semyaza said:

Prove he's consumed by hatred...prove it.

Uncognitive said:

Yes, if you consider Jefferson Davis to be a "Founding Father".

semyaza said:
Another Ron Paul quote to chip away at the galloping stupidity of those who insist he's a bigot:

"We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with."

Ron Paul -- June 5th, 2007. New Hampshire Presidential Debates.

semyaza said:
Another Ron Paul quote to chip away at the galloping stupidity of those who insist he's a bigot:

"We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. If there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with."

Ron Paul -- June 5th, 2007. New Hampshire Presidential Debates.

montestruc said:

I said as you can planely see above, oh mighty source of all wisdom , that "He is winning online opinion polls by wide margins" I did not specify what the polls were on.

However, the primaries are still a long way off and those number do mean a lot. People still have time to change their minds several times, but good numbers now in those polls for Paul, are good for Paul, not for the other candidates.

I abase myself if I have offened your all-knowing self with simple facts.

reprobate said:

Care to explain his staunch opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption, you know the ones where he wasn't pandering in a debate but that he's actually written and voted on?

As for galloping stupidity, well I'd have to say that they guy who refuses to acknowledge the mans own words because he went to a meet and greet is the one wearing the saddle, ponyboy.

chainlink said:

Here in America we get our rights from the Constitution, not our creator.

right ?

I am also cosponsoring the Make College Affordable Act (H.R. 2750), which makes college tuition tax deductible for middle-and-working class Americans, as well as several pieces of legislation to provide increased tax deductions and credits for education savings accounts for both higher education and K-12. In addition, I am cosponsoring several pieces of legislation, such as H.R. 1824 and H.R. 838, to provide tax credits for employers who provide training for their employees. -Ron Paul on March 9, 2000

Yesterday, Americans were awakened to find ourselves in a war, attacked by barbarians who targeted innocent civilians. This despicable act reveals how deep-seated is the hatred that has driven this war.

Though many Americans have just become aware of how deeply we are involved in this war, it has been going on for decades. We are obviously seen by the terrorists as an enemy.

In war there is no more reprehensible act than for combatants to slaughter innocent civilian bystanders. This is what happened yesterday.

If there is such a thing, a moral war is one that is only pursued in self-defense. Those who initiate aggression against others for the purpose of occupation or merely to invoke death and destruction are unforgivable and serve only to spread wanton killing.

In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress' foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.

When we retaliate for this horror we have suffered, we must be certain that only the guilty be punished. More killing of innocent civilians will only serve to flame the fires of war and further jeopardize our security. Congress should consider its constitutional authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal to meet our responsibility.

Demanding domestic security in times of war invites carelessness in preserving civil liberties and the right of privacy. Frequently the people are only too anxious for their freedoms to be sacrificed on the altar of authoritarianism thought to be necessary to remain safe and secure. Nothing would please the terrorists more than if we willingly give up some of our cherished liberties while defending ourselves from their threat.

It is our job to wisely choose our policies and work hard to understand the root causes of the war in which we find ourselves.

We must all pray for peace and ask for God's guidance for our President, our congressional leaders, and all America- and for the wisdom and determination required to resolve this devastating crisis.
-Ron Paul, September 12, 2001

Stop Taxing Social Security Benefits!

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commemorate Older Americans Month by introducing two pieces of legislation to reduce taxes on senior citizens. The first bill, the Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act, repeals the 1993 tax increase on Social Security benefits. Repealing this increase on Social Security benefits is a good first step toward reducing the burden imposed by the federal government on senior citizens. However, imposing any tax on Social Security benefits is unfair and illogical. This is why I am also introducing the Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act, which repeals all taxes on Social Security benefits.

Since Social Security benefits are financed with tax dollars, taxing these benefits is yet another example of double taxation. Furthermore, "taxing" benefits paid by the government is merely an accounting trick, a shell game which allows members of Congress to reduce benefits by subterfuge. This allows Congress to continue using the Social Security trust fund as a means of financing other government programs, and masks the true size of the federal deficit.

Instead of imposing ridiculous taxes on senior citizens, Congress should ensure the integrity of the Social Security trust fund by ending the practice of using trust fund monies for other programs. In order to accomplish this goal I introduced the Social Security Preservation Act (H.R. 219), which ensures that all money in the Social Security trust fund is spent solely on Social Security. At a time when Congress' inability to control spending is once again threatening the Social Security trust fund, the need for this legislation has never been greater. When the government taxes Americans to fund Social Security, it promises the American people that the money will be there for them when they retire. Congress has a moral obligation to keep that promise.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to help free senior citizens from oppressive taxation by supporting my Senior Citizens' Tax Elimination Act and my Social Security Beneficiary Tax Reduction Act. I also urge my colleagues to ensure that moneys from the Social Security trust fund are used solely for Social Security benefits and not wasted on frivolous government programs.
-Ron Paul, May 22, 2002

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
September 4, 2002

Arguments Against a War in Iraq

Mr. Speaker;

I rise to urge the Congress to think twice before thrusting this nation into a war without merit- one fraught with the danger of escalating into something no American will be pleased with.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "Never was so much false arithmetic employed on any subject as that which has been employed to persuade nations that it is in their interests to go to war."

We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn't even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.

For some reason such an attack makes me feel much less secure, while our country is made more vulnerable.

Congress must consider the fact that those with military experience advocate a "go slow" policy, while those without military experience are the ones demanding this war.

We cannot ignore the fact that all of Iraq's neighbors oppose this attack, and our European allies object as well.

If the military and diplomatic reasons for a policy of restraint make no sense to those who want a war, I advise they consider the $100 billion cost that will surely compound our serious budget and economic problems we face here at home. We need no more false arithmetic on our budget or false reasons for pursuing this new adventure into preemptive war and worldwide nation-building.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer another quote from Jefferson. Jefferson said: "No country perhaps was ever so thoroughly against war as ours. These dispositions pervade every description of its citizens, whether in or out of office. We love and we value peace, we know its blessings from experience."

We need this sentiment renewed in this Congress in order to avoid a needless war that offers us nothing but trouble. Congress must deal with this serious matter of whether or not we go to war. I believe it would be a mistake with the information that is available to us today. I do not see any reason whatsoever to take young men and young women and send them 6,000 miles to attack a country that has not committed any aggression against this country. Many American now share my belief that it would be a serious mistake.

First, there is a practical reason to oppose a war in Iraq. Our military now has been weakened over the last decade, and when we go into Iraq we will clearly dilute our ability to defend our country. We do not enhance our national defense by initiating this war. Besides, it is impractical because of unintended consequences which none of us know about. We do not know exactly how long this will last. It could be a six-day war, a six-month war, or six years or even longer.

There is a military reason for not going to war. We ought to listen to the generals and other military experts, including Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Anthony Zinni, and Norman Schwarzkopf, who are now advising us NOT to go to war. Some have even cautioned against the possibility of starting World War III. They understand that our troops have been spread too thin around the world, and it is dangerous from a purely military standpoint to go to war today.

There is a constitutional argument and a constitutional mistake that could be made. If we once again go to war, as we have done on so many occasions since World War II, without a clear declaration of war by Congress, we blatantly violate the Constitution. I fear we will once again go to war in a haphazard way, by executive order, or even by begging permission from the rotten, anti-American United Nations. This haphazard approach, combined with a lack of clearly defined goal for victory, makes it almost inevitable that true victory will not come. So we should look at this from a constitutional perspective. Congress should assume its responsibility, because war is declared by Congress, not by a President and not by a U.N.

This is a very important matter, and I am delighted to hear that there will be congressional hearings and discussion. I certainly believe we should have a balanced approach. We have already had some hearings in the other body, where we heard only one side of the issue. If we want to have real hearings, we should have a debate and hear evidence on both sides, rather than just hearing pro-war interests arguing for war.

There are even good political reasons for not initiating this conflict. War is not popular. It may seem popular in the short run, when there appears to be an immediate victory and everyone is gloating, but war is not popular. People get killed, and body bags end up coming back. War is very unpopular, and it is not the politically smart thing to do.

There are economic reasons to avoid this war. We can do serious damage to our economy. It is estimated that this venture into Iraq may well cost over a hundred billion dollars. Our national debt right now is increasing at a rate of over $450 billion yearly, and we are talking about spending another hundred billion dollars on an adventure when we do not know what the outcome will be and how long it will last? What will happen to oil prices? What will happen to the recession that we are in? What will happen to the deficit? We must expect all kinds of economic ramifications.

There are countless diplomatic reasons for not going. All the Arab nations near Iraq object to and do not endorse our plans, and none of our European allies are anxious for this to happen. So diplomatically we make a serious mistake by doing this. I hope we have second thoughts and are very cautious in what we do.

There are philosophical reasons for those who believe in limited government to oppose this war. "War is the health of the state," as the saying goes. War necessarily means more power is given to the state. This additional power always results in a loss of liberty. Many of the worst government programs of the 20th century began during wartime "emergencies" and were never abolished. War and big government go hand in hand, but we should be striving for peace and freedom.

Finally, there is a compelling moral argument against war in Iraq. Military force is justified only in self-defense; naked aggression is the province of dictators and rogue states. This is the danger of a new "preemptive first strike" doctrine. America is the most moral nation on earth, founded on moral principles, and we must apply moral principles when deciding to use military force.

Skywisdom said:

I guess the only proof I have is the numerous racists quotes from him I just read.

chainlink said:
Here in America we get our rights from the Constitution, not our creator.

right ?

Fuck the First Amendment. I do not need a law to tell me what I can and cannot say. . . . As soon as you have a law telling you what you can say, the same law will tell you what you cannot say.

herbancowboy said:

Meh. I like what Ice-T had to say about that.

I wish I still had the book that came from so I could post the whole quote here. Alas.

mellon said:
Reprobate advocates essentially shunning anyone who has ever said anything he thinks is wrong. This is a form of eliminating bad people. He doesn't propose killing them, just not listening to them. Marx didn't propose killing people either. But Pol Pot killed people in his name. Is it Marx' fault that those people died? Not even remotely.

But we have history to look back on. We can learn from the mistake others have made. Or repeat them.

Because we have made it not okay for politicians to say stupid things, politicians avoid saying anything at all. Politicians bend over backward to give you the impression that they have no particular opinion on any topic. We elect people based on their character. That's how Bush got elected - he presented the image that the most people liked. What he believed was never really discussed.

Our insistence on ostracising politicians who say stupid things has resulted in a generation of ciphers. We never find out what a politician really believes until they're in office. Is that really what we want? Because my personal observation is that this very attitude - the attitude that if someone says something bad, we can never listen to them again - is responsible for us being at war in Iraq right now.

So yes, whether he knows it or not, Reprobate is in fact advocating killing.