Ron Paul for President!!!

[Zachery Davis]

I am excited to see that Rep. Ron Paul ® of Texas, is running for President. He is a true champion of limited government and individual freedom. Ron Paul is a stickler for the Constitution and an advocate of laissez-faire Austrian economics. I think most people who agree with fundamentals of Objectivist politics will be interested in Ron Paul's message. Check out Ron Paul at:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea...iendid=70183124 or,

http://ronpaul2008.com/

[Steve Gagne]

The Dr. Ron Paul Revolution 2008 presidential campaign continues to pull ahead....Dr. Paul pulled second in the Utah GOP straw poll a few days ago (behind only Mitt Romney)...Dr. Paul has pulled second in the L.A.Times Presidential Preference Poll in the last few days (behind only Fred Thompson)...the $5-million marked in fundraising is passed (with no debt incurred)...the juggernaut continues...

Dr. Ron Paul -- Hope For America. Be part of it.

=====================================================

List of Current Active Links to (Florida) Campaign-Related Material. Feel Free to Add, Correct, Redistribute.

Main website:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Position Papers:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org

Central Grassroots Organizing:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com

Local Florida Grassroots Organizing:

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/107

National & Florida Yahoo Groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaul2008

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FL4RonPaul

Communications:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/contact

http://ronpaul.meetup.com/boards

http://ronpaulnetwork.info/forum

http://www.ronpaulforums.com

Campaigner Support Items:

http://www.cafepress.com/RonPaul_2008

http://www.libertytalk.com/liberty_card.php

http://www.ronpaulpresident2008.com/?gclid...CFSCTWAodyzBzdg

http://www.cafepress.com/aynscloset/2770801

http://www.printfection.com/promo/two_dollar_tees.php

Some Friends & Supporters:

http://www.ronpaulrevolution.com

http://www.ronpaulhq.com/index.php

http://www.kenchapmans.info/politics

http://www.grannywarriors.com

http://www.conservativetimes.org

http://libertarianchristians.org/index.html

Florida Voter & Republican Organizations:

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/regtovote/regform.shtml

http://www.rpof.org/action/volunteer

http://www.rpof.org/events/presidency_IV_application.php

http://fl.rlc.org

http://www.rlc.org

http://www.gop.com

[Chris Grieb]

Tucker Carlson has had Ron Paul on MSNBC show. Tucker seems to really like Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul's appearance on Bill Maher was wildly applauded by Maher's audience. Ben Affleck seem very impressed.

[emb021]

Dr. Paul's appearance on Bill Maher was wildly applauded by Maher's audience.

Which is a big change from his first appearance on Bill Maher. The first time (via video) he was basically insulted by Maher, who doesn't seem to understand what 'libertarianism' means. (Maher seemed to be shocked by Paul's anti-government position on many things, with Maher saying basically 'i thought I was a libertarian')

[Chris Grieb]

Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian because he wants pot to be legal. There nothing wrong with pot being legal but it is certainly not all of libertarianism. Unlike Penn who knows a little about the subject I suspect Maher has never even read a book he couldn't color.

[emb021]

Bill Maher calls himself a libertarian because he wants pot to be legal. There nothing wrong with pot being legal but it is certainly not all of libertarianism. Unlike Penn who knows a little about the subject I suspect Maher has never even read a book he couldn't color.

Probably true. I don't pay attention to Maher. From his comments with Ron Paul's first appearance, he struck me as a liberal/socalist type. Penn strucks me as someone who does know what libertarianism is.

[Aggrad02]

For those of you who don't know much about Rep. Paul you can go here:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/06/...0621_a_main.asp

And listen to a 50 minute interview that he did with NPR Radio.

If you go to the 31:30 mark he talks about the books that he read when he was young and still forming his ideas. He credits Austrian Free Market Economic Philosophical books as wells as novels such as Dr. Zhivago by Pasternak and Ayn Rand novels as his inspiration.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Listen to it, it is really good,

Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

For those of you who don't know much about Rep. Paul you can go here:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/06/...0621_a_main.asp

And listen to a 50 minute interview that he did with NPR Radio.

If you go to the 31:30 mark he talks about the books that he read when he was young and still forming his ideas. He credits Austrian Free Market Economic Philosophical books as wells as novels such as Dr. Zhivago by Pasternak and Ayn Rand novels as his inspiration.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Listen to it, it is really good,

Dustan

All that is very nice. For me the Main Question is this: Will Ron Paul do war and kill our enemies? If the answer is not or probably not I want nothing to do with him. Any one I vote for to be POTUS -must- be a killer.

Ba'al Chatazaf

[Aggrad02]

For those of you who don't know much about Rep. Paul you can go here:

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/06/...0621_a_main.asp

And listen to a 50 minute interview that he did with NPR Radio.

If you go to the 31:30 mark he talks about the books that he read when he was young and still forming his ideas. He credits Austrian Free Market Economic Philosophical books as wells as novels such as Dr. Zhivago by Pasternak and Ayn Rand novels as his inspiration.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Listen to it, it is really good,

Dustan

All that is very nice. For me the Main Question is this: Will Ron Paul do war and kill our enemies? If the answer is not or probably not I want nothing to do with him. Any one I vote for to be POTUS -must- be a killer.

Ba'al Chatazaf

What do you mean by "do war against our enemies" and who are our enemies and why?

Ron Paul voted for authorizing president Bush to go after the people responsible for 911, but against the Iraq war.

--Dustan

[BaalChatzaf]

What do you mean by "do war against our enemies" and who are our enemies and why?

Ron Paul voted for authorizing president Bush to go after the people responsible for 911, but against the Iraq war.

--Dustan

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

I am glad Ron Paul was willing to kill the folks who planned the 9/11 outrage. That may be grounds for hope. The Iraq war was the wrong war. It should have been with North Korea or Iran. Why? They are developing or have developed nuclear weapons and they are criminal nations.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

[Aggrad02]

Here is a quote I found reading Ron Paul's new book A Foreign Policy Of Freedom that I thought all objectivist could appreciate:

Ch4, pg 13: From a speech he gave on the House floor on June 9, 1982 concerning a NATO Resolution

What will it take for us to learn the lesson of history? When will we come to realize that a free nation-unhampered by government intervention, personally, economically, and internationally-is far superior to a coercive state? And if the people of the world are to eat, be housed, and be clothed, we must recognize the value of productive effort, sound money, and a free market, and a foreign policy dedicated to strength with determination to defend our freedom while minding our own business.

[BaalChatzaf]

Here is a quote I found reading Ron Paul's new book A Foreign Policy Of Freedom that I thought all objectivist could appreciate:

Ch4, pg 13: From a speech he gave on the House floor on June 9, 1982 concerning a NATO Resolution

What will it take for us to learn the lesson of history? When will we come to realize that a free nation-unhampered by government intervention, personally, economically, and internationally-is far superior to a coercive state? And if the people of the world are to eat, be housed, and be clothed, we must recognize the value of productive effort, sound money, and a free market, and a foreign policy dedicated to strength with determination to defend our freedom while minding our own business.

As long as "minding our own business" means killing our enemies, I am satisfied. If he comes to slay you, rise up early and kill him first (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck (The Wit, the Warmth and the Wisdom of Ba'al Chatzaf).

Keep in mind that the planet earth, so far, has been a tough neighborhood. We should act accordingly.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

As long as "minding our own business" means killing our enemies, I am satisfied. If he comes to slay you, rise up early and kill him first (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 72A). If thine enemy smite thee on thy cheek, tear his head off and shit down his neck (The Wit, the Warmth and the Wisdom of Ba'al Chatzaf).

Keep in mind that the planet earth, so far, has been a tough neighborhood. We should act accordingly.

Ah, if only. You make me weep at the vision of it.

Unfortunately for us, if a candidate openly said what you just said, I believe he'd be unelectable. Enough Americans have become politically correct that they aren't willing to do what it takes to win a war. They want to be "tough on terrorism", but they aren't willing to face the grim realities of what that may entail. One can't win a war caring more about collateral damage than one does about the lives of one's own soldiers.

Judith

[Aggrad02]

I know this is alot of Ron Paul information in short period of time but as I continue to read his book, it is amazing how dead on his predictions are. Here is the closing of his speech to congress on January 28, 1998 concerning the state of the Republic. This was in '98 before Bush was elected and 911.

Ron Paul, A Foreign Policy of Freedom, pgs74,75

Earlier in the speech:

Most recently, the Congress almost unanimously beat the drums for war, i.e. kill Hussein. Any consideration of the facts involved elicited charges of anti-patriotism.

A couple of paragraphs later:

The fact that, of the original 35 allies of the Persian Gulf War, only one reamains-Great Britian-should make us question our policy in that region. This attitude in Washington should concern all Americans. It makes it too easy for presidents to start a senseless war without considering dollar cost or threats to our liberty here and abroad.

Then Later:

There is much to be concerned about our current approach to foreign policy. It is dangerous because it can lead to a senseless war, like Vietnam, or small ones with bad results like Somalia

At the end:

Our policy in the Middle East is totally schizophrenic and driven by Arab oil, weapon sales, and Israel. This is especially dangerous, because the history of the West's intrusion into the Middle East for a thousand years in establishing the artificial borders that exist today has created a mindset among Islamic fundamentalist guaranteeing friction will persist in this region, no matter how many Husseins or Ayatollahs we kill. That would only make things worse for us.

As much as I fear and detest one-world government, this chaos that we contribute to the Middle East assures me that there is no smooth sailing for the new world order. Rough sears are ahead for all of us. If the UN's plan for their type of order is successful, it will cost American citizens money and freedom. If significant violence breaks out, it will cost American citizens money, freedom and lives.

Yes, I fear a biological attack, even a nuclear accident. But I see our cities at a much greater risk because of our policy than if we were neutral and friends with all fractions, instead of trying to be a financial and military ally of all fractions depending on the circumstances.

The way we usually get dragged into a shooting war is by some unpredictable incident, where innocent Americans are killed after our government placed them in harm's way and the enemy was provoked. Then the argument is made that once hostilities break out, debating the policy that created the mess is off limits. Everyone then must agree to support the troops.

When I read this about 15 minutes ago I was blown away. He predicted 911, the Iraq war, the underplanning of the cost of the war, the outcome of the war, the war hysteria, the lack of coalition (going it alone) the blow back and the patriot act, and finally the republican bullying of people who were outspoken of the war. I almost can't believe this was a speech from '98.

Who was listening, apparently no one.

WOW

Dustan

[Martin Radwin]

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

I am glad Ron Paul was willing to kill the folks who planned the 9/11 outrage. That may be grounds for hope. The Iraq war was the wrong war. It should have been with North Korea or Iran. Why? They are developing or have developed nuclear weapons and they are criminal nations.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Currently, our main enemy is the United States. Why? They impose brutal sanctions against Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including huge numbers of Iraqi children. They send weapons to Israel which are used to kill, enslave, and humiliate thousands of Palestinians. They support brutal, anti-Islamic governments throughout the Arab world, including the miserably corrupt regime of the House of Saud.

I am glad that we were successful in the 9/11 attacks. That may be grounds for hope. Perhaps this will teach the United States government to stop its policy of invading Muslim nations and killing Muslims.

Osama bin Ladin

[BaalChatzaf]

Currently our main enemy is militant Muslims. Why? They come and crash planes into our buildings.

I am glad Ron Paul was willing to kill the folks who planned the 9/11 outrage. That may be grounds for hope. The Iraq war was the wrong war. It should have been with North Korea or Iran. Why? They are developing or have developed nuclear weapons and they are criminal nations.

Ba'al Chatzaf.

Currently, our main enemy is the United States. Why? They impose brutal sanctions against Iraq which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including huge numbers of Iraqi children. They send weapons to Israel which are used to kill, enslave, and humiliate thousands of Palestinians. They support brutal, anti-Islamic governments throughout the Arab world, including the miserably corrupt regime of the House of Saud.

Osama overlooks the obvious. We are the Good Guys and he is the Bad Guy. Moral equivalence is ugly and best and contemptible at worst.

Keep in mind the Big Difference. We are on the Side of Good. The Muslim Fanatics are on the side of Evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

Bob; Too many viewing of "Conan" has destroyed your brain.

[Judith]

Osama overlooks the obvious. We are the Good Guys and he is the Bad Guy. Moral equivalence is ugly and best and contemptible at worst.

Keep in mind the Big Difference. We are on the Side of Good. The Muslim Fanatics are on the side of Evil.

Well said. The bit about Israel especially made me choke.

Judith

[Aggrad02]

Osama overlooks the obvious. We are the Good Guys and he is the Bad Guy. Moral equivalence is ugly and best and contemptible at worst.

Keep in mind the Big Difference. We are on the Side of Good. The Muslim Fanatics are on the side of Evil.

Well said. The bit about Israel especially made me choke.

Judith

I hate to inform y'all of this but were are on both sides. We provide weapons and subsidies to both Israel and Palestine, we trained and funded Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and only went after them when we no longer need them. We subside Saudi Arabia, a huge welfare state, who then uses the money from oil to pay their people who in turn give their money to madrassahs and imams who give it to Osama. We supported the Taliban and then overthrew the Taliban. We give money and weapons to the Turks who use them against the Kurds and give money and weapons to the Kurds who are supposed to use them against Al-Qaeda, but who also use them against the Turks, who are using our weapons. We subside Russia and China and they in turn subside Iran and North Korea. We subside Pakistan which frees up the money in their economy to subside Bin Laden and Al-Qeada through their people. If we brought our troops home, spent the money on self-defense and border security we would be way better off and safer.

Dustan

[Martin Radwin]

Osama overlooks the obvious. We are the Good Guys and he is the Bad Guy. Moral equivalence is ugly and best and contemptible at worst.

Keep in mind the Big Difference. We are on the Side of Good. The Muslim Fanatics are on the side of Evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

So when a handful of Muslim fanatics launch planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon, killing several thousand Americans, they are evil. When the US government imposes sanctions on Iraq, stopping among other things the importation of water purification equipment into Iraq, killing at least a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, many of them children, we are good. When the US launches a war of aggression against a nation that never attacked us and never seriously threatened us, when we drop cluster bombs over this nation in a showcase of "shock and awe", when we launch a war and invasion which has led to an estimated half a million Iraqi deaths (exact number unknown; we don't do body counts) and over two million Iraqi civilian refugees who have fled for their lives, leaving behind mass graves and dead bodies in the streets, when our military seizes thousands of prisoners, incarcerates them in a hellhole of prison, and tortures them, in flagrant violation of the Geneva Conventions, we are just so fucking good. We have a right to feel proud of the wonderful goodness we have bestowed on the people of Iraq. Even all of the hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis should thank us for our benevolence. God bless America!

Martin

[Chris Grieb]

Martin; Could you give me a source on our support of the Taliban and Bin Laden?

The situation that I have read about was the Taliban had very little involvement with throwing out of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Bin Laden used his own money in the Afghan War. The problem with our involvement in Afghanistan was that after the Soviets withdrew the US did not take a more active role in the country.

[Aggrad02]

Martin; Could you give me a source on our support of the Taliban and Bin Laden?

The situation that I have read about was the Taliban had very little involvement with throwing out of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Bin Laden used his own money in the Afghan War. The problem with our involvement in Afghanistan was that after the Soviets withdrew the US did not take a more active role in the country.

I am sure ther are numerous sources I could find, and if this one is not credible enough I can look for more later, but this site is from an author who is writing a book about this. I usually wouldn't use such a site because of the possibility of bias, but he quotes National Security Directives.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166,...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen, and it made clear that the secret Afghan war had a new goal: to defeat Soviet troops in Afghanistan through covert action and encourage a Soviet withdrawal. The new covert U.S. assistance began with a dramatic increase in arms supplies -- a steady rise to 65,000 tons annually by 1987, ... as well as a "ceaseless stream" of CIA and Pentagon specialists who traveled to the secret headquarters of Pakistan's ISI on the main road near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. There the CIA specialists met with Pakistani intelligence officers to help plan operations for the Afghan rebels.4

--Dustan

[Martin Radwin]

Martin; Could you give me a source on our support of the Taliban and Bin Laden?

The situation that I have read about was the Taliban had very little involvement with throwing out of the Soviets from Afghanistan.

Bin Laden used his own money in the Afghan War. The problem with our involvement in Afghanistan was that after the Soviets withdrew the US did not take a more active role in the country.

Chris,

I'm afraid I can't help you with specifics. I'm really not that knowledgeable about the details of the Afghan War. Outside of the usual sources (Wiki, Google), a good source for historical research from a libertarian perspective is the Independent Institute (www.independent.org). You can do searches on topics of interest from the Independent Institute web site, and it will give you listings of all relevant Independent Institute publications.

Martin

[Dodger]

Ron Paul is the best hope America has.

But you have to consider his ideals cannot be put into effect simply because he says so.

Congress must agree with him.

Not only that but Ron Paul, while a great, powerful voice, is a lone one in a world that is working against him.

The media pushes him down.

The other republicans ignore him.

The majority of Americans are ignorant of the way things are, and although the noble cause of enlightenment seems very upright you have to remember that one man cannot change the way every one thinks, but he can play an important role in the changing of times.

I will support Ron Paul as much as I can, but not because I want him to be elected president.

I will support him because the louder he speaks the more people he will reach, and even though he probably wont win the republican primaries, the more people that finally realize that their liberties are being taken hostage the better.

This is only the beggining of a revolution.

One that I will not sit idly by and watch.

[Chris Grieb]

I'm sorry but neither of you have answered my posts. There was a book that came out in the last couple of years about Rep. Charlie Wilson of Texas who was the biggest supporter in Congress of the mundjahenn. My memory of this book is that the Taliban had a very small part in the Afghan war. This may shock you but defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan was a good idea.