Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[SacredBreh]

Please copy and paste this into your post

I want Dr Paul to win the GOP
Sacredbreh

if he doesn't

I want Dr Paul to run 3rd party
Sacredbreh

I dont want Dr Paul to run at all.
Newt
Santorum
Romney

Not applicable, will only vote for Dr. Paul at this point

 

[zymos]

All this arguing and namecalling is why we stopped having political talks here. So now I guess it's time to keep the thread about who's best for our cause.

Then there was no point in going past the first post of this mess.
I don't think anyone who has contributed would deny that Paul is the candidate that would end the drug war.

That doesn't mean that many people are not in disagreement of other positions that he holds. I know I'm not the only non-single issue voter here, and if I had to choose just one or the other, I'd rather have mj stay illegal than see Ron Paul elected president.

And that's how this thread blew up to million pages, cause there really isn't that much to say on the original topic.

 

[bentom187]

I want Dr Paul to win the GOP
bentom187

 

[Plant Early]

Dr. Ron Paul is clearly the BEST choice for President, problem is (among many) the republicans suck.

 

[ShroomDr]

Please copy and paste this into your post

I want Dr Paul to win the GOP
bentom187
Sacredbreh

I want Dr Paul to run 3rd party
ShroomDr
Sacredbreh

I dont want Dr Paul to run at all.
Newt
Santorum
Romney

Please copy and paste this into your post

 

[monkey5]

~~~I want Dr Paul to win the GOP!!~~~ Best all around sound polices of any of the candidates! Best choice to end prohibition! Judge Napolitano .. as his Vice presidental running mate..they are most likely to bring the most good to our country over-all! monkey5

 

[Rumer]

found this in seedbay thread here on icmag....
awesome info.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=XAC-wzco54E&NR=1

 

[Plant Early]

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

That was 87/88, after Ron Paul left the Republican Party, blaming Raygun for being a fascist like everybody else.

 

[whodare]

1st neg rep ever... Troll




http:/http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29761

International law permits justifiable self-defense. Targeted killings are prohibited, especially premeditated ones like America and Israel repeatedly commit for reasons other than claimed.

These incidents constitute cold-blooded murder. US drone killings and rampaging death squads, as well as Israel's deplorable history and latest ritual slaughter highlight the issue. International law prohibits anticipatory self-defense. It amounts to using force to deter it.

Under the UN Charter's Article 2(4):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Only two exceptions apply. Article 51 permits "individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

In addition, a nation may anticipate self-defense in situations where verifiable, compelling evidence shows imminent or already initiated armed attacks.

For example, if nations face hostile mobilized troops on their borders, self-defense is justified if invasion seems likely. Or if specific provable knowledge of impending terrorist attacks are known, preventive defensive action is warranted.

However, anticipatory self-defense based on unproved allegations is lawless. For example, attacking Iraq for allegedly possessing WMDs had no basis in international law. Moreover, possession of any weapons proves no intent to use them. In the case of Iraq, of course, allegations were entirely spurious.

Key is that employing anticipatory (or preemptive) self-defense against nations, groups, or individuals based on alleged threats is prohibited and lawless if undertaken.

No matter. For America and Israel, it's official policy. Alleged national security reasons are cited. Nearly always they're spurious.

In response to Israel's 1981 Iraq Osirik nuclear reactor attack (under construction at the time), the Security Council ruled "the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct."

If Israel and/or America attack Iran's nuclear facilities, the same standard applies. Of course, US veto power will prevent saying or deterring it unlike decades earlier. Back then, the IAEA head and Israel had no evidence of unlawful weapons development, possession, or imminent use. Anticipatory self-defense was lawless.

Unverifiable "inherent right" claims are spurious. Nonetheless, America and Israel invoke them often. In his 2002 West Point Commencement speech, George Bush said:

“(N)ot only will the United States impose preemptive, unilateral military force when and where it chooses, but the nation will also punish those who engage in terror and aggression and will work to impose a universal moral clarity between good and evil.”

In other words, he unilaterally claimed whatever America says, goes. No restraints apply. At the time, moreover, he suggested Washington has choices unavailable to other nations. Rule of law provisions apply to them. Washington makes its own.

In fact, America lawlessly waged multiple post-WW II wars. All were illegal aggression. None were justified for any reason. It's equally true for Israel. Today, both nations represent clear and present dangers. Operating extrajudicially, they endanger humanity.

In 2010, Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions presented a report on the topic. It called using them "highly problematic, blurring and expand(ing) the boundaries" of recognized international law.

Asserting a "vaguely defined license to kill" subverts it. Alston called targeted killings "intentional, premeditated and deliberate use of lethal force...." Legal frameworks are blurred. Laws of war and human rights are discarded. Moreover, states employing this practice don't show justification other than claiming vague threats.

Most often, they violate the right to life. Throughout its history, Israel employed the tactic. In fact, it began during the Mandatory Palestine period when Jewish terrorist groups targeted Jews, Brits and Arabs. Future prime ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were involved.

For example, in November 1944, Lehi (Stern Gang) terrorists assassinated Lord Moyne, Britain's Middle East minister of state, near his home in Cairo.

In September 1948, it also killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte in Jerusalem, five months after Israel was established. Yitzhak Shamir personally approved the assassination.

In July 1946, Irgun terrorists bombed the King David Hotel, massacring 92 Brits, Arabs and Jews, wounding 58 others. Future prime minister David Ben-Gurion approved it as head of the Jewish Agency at the time.

Before and after May 1948, many thousands of targeted killings occurred or were attempted. Using them is official Israeli policy. Mossad assassins murdered Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

On February 14, 2005, compelling visual and audio evidence revealed real time intercepted Israel aerial surveillance footage of routes he used on the day his motorcade was attacked. Israel was involved.

At first, Syria was spuriously blamed, then Hezbollah. Fingers were bogusly pointed the wrong way to absolve Israel. It was typical Mossad, whether by car bombs, shootings, poisoning, slit throats, or other means. Targets get no reprieves.

Assassinations, including US citizens, didn't begin under Bush and Obama. CIA operatives used them for decades. In his book "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," Chalmers Johnson said:

"(W)e will never again know peace, nor in all probability survive very long as a nation, unless we abolish the CIA, restore intelligence collecting to the State Department, and remove all but purely military functions from the Pentagon."

The Agency acts as judge, jury, and executioner. Imperial Rome had its praetorian guard. The CIA works the same way as a private unaccountable army. It operates extrajudicially against targets ranging from alleged terrorists to heads of state.

Among its original missions, one vaguely permitted "other functions and duties related to intelligence affecting the national security as the National Security Council may....direct."

As a result, it became a covert, unaccountable force unto itself. It's engaged in mischievous, illegal operations. They include overthrowing democratically elected governments, assassinating foreign heads of state and key officials, propping up friendly dictators, and extraordinarily renditioning targeted subjects to torture prison hell, or simply disappearing them.

Accountable unto itself, it does what it pleases outside the law. Its bag of dirty tricks defines imperial America. In the process, the republic's life was shortened. Johnson said "the company" menaces democracy. Neither can coexist with the other.

Along with US Special Forces, it's involved in death squad killings. It also operates predator drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and wherever Washington designates targets to kill.

Allegedly targeting militants and terrorists, independent experts believe noncombatant civilians are killed 98% of the time. Official reports suppress dirty truths.

US citizens are also targeted. Attorney General Eric Holder said:

“The president may use force abroad against a senior operational leader of a foreign terrorist organization with which the United States is at war — even if that individual happens to be a U.S. citizen.”

In fact, senior administration officials said Obama and future presidents (on their own authority) may order them killed anywhere, including at home. Holder noticeably added that America's "authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan" or anywhere else.

They're where presidents say they are. Anyone anywhere may be killed for any reason or none at all. They can also be arrested, thrown in military dungeons uncharged, denied due process, sent abroad to torture prisons, or simply disappeared.

Constitutional protections no longer apply. Unilateral executive authority replaced them. Planet earth is America's battlefield. Since last year, drone attacks killed at least three US citizens abroad.

The FAA Reauthorization Act authorizes up to 30,000 unmanned homeland aerial vehicles (UAVs) by 2020. They'll be used for spying and who knows what else. Not only will privacy rights be compromised, so will life and liberty protections. This army in the sky will be used repressively against everyone.

A Final Comment

Ron Paul's the only presidential candidate openly expressing alarm about Obama's assassination policy. On February 24, 2010, he said:

"What have we allowed ourselves to become? Are we no longer a nation of laws? Have we become instead a nation of men who make secret arrests? Are secret prisons now simply another tool of the federal government law enforcement?"

"Is secret rendition of individuals now permitted, out of misplaced fear? Have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not worth defending? Is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe? Unfortunately, the single answer to all of these questions from the leaders of our country and to many of our citizens appears to be yes."

When nations no longer observe fundamental international laws and their own, tyranny follows. Governing extrajudicially, American and Israeli leaders, as well as complicit officials in both countries, operate lawlessly. Rule of law protections don't apply. As a result, no one's safe, including Israeli Jews and US citizens.

A shroud of secrecy, mass deception, scoundrel journalism, extrajudicial killing, torture, permanent war, homeland repression, universal spying, and leaders doing what they damn please with impunity threatens life, liberty, humanity, and planet earth.

In his 1961 inaugural address, John Kennedy highlighted "the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself." He asked for "a grand and global alliance" against them, and said "history (will be) the final judge of our deeds...."

On June 14, 1956, Senator Kennedy gave Harvard's Commencement speech. This writer heard it. Politicians today speak differently. He was reasoned, scholarly, effective, and impressive.

He said when freedom is threatened, politicians and intellectuals "should be natural allies, working more closely together for the common cause against the common enemy."

He ended quoting what an English mother once wrote the Provost of Harrow, saying "Don't teach my boy poetry; he is going to stand for Parliament."

"Well, perhaps she was right," said Kennedy, "but if more politicians knew poetry and more poets knew politics, I am convinced the world would be a little better place in which to live on this commencement day of 1956."

On November 22, 1963, state-sponsored assassins took him. Decades of global lawlessness, permanent wars, state terrorism, and tyranny followed.

History's verdict is clear. America's "common enemies" won. Kennedy couldn't have imagined how decisively, or most anyone a half century ago.

Given today's bipartisan rogue governance, humanity's threatened. At issue is will there be another or much time left at all! The prospect's real and frightening.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

1st neg rep ever... Troll

a gold star for Einstein, please

Ron quit the Republican party and rolled libertarian, lasted about as long as the '88 presidential race where the Libertarian party faced a split - the Libertarian party versus Paul/Rothbard/Rockwell. Turns out the Libertarian Party didn't embrace Rothbard's gold fixation, not to mention Rockwell's personal associations.

 

[whodare]

I'd give you the benefit of an intelligent response if I didnt already know you are here for no other purpose than to get people riled up over non issues to get the thread closed... Troll

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'd give you the benefit of an intelligent response if I didnt already know you are here for no other purpose than to get people riled up over non issues to get the thread closed... Troll

How much of an "issue" is the Reagan pic? Are you an equal opportunity neg-a-tor or do you discriminate?

I think you're bluffing on the intelligent response thingy.

 

[dagnabit]

on topic please gentlemen?

i believe we have been warned.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

https://secure.americanselect.org/candidates

Ron Paul basically already won the independent nomination from Americans elect.org

They were all going for super liberal and now there candidate is a real conservative and constitutionalist. ROFL

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Who was the super liberal?

 

[whodare]

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-ron-paul-matters

Why Ron Paul Matters

by Edward H. Crane


This article appeared in The Wall Street Journal on December 31, 2011.


The controversy surrounding decades-old newsletters to which GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul lent his name is regrettable. First, it is regrettable because the sometimes bigoted, intolerant content of those newsletters is inconsistent with the views of the congressman as understood by those of us who know him. Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source, Lew Rockwell, head of the Alabama-based Mises Institute.

Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on ... the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times, but it adds to the background noise surrounding Mr. Paul's candidacy, obscuring the real libertarian policy initiatives that have made his candidacy the most remarkable development of the 2012 campaign.

Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:


• Tax and spending. If ever there were sound and fury signifying nothing, it has to be the recent "debate" over the budget. Covered by the media as though it was negotiations on the Treaty of Versailles, the wrestling match between Republicans and Democrats centered on the nearly trivial question of whether the $12 trillion increase in the national debt over the next decade should be reduced by 3% or 2%.

Mr. Paul would cut the federal budget by $1 trillion immediately. He can't do it, of course, but voters sense he really wants to. As Milton Friedman once explained, the true tax on the American people is the level of spending — the resources taken from the private sector and employed in the public sector. Whether financed from direct taxation, inflation or borrowing, spending is the burden.

• Foreign policy and military spending. As the only candidate other than Jon Huntsman who says it is past time to bring the troops home from Afghanistan, Mr. Paul has tapped into a stirring recognition by limited-government Republicans and independents that an overreaching military presence around the world is inconsistent with small, constitutional government at home.

The massive cost of these interventions, in treasure and blood, highlights what a mistake they are, as sensible people on the left and right recognized from the beginning. Of course we want a strong military capable of defending the United States, but our current expenditures equal what the rest of the world spends, which makes little sense. It is futile to try to be the world's policeman — to try to create an American Empire as so many neoconservatives promote. And we can't afford it.

• Civil liberties. Libertarians often differ with conservatives over issues related to civil liberties. Mr. Paul's huge support among young people is due in large part to his fierce commitment to protecting the individual liberties guaranteed us in the Constitution. He would work to repeal significant parts of the so-called Patriot Act. Its many civil liberties transgressions include the issuance by the executive branch of National Security Letters (a form of administrative subpoena) without a court order, and the forbiddance of American citizens from mentioning that they have received one of these letters at the risk of jail.

The Bush and Obama administrations have claimed the right to incarcerate an American citizen on American soil, without charge, without access to an attorney, for an indefinite period.

President Obama even claims the right to kill American citizens on foreign soil, without due process of law, for suspected terrorist activities. Meanwhile, the Stop Online Piracy Act moving through the House is a clear effort by the federal government to censor the Internet. Mr. Paul stands up against all this, which should and does engender support from limited government advocates in the GOP.

• Austrian economics. Mr. Paul is often criticized for references to what some consider obscure economists of the so-called Austrian School. People should read them before criticizing. Nobel laureate Friedrich von Hayek and his mentor Ludwig von Mises were two of the greatest economists and social scientists ever to live.

Modern Austrian School economists such as Lawrence H. White, now at George Mason University, and Fred Foldvary at Santa Clara University predicted the housing bubble and the recession that followed the massive, multitrillion-dollar malinvestment caused by government redirection of capital into housing. Mr. Paul, like Austrian School economists, understands that we would be better off with a gold standard, competing currencies or a monetary rule than with the arbitrary and discretionary powers of our out-of-control Federal Reserve.

Mr. Paul should be given credit for his efforts to promote these ideas and other libertarian policies, all of which would make America better off. He'd be the first to admit he's not the most erudite candidate to make the case, but surely part of his appeal is his very genuine persona.

Which is not to say that Mr. Paul is always in sync with mainstream libertarians. His seeming indifference to attempts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, his support for a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens, and his opposition to the Nafta and Cafta free trade agreements in the name of doctrinal purity are at odds with most libertarians.

As for the Ron Paul newsletters, the best response was by my colleague David Boaz when the subject was raised publicly in 2008. About them he wrote in the Cato Institute's blog:

"Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect 'paleoconservative' ideas, though they're not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, 'Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.' Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism. Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them."

Support for dynamic market capitalism (as opposed to crony capitalism), social tolerance, and a healthy skepticism of foreign military adventurism is a combination of views held by a plurality of Americans. It is why the 21st century is likely to be a libertarian century. It is why the focus should be on Ron Paul's philosophy and his policy proposals in 2012.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ron won't dish details on the newsletters so we get others' speculations.

Based on the stuff I've read, I'm ready to offer my hypotheses.

Lew Rockwell had his share of onerous associations and already knew the newsletter business was big with subversives. Before the internet, newsletters were the typical device of hatemongers and were also far more underground. But this crowd doesn't dish big for anything short of the intolerant stuff. Basically, Rockwell knew who to hire. Whoever they hired knew what to write and somebody (possibly the respective ghostwriter(s)) took steps to make the articles appear to be written by Paul himself.

What has been briefly described as potential oversight on the part of newsletter editor Ron Paul could be closer to freelance writers doing business as usual. Ghostwriting is very common and isn't necessarily associated with inflammatory content. But if these writers are/were some of the folks from Rockwell's past, they're not likely to slither into daylight and take credit or answer detailed questions.

Not only did two former newsletter employees acknowledge the staff knew the subversive stuff generated large contributions, (helping generate almost a million bucks in '93 alone) they also acknowledged the intolerance alienated subscribed, libertarians party members. As for the Libertarian party apparatus, Rockwell wasn't well received before, during and immediately after the '88 presidential elections. No surprise that Rockwell's no longer involved in Libertarian party presidential politics.

Being that Ron Paul and Associates was booking so much money, I wouldn't be surprised if the freelance writer(s) were paid and paid well. It would help defend Ron that he didn't personally write the stuff but at best he'd look like a poor editor and at worst it would evaporate the plausible denyability that this stuff crept unassumingly into Ron Paul's world of literary products.

 

[BrnCow]

Ron Paul Cheated Out of Delegates By Republican Leaders

Video of a Georgia county GOP convention this past weekend has presidential candidate Ron Paul supporters incensed, contending they now have proof local Republican leaders have cheated their candidate out of delegates.

The Athens-Clarke County GOP met on Saturday, March 10, to vote – among other things – on delegates to represent the county at district convention, from there to attend the state and national conventions.
Ads by Google

Would you re-elect Obama?Take our survey and let us know. Rewards after just ten surveys! yougov.com
Craig James for US SenateShrink size of government, repeal Obamacare, cut wasteful spending TexansforCraigJames.com

But shocking video shows the meeting’s chair pushing through a list of pre-selected delegates over the objections of the convention and promptly declaring the meeting closed, a startling turn of events that took exactly 21 seconds.

Ron Paul backers, who made up a majority of the seated precinct delegates and had hoped to nominate their own choices for district convention, were stunned.

By their count, also captured on video, more than 20 of the 30-some delegates present had voted no to the slate of delegates offered, yet Athens GOP Chairman Matt Brewster first declared, “The ‘ayes’ have it,” then ignored loud calls for a vote count, before quickly concluding, “There is no other business to discuss; the convention is now closed.”

“I’m thoroughly disgusted,” said precinct delegate Shawn Lewis in an interview also recorded on the video. “This is my first time participating in the process, and I feel pretty much just violated.”

“We tried to do this the right way,” precinct delegate and Young Americans for Liberty State Chair Carter Kessler told the Athens Banner-Herald. “Like the little tyrants they are, they said ‘That’s it,’ and ran out the door.”

Video:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/stunning-video-gop-leaders-cheat-ron-paul/?cat_orig=politics

n the video, the “aye” vs. “nay” count is difficult to discern, but precinct delegates can be heard clearly calling for “division.”

According to Robert’s Rules, which govern such meetings, a call for “division” is a request for recount of a voice vote. The call for division “cannot be debated, or amended, or have any other subsidiary motion applied to it.” The chair is required to take another vote by other than vocal means.

The only exception is for when a minority has been deemed a persistent “annoyance” to a meeting by its members “constantly demanding a division where there is a full vote and no question as to which side is in the majority.”

Kessler assured WND this was not the case.

“This was the only call for division in the meeting, and we were hardly a minority, with roughly 25 of the 37 seated delegates,” Kessler said. “They knew if they did follow the rules, they wouldn’t be happy with the results. They apparently thought, ‘Let’s just ram this through, get it over with and forget it.’”

Brewster told the Banner-Herald, “The only thing I can say is, I followed the rules as best I could for the Georgia GOP and the convention process.”

Brewster did not respond to WND requests for comment.

Georgia is allotted 76 delegates for the Republican National Convention, which ultimately picks the GOP presidential candidate. Those delegates are bound to Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum based on the results of the state’s March 6 primary.

But even though Paul won no bound delegates in Georgia, his backers are still trying to win his supporters seats at the convention, Kessler told the Banner-Herald. For if none of the four presidential candidates can win enough delegates to secure the nomination in the RNC’s first two ballots, Georgia’s delegates are then unbound from Gingrich and the other candidates, meaning they could then vote for Paul.

Paul backers fight back

As the video shows, Kessler and other frustrated precinct delegates met after the convention to discuss what recourse they might have.

“A couple of us got together with our state directors,” Kessler explained to WND. “They told us that since the convention was never legally and properly closed [by convention vote], if we could gather a quorum, we could pick up where we left off.”

The next day, that’s exactly what nearly two dozen Athens-Clarke precinct delegates did.

“We got a quorum,” Kessler said. “There were 37 precinct delegates seated Saturday; we met Sunday with 22 of them. … We voted on the slate [Brewster] proposed, opened it up for a nomination process and passed our own slate. We have since submitted it to the state party.”

Kessler explained the original slate of delegates was nominated by a committee appointed by Brewster, who, in turn, oversaw their election.

Kessler told WND the new slate of delegates has been certified and sent in to state party officials earlier this week and he has yet to hear a reply.

“We’re waiting to see how it plays out,” he said.

 

[BrnCow]

See the video...