Texas Congressman Ron Paul files for GOP presidential bid

About as good as they were for some largely unknown Governor facing a two term incumbent VP 6 years ago.:smilewinkgrin:

 

Perhaps.

There's no solid reason to believe it's not.

Al Quaeda was in Afghanistan. It is true that some of the people came from Saudi Arabia and perhaps teh UAE, but the intent was to cut off the head, not the toes.

I have flown quite a bit recently, and never been strip searched, or felt up. Grandma can still carry bottled water on the plane. There is nothing wrong with any of this. It is perfectly constitutional and reasonable. When I fly, I like to know that there have been reasonable safety precautions taken.

I suspect that you have bought into some conspiracy theories, which is fine if you are into that sort of thing. They don't make a lot of sense when you actually look at them. But whatever works for you ...

 

That is, of course, what I was saying. If we are going to invade other countries because their government is doing bad things to the populace, then we will need a much larger military.

 

Three trillion dollars are still "missing" from the pentagon. No story at 11 o'clock.

 

That's right, poncho.

Rufus, great posts.

Pastor Larry, as I pointed out in another thread, you CANNOT take bottled water on board (my mother had her unopened bottle taken away (midget sized) as she sat in her wheelchair before she boarded).

Evidently, you have not flown recently and tried to take a beverage on board since the newer rules were put into place.

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/world/europe/11rules.html

Ron Paul is exactly right on this so-called war on terror. He would get my vote.

-------------------------------------
Moderator Note: Moving this to Politics forum since it is on page 3 in News.

 

Bill Clinton was thought to be a viable presidential contender back in 1988, when he gave that long-winded speech at the DNC. Same year Ron Paul became the nominee for the Libertarian Party.

His chances are less than 1 in 100, about the same as Dennis Kunchinvich's are. Paul's for legalizing all drugs and for open borders.

 

No, sir! Are you sure about that? He wouldn't get my vote then!

 

His position on many of these issues has "evolved", particularly with illegal immigration - I was back in 1988. His own articles show this:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

A bio: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/

He still maintains that's it's not the government's place to outlaw illegal drugs, that's that's not within their scope of the Constiution - 10th Amendment.

I think his announcement to seek the GOP nomination is a good thing, he could push the party away from the control of the McCains and Gulianis.

 

I dont think that his view on government regulation of drugs could be construed as 'he is for legalizing all drugs.'

 

In the lewrockwell link, Ron Paul clarifies his stance on this. It's true that the LP doesn't want drugs formally legalized, just de-regulated totally, that is de facto legalization.

It's the same thing with abortion, he thinks RvW was a big overreach, but wouldn't support any government regulation of abortion because he that right to do so is not explicilty given to the government in the US Constitution.

 

Basically he is for the government staying within constitutional bounds. I'm all for it.

 

So am I.

The War on Drugs is a failure. See amendments XVIII and XXI to the U.S. constitution. Drugs won.

Just as the War on Poverty is a failure. See the poverty rate. Poverty won.

 

Your statement is incorrect. Ron Paul has no problem with the states regulating abortion which would be a return to the situation that existed before Roe v. Wade:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Those who seek a pro-life culture must accept that we will never persuade all 300 million Americans to agree with us. A pro-life culture can be built only from the ground up, person by person. For too long we have viewed the battle as purely political, but no political victory can change a degraded society. No Supreme Court ruling by itself can instill greater respect for life. And no Supreme Court justice can save our freedoms if we don't fight for them ourselves."[/FONT]



- rest at www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html

 

Your statement is incorrect:

"Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer."

"We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants."

"All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government."

"Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual – including a potential terrorist – can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase."

- www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul269.html

 

I'm sorry, I was speaking for the LP platform he ran on. I wasn't aware that he thought states could regulate abortion now, that's less extreme than the LP's offical position today.

They're going to continue these "war on ______" forever, Paul's view on drugs will be a problem, still too extreme. I think he has split from the LP on immigration, which will be the issue.

So you support him, sounds best of the bunch so far, but that's not saying much.

 

If I recall correctly, when Ron Paul won the LP nomination in 1988 he was straightforward about where he disagreed with the party platform.

Illegal immigration was not a hot button issue in 1988. But I do recall that Ron Paul was pro-life in 1988, as he is today.

Ron Paul's presence in the GOP debates should be great entertainment. I wouldn't be surprised if he causes McCain to have a meltdown in one of them.

 

I meant, it'll be the issue in 2008, not the war on _______.

I was ten years old in 1988, but I vaguely remember him. As long as one of those RINO's don't win, not to mention Obarack Hussien Obama.

Go Ron Paul.