devotees of freedom who have understood for decades that socialism was doomed to fail. Communism, like all socialism, failed intellectually and failed practically. And so too will the welfare/warfare state fail, and then our cause will be heard. The love of liberty will not die. Opportunity is now at our doorstep. We need now only to mobilize the army of true believers to present the case for the principles that built America, and can make her great once again. The American experiment over the past 200+ years has provided us with the greatest amount of personal freedom and subsequent wealth known in all of history. 3 Yet today, because of our careless attitude toward freedom and the responsibilities it requires, we face a crisis that everyone recognizes but few understand. A free society is based on the key principle that the government, the president, the Congress, the courts, and the bureaucrats are incapable of knowing what is best for each and every one of us. They don't know how to run the economy, regulate our lives, or manage a world empire. A government as a referee is proper, but a government that uses arbitrary force to direct every aspect of society threatens freedom. Such governments have failed thousands of times over the centuries. The time has come for a modern approach to achieving those values that all civilized societies seek. Only in a free society do individuals have the best chance to seek virtue, strive for excellence, improve their economic well-being, and achieve personal happiness. It is only through this personal effort that peace and freedom can be secured. The worthy goals of civilization can only be achieved by freedom loving individuals. When government uses force, liberty is sacrificed and the goals are lost. It is freedom that is the source of all creative energy. If I am to be your president, these are the goals I would seek. I reject the notion that we need a president to run our lives, plan the economy, or police the world. Our goal always should be the preservation of liberty. It is much more important to protect individual liberty and privacy than to make government even more secretive and powerful. These goals are worth fighting for. There is hope for America. Please support me in these efforts. Thanks for listening."

3/12/2007 10:24:20 AM

he's the only person running that I would vote for

3/12/2007 10:30:58 AM

Quote :

"I would definitely vote for RuPaul. Seems like just the kind of gal that I'd like to see step up to the plate."

3/12/2007 1:21:05 PM

Why is that every time I manage to block RuPaul out of my memory, someone has to bring it up again? God damn it.

3/12/2007 5:01:36 PM

He announced he is running for president this morning on CSPAN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ma3v_gmgDZI

3/12/2007 6:13:26 PM

awesome, I am gonna do everything I can do to help him get elected

3/12/2007 7:46:30 PM

wonder how far this will last


you know Rush/Hannity won't support this guy

3/13/2007 9:47:28 AM

I don't know much about the guy, just glanced at his "Issues" page and he looks to be as conservative as they come. Why won't rush and hannity like him?

3/13/2007 9:49:42 AM

Quote :

"Why won't rush and hannity like him?"

The GOP folks won't like his liberal views on social issues. Gay rights, drug policy. He is a Doctor and personally pro-life. He wants Roe v Wade overturned at the federal level and the issue returned to the states.

Republicans have shown themselves as willing to over spend as democrats. Paul wants this spending reigned in. This will rub both parties the wrong way...leaving his potentially best support coming from the American Taxpayer.

3/13/2007 10:09:52 AM

If this guy were to have a chance, it truly would be a grassroots type of thing. I don't mean one of those fake grassroots campaigns like Hillary Clinton or something, I mean he really would have to have overwhelming support from every day people. My question is, what kind of changes could Ron Paul really make with a legislature that loves to spend money?

3/13/2007 11:46:20 AM

^
He would be the Veto-Meister.
As long as he was explaining to the people why he was turning away spending, he might keep popular support up. The press would probably be on his tail all the way (as they should).

I think he would act as an actual executive rather than a celebrity. He could keep reminding the country about the restrictions of the Constitution on go'vt power, talk about the US being a republic and not a democracy, and how the go'vt can't fix every problem in your life.

3/13/2007 12:18:27 PM

Here's a question from an MSNBC article, which I believe is very revealing and needs to be presented to the GOP base:

Which is more important to core Republican voters: Limited government, or using big government to promote a conservative agenda?

The current answer is obvious, and a shame.

BTW everyone, a month or two ago I invited Ron Paul to speak at NCSU. His campaign told me they didn't have any plans to travel through NC, but when they do, they will keep my offer in mind. So keep your fingers crossed.

3/13/2007 4:22:09 PM

"The GOP folks won't like his liberal views on social issues. Gay rights, drug policy. "

He's against gay marriage, what’s not to like?
(I suppose he's probably all for banning it individually in all 50 states rather than on a national level, but still thats not so anti-gop)

3/13/2007 6:08:37 PM

^
Paul voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.:
and he voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage

Quote :

"Ron Paul 2004: Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter. Government is not moral and cannot make us moral. Law should reflect moral standards, of course, but morality comes from religion, from philosophy, from societal standards, from families, and from responsible individuals. We make a mistake when we look to government for moral leadership. Marriage and divorce laws have always been crafted by states. In an ideal world, state governments enforce marriage contracts and settle divorces, but otherwise stay out of marriage. The federal government, granted only limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution, has no role whatsoever. So a constitutional amendment is not necessary to address the issue of gay marriage, and will only drive yet another nail into the coffin of federalism. If we turn regulation of even domestic family relations over to the federal government, presumably anything can be federalized. We seem to have forgotten that the Supreme Court is supreme only over lower federal courts; it is not supreme over the other branches of government. The judiciary is co-equal under our federal system, but too often it serves as an unelected, unaccountable legislature. It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades. Social problems cannot be solved by constitutional amendments or government edicts. Nationalizing marriage laws will only grant more power over our lives to the federal government, even if for supposedly conservative ends. Throughout the 20th century, the relentless federalization of state law served the interests of the cultural left, and we should not kid ourselves that the same practice now can save freedom and morality. True conservatives and libertarians should understand that the solution to our moral and cultural decline does not lie in a strong centralized government."

[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 10:54:42 PM

Quote :

"Marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter."

That's been my opinion on the matter since it became an issue.

3/13/2007 11:16:30 PM

he's one of the few politicians that has a voting record to match his beliefs

3/14/2007 8:11:57 AM

Quote :

"Can Ron Paul Win? by Murray Sabrin Soon after Ron announced his candidacy on C-SPAN, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel held a new conference in his home state of Nebraska to inform the press that he will not be a candidate for president at this time. In another development over the weekend, Fred Thompson, former U.S. senator from Tennessee and television actor, announced that he may seek the GOP nomination for president. On Monday evening I had the opportunity to view some of the news programs, and the political segments were about the possible candidacies of both Hagel and Thompson, while Ron Paul’s candidacy was ignored. Moreover, on Fox News Morton Kondracke commented on Senator Hagel’s announcement and said there is no anti-war candidate in the GOP field. Clearly, the establishment media’s virtually blackout of Ron Paul’s candidacy is a magnificent case study in: media incompetence? bias? laziness? All of the above? No matter how the media treat Ron in the months ahead, by this time next year both the Republican and Democrat presidential nominees should be all but selected, because so many primaries will be held next February and March. Thus, whoever raises substantial funds soon and has a message that resonates with voters for the next 12 months will be the overwhelming favorites to win their respective party’s nomination. Currently, the Internet is abuzz about Ron Paul. As the year unfolds, if more and more young Republicans people gravitate toward the Paul campaign just as young Democrats did for Dean in 2004, the GOP establishment will be apoplectic. For Ron to become one of the "top tier" GOP candidates he has to have one quality that he does not have now – a media-anointed celebrity status. Currently, the top tier candidates are "celebrities" – Rudy, McCain, Romney, and Newt (even though he has not announced his candidacy). Ron can become a top tier candidate and a serious contender for the nomination if he can raise more funds than his own advisors, I suspect, think is possible by December 31, 2007. According to many pundits, each of the leading candidates in both parties could raise as much as $100 million by the time the primaries are over. So, for the media to characterize anyone a top tier candidate throughout the year, he or she should be on track to raise at least $50 million or more. Could any of the presidential candidates that are currently in the back of the pack raise anywhere near that daunting amount? If $50 million is the minimum that a candidate will have to raise to be taken seriously by the media, then every lesser-known candidate needs 50,000 individuals to make an average contribution of $1,000 to give him a $50 million war chest. (The maximum individual contribution is $2,300 per primary and general election.) Ron’s political base is fiscal conservatives, anti-tax citizens, anti-war Republicans, Democrats and Independents, constitutionalists, hard-money advocates, small business owners, civil libertarians, anti-universal healthcare physicians, pro-lifers, parents who home school, and anyone else who considers himself a real patriot. In other words, if Ron’s substantial base provides him with volunteers, contributions and votes, he would be very competitive candidate. In the final analysis, about 50,000 to 100.000 Americans could determine the next presidential nominees of both parties. In the GOP presidential primary, if Ron Paul, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Tommy Thompson, or any other lesser known candidate excites GOP voters for the next 12 months, then Rudy, McCain and Romney will prove that in a marathon it is not who leads the pack that counts but who is the turtle in the race."

3/14/2007 10:02:01 AM

neither the republicans or the democrats want him elected


he'll probably start receiving threats if he gains any ground

3/14/2007 10:41:20 AM

bttt


I hope his message gets out

3/15/2007 8:51:07 AM

he is the best republican running.

3/15/2007 9:41:53 PM

^

3/16/2007 1:16:36 AM

he's the best politician running for president IMO

3/16/2007 9:21:12 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul on Peace and Freedom by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Foreword to Ron Paul’s new book: A Foreign Policy of Freedom: ‘Peace, Commerce, Honest Friendship’ Ron Paul has always believed that foreign and domestic policy should be conducted according to the same principles. Government should be restrained from intervening at home or abroad because its actions fail to achieve their stated aims, create more harm than good, shrink the liberty of the people, and violate rights. Does that proposition seem radical? Outlandish or farflung? Once you hear it stated, it makes perfect sense that there is no sharp distinction between the principles of domestic and foreign policy. They are part of the same analytical fabric. What would be inconsistent would be to favor activist government at home but restraint abroad, or the reverse: restraint at home and activism abroad. Government unleashed behaves in its own interests, and will not restrict itself in any area of life. It must be curbed in all areas of life lest freedom suffer. If you recognize the line of thinking in this set of beliefs, it might be because you have read the Federalist Papers, the writings of Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or James Madison, or examined the philosophical origins of the American Revolution. Or you might have followed the debates that took place in the presidential election of 1800, in which this view emerged triumphant. Or perhaps you read the writings of the free traders prior to the Civil War, or the opponents of the War on Spain, or those who warned of entering World War I. Or perhaps you have read the speeches and books against FDR's New Deal: the same group warned of the devastating consequences of World War II. Or maybe, in more recent history, you understood the animating principles behind the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994: a generation had turned away from all forms of foreign and domestic "nation building." Not only does this Paulian view have a precedent in American history; it sums up the very core of what is distinctive about the American contribution to political ideas. The proposition was and is that people are better able to manage their lives than government can manage them. Under conditions of liberty, the result is prosperity and orderly civilization. Under government control, the result is relative poverty and unpredictable chaos. The proof is in the news every day. How unusual, how incredibly strange, that Ron Paul, who has stood for these principles his entire public life, is criticized by some as a radical, outside the mainstream, and influenced by experimental ideas that are marginal at best. And why is he treated this way? Because he takes the ideas of Washington and Jefferson seriously, just as seriously as he takes the idea of freedom itself, and he does so in times when faith in Leviathan remains the dominant political ideology. Ideology is such a powerful force that it has propped up policy inconsistency for more than a century. The left has a massive agenda for the state at home, and yet complains bitterly, with shock and dismay, that the same tools are used to start wars and build imperial structures abroad. The right claims to want to restrain government at home (at least in some ways) while whooping it up for war and global reconstruction abroad. It doesn't take a game-theory genius to predict how this conflict works itself out in the long run. The left and the right agree to disagree on intellectual grounds but otherwise engage in a dangerous quid pro quo. They turn a blind eye to the government they don't like so long as they get the government they do like. It's one thing for the left to grudgingly support international intervention. It makes some sense for a group that believes that government is omniscient enough to bring about fairness, justice, and equality at home to do the same for people abroad. In fact, I've never been able to make much sense out of left-wing antiwar activism, simply because it cuts so much against the idea of socialism, which itself can be summed up as perpetual war on the liberty and property of the people. What strikes me as ridiculous is the right-wing view that government is incompetent and dangerous domestically – at least in economic and social affairs – but has some sort of Midas Touch internationally such that it can bring freedom, democracy, and justice to any land its troops deign to invade. Not that the right wing is principled enough to pursue its domestic views, but I'm speaking here of its campaign rhetoric and higher-level of critique of government that you find in their periodicals and books. The precise critique of government that they offer for the welfare state and regulatory measures – they are expensive, counterproductive, hobble human energies – applies many times over to international interventions. But the right always seems to have an excuse for its inconsistency. In the early fifties, many on the right said that the usual principle of nonintervention had to give way to the fight against communism because this was a uniquely evil threat facing the world. We have to put up with a "totalitarian bureaucracy" within our shores (words used by W.F. Buckley) for the duration in order to beat back the great threat abroad. And so Leviathan grew and grew, and never more than under Republican presidents. Then one day, communism went away, the regimes having collapsed from self-imposed deprivation and ideological change. A few years went by after 1990 when the right was inching toward a Paulian consistency. Then 9-11 happened, and the great excuse for Leviathan again entered the picture. Never mind that, as Congressman Paul pointed out, the crime of 9-11 was motivated by retribution against ten years of killer US sanctions against Iraq, US troops on Muslim holy lands, and US subsidies for Palestinian occupation. No, the American right bought into the same farce that led them to support the Cold War: Islamic fanaticism is a unique evil unlike anything we've ever seen, so we have to put up with Leviathan (again!) for the duration. Well, Ron Paul didn't buy into it. He is unique in this respect, and this is especially notable since he has been under pressure from his own party and at a time when his party has ruled the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. He stuck by his principles, and not merely as a pious gesture. His critique of the post 9-11 warfare state has been spot on in speech after speech. He foresaw the failure of the US invasion of Afghanistan. He never believed the nonsense about how US bombs would transform Iraq into a modern democracy. He never went along with the propaganda lies about weapons of mass destruction. Nowadays, we often hear politicians say that they have changed their minds on the Iraq War and that if they had known then what they know now, they never would have gone along. Well, hindsight is child's play in politics. What takes guts and insight is the ability to spot a hoax even as it is being perpetrated. In any case, they have no excuse for not knowing: Ron Paul told them! The freedom to trade internationally is an essential principle. It means that consumers should not be penalized for buying from anyone, or selling to anyone, regardless of the residence. Nor should domestic suppliers be granted anything like a monopoly or subsidized treatment. Nor should trade be used as a weapon in the form of sanctions. Ron Paul has upheld these principles as well, which makes him an old-fashioned liberal in the manner of Cobden and Bright and the American Southern tradition. He has also rejected the mistake of many free traders who believe that a military arm is necessary to back the invisible hand of the marketplace. For Ron Paul, freedom is all of a piece. Ron Paul's singular voice on foreign affairs has done so much to keep the flame of a consistent liberty burning in times when it might otherwise have been extinguished. He has drawn public attention to the ideas of the founders. He has alerted people to the dangers of empire. He has linked domestic and foreign affairs through libertarian analytics, even when others have been bamboozled by the lies or too intimidated to contradict them. He has told the truth, always. For this, every American, every citizen of the world, is deeply in his debt. In fact, I'm willing to predict that a hundred years from now and more, when all the current office holders are all but forgotten, Ron Paul's name will be remembered as a bright light in dark times. We can't but be deeply grateful that Ron Paul's prophetic words have been collected in this book. May it be widely distributed. May its lessons be absorbed by this and future generations. May this treatise stand as an example of how to fight for what is right even when everyone else is silent. May it always be regarded as proof that there were men of courage alive in the first decade of the third millennium. May public and intellectual opinion someday rise to its level of intellectual sophistication and moral valor "

3/16/2007 9:41:49 AM

we need this guy as president


badly

3/16/2007 10:02:48 AM

Quote :

"Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

It's worth noting that the constitution has a method for change, it's called the amendment process. Just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it should be ignored.

3/16/2007 10:32:04 AM