PDA

View Full Version : Response to Ron Paul email..How should I respond?




ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 05:59 PM
I emailed my friends and family about Ron Paul and how he raised 4.3 million in one day. This is a response that I got from one of my friends. How would you respond to this? I will post my response later after people have given it a shot.

HIS RESPONSE
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/stephen_colbert_tops_ron_paul_and_dennis_kucinich_ in_presidential_poll

Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.

What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



Here is my response:

I'm sorry, I didn't know what party you leaned towards. I sent these past few emails to all of my friends. Not just you.

Yes it is funny how Stephen Colbert beat Paul in that poll. It may be that the particular poll that Stephen participated in appealed to persons who would probably not vote in the primaries. Stephen seems to attract the Pop culture youth in America, and these people probably will not be a factor at the polling station. Also, I think polls are totally worthless, and they can be manipulated so easily that they are not even worth looking at. With that said, here is a link to all of the straw polls that have been held and how Ron Paul has faired. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

He has come in first place 21/42 times, with 12/19 coming in the past two months.

Right now the Republican base is so small that even if many persons in the base supported someone other than Paul he would still have a chance. People are changing their party affiliations from democrat to republican just to vote for him. A good majority of the independents support him, and a HUGE amount of people that would not have voted this year support him. I think he has a really good chance. The media hasn't really covered him much, but his grassroots support almost makes up for it.

New Hampshire is almost 50% independent. And this may be the first primary. If he wins NH then it will affect voters in other states.

Eminent Domain:

"Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."

Have you researched this? Paul is against the North American Union, and our new currency the Amero. Which includes the building of a superhighway stretching from Mexico to Canada, running in close parallel to I-35. You know the highway that goes through Dallas and Denton. The government will be exercising eminent domain to take land to build this highway as part of the NAU. Paul wants to do away with the entire concept. Not just the eminent domain taking of land for a highway. He wants to do away with the idea completely. This wouldn't involve messing with any of the courts authority. He would squash the plans for the NAU which include the NAFTA highway before eminent domain was even invoked.

What is so bad about homeschooling? He just wants regulation of homeschooling to stop. I dont see a problem with this.

Where does he claim to be in favor of unconstitutional legislation? Because I am pretty sure that it is a misunderstanding. He is known as Dr. No in congress because he never votes for anything that is not expressly stated in the constitution.

check out this video, it is great insight into the NAU and the plans that are being made without the knowledge of the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

If you don't like me sending you these past few emails, then I am sorry, I sent these to all of my friends and family who I have emails for...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He finally responded to my email.....here is what he said

-------------------------------------
Whoops! I mistakenly hit Reply to All and typed away!

No, I'm not upset or anything. I pretty much thought everyone in our little group knew that I worked for the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. So I was like...why would anyone think I would be responsive to this? For the record, I do like what Ron Paul has to say on a few issues, and his generally libertarian slant. I like that he's against the war. However, on the whole package, I'm far from sold.

I suppose only the future will tell whether or not Mr. Paul has what it takes to unseat more entrenched candidates in the Republican primaries, but even as someone who blatantly dislikes Republicans, I'm not sure he's a legitimate contender in the election just yet. However, I may be wrong, and maybe his unique approach to politics will be able to sway enough Republicans to vote for him so that more well known people like Giuliani, McCain and others will be knocked out of the way.

Again, didn't think that last thing would be taken as offensive and didn't mean to send it to the whole list!

Peace!

------------------------------------------

Then he wrote back again the next day with this....
-------------------------------------------
As for the Constitutionality issue:

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade..."

For decades, Roe has withstood constitutional scrutiny, even under a conservative court. Whether it stands or not is a question of time. It's possible that the Court will overturn Roe in the future, though I think that because of stare decisis it will probably stand intact, at least as far as its central holding goes. I don't believe that Article I gives Congress the power to overturn the Supreme Court except by Constitutional amendment. Whatever his belief and whatever his cause, I find nothing impressive about a Presidential candidate bragging about his disrespect for Constitutional precedent. It is reminiscent of the Civil Rights era where states all over the South passed Jim Crow laws, because they didn't want to follow the Civil Rights acts, and Congress had to keep passing act after act after act to make that generation treat people equally.

He's got his views, and I've got mine, but even with different views on the same thing, someone in our government should have respect for process. If he want to end what he considers to be an immoral practice by getting a Constitutional amendment on the subject of abortion, that is at least a respectable attempt to follow process. Instead, he seems to support the much dirtier approach - try to get passed general legislation that will circumvent individual rights granted under Roe.

For home school:

Nothing is wrong with home school. But for the infinitesimally small percentage of the American population that attends home school, it seems odd that a candidate for President takes an entirely separate tab in the "Issues" section on his website to discuss the issue of homeschooling.

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate."

You know why it's unmatched? Because nobody cares. It's not a significant issue. Go to Giuliani's website. Do you think that he's going to waste valuable face-space discussing homeschooling? The Department of Education says that 1.7% of the children in America are home schooled. And 82% of those children still attend public schools. So...basically...that brings it down to less than half a percent of kids that are actually home schooled.

My interpretation is that he's not talking about anything else because he's got nothing to say. Instead, he's got some home schooling organization to sponsor him and just throws it out there. It's kind of silly. He's vying for major party candidacy, he should at least try to look like he wants that spot.

Then there's the "American Sovereignty"

He's perpetuating popular ignorance here to people who don't know anything about international legal structures. There's no transfer of our power to unelected foreign elites, like Mr.Paul claims. But if you tell that to uneducated conservatives who are ignorant of the extremely limited international order that we've got today, they'll get riled up and vote for him. Or maybe he's just ignorant himself and believes that. Here's a quote from his website:

"The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals." Ok, Ron. I'll buy that. So even if the soldiers who have "misbehaved" (rape of underaged civilians, killing unarmed female and male civilians) shouldn't be tried as war criminals but celebrated at home as heroes, the ICC would first have to have jurisdiction over us to try them, right? Do they? How about this:

The United States is not party to the International Criminal Court. We signed the Rome Statute (which established said entity) but never ratified it. So we're not party to it! But Ron Paul makes them out to be a big bad international bully that is two inches away from taking our soldiers and actually holding them liable for their crimes (which is obviously not cool).

Another thing: Guess who wrote the Rome Statute? Us. The United States of America. We wrote it, but we never enrolled.

So I'm left with two conclusions:
- Ron Paul knows these things, and is trying to lie and mislead the American people
- Ron Paul is ignorant, and talks about things that he doesn't know about.

So for both of those...I'm less than impressed.
We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?

----------------------------------------
My response
---------------------------------------

Here is a description of the HR300 legislation.

HR300 (2007:110th Congress) - "We the People Act"
"To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."
Summary: This bill would prevent the Supreme Court of the United States and all federal courts from ruling on (following text quoted vertatim):
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;
This would prevent laws passed by state legislatures on the subject of gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and many other subjects from being declared unconstitutional by federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

In addition, this bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section. This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.

Here is the speech Ron Paul gave, introducing the HR300 legislation. Reading this is a good way to find out the reasons behind a piece of legislation.

SPEECH OF_
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2007

 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
 The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
 Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
[Page: E33] GPO's PDF
 to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.
 Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
 Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
 Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
 It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.


As for homeschooling:

That is what is so great about Ron Paul. He doesn’t cater only to issues, which garner a large percentage of votes. He actually feels strongly about it, that’s it. The media has constantly reported on how Ron cannot be “bought” meaning he is not and will not be persuaded to follow a companies interests when they give him money for his campaign. Ron’s funding has been from individuals giving online. In the latest fundraising news, he raised $4.3 million in one day, with 37,000 contributors. That is $116/person.

American Sovereignty:

Have you looked up the North American Union yet? Or the Amero? These are real things that are really happening, and it IS the global elites that are responsible. This is fact. But not well known fact.

As for the ICC.
The U.S. government publicly supported the establishment of an ICC and on procedural issues the U.S. delegation made important contributions. However, the Clinton Administration categorically opposed a court that could indict U.S. citizens without prior U.S. approval and its representatives insisted on ironclad guarantees to preclude that possibility regardless of the impact on the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility.

On June 15, 1998, diplomats from around the world will assemble in Rome to finalize a treaty that will establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). A key issue is the role of the U.S. government in these negotiations and its apparent effort to ensure that actions of U.S. citizens, particularly U.S. military personnel, will always remain beyond the conceivable reach of such a court.

So yes we did support the idea of an ICC. And I do agree with you on this. The soldiers that are responsible for raping and killing innocent civilians, with intent to do so, should be tried as a war criminal.

It seems to me, that Paul supports opposition to the ICC because he does not support global treaties or organizations. He feels that such global organizations like the UN are a threat to our sovereignty.

In your last sentence you say this “We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?”

Everyone is touting Ron’s integrity and honesty. Actually, that is why many people that do not agree with every position he states are voting for him. Honest principled integrity. Don’t believe me? Even the Daily Show knows this… “you seem to have consistent principled integrity”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/2007-06-04-daily-show/

Definition of integrity: Adherence to a code of values; utter sincerity, honesty, candor; completeness


Here is a comment from one of my friends that is also a Democrat.

“I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. What lured me into the Paul camp:

Number 1 - He is the only candidate who has the courage to state the war is unconstitutional and that he would immediately end it. The Democratic candidates are afraid of being called Doves. Hillary won't even commit to having our military home by the END of her first term.

Number 2 - I believe he will restore habeas corpus and revoke the Patriot Act and other administration power grabs that have gone on these past 6 years, and the pendulum will swing in the direction of liberty (it's swinging in a fascist direction right now).

Number 3 - I admire the man's integrity and statesmanship. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. I don't think we can go wrong by electing a man with such integrity, even if I don't agree with every little thing.”


I just think that many people just haven’t taken the time to understand Ron Paul.

ronpaulfan
11-08-2007, 06:01 PM
Don't shove Ron Paul down his throat, You'll end up losing a friend. Work him slowly over time, he'll come around eventually. Don't take coments like that personally, sheep are hard to wake up.

Dorfsmith
11-08-2007, 06:02 PM
I emailed my friends and family about Ron Paul and how he raised 4.3 million in one day. This is a response that I got from one of my friends. How would you respond to this? I will post my response later after people have given it a shot.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/stephen_colbert_tops_ron_paul_and_dennis_kucinich_ in_presidential_poll

Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.

What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\


Sounds like you need to get new friends j/k :D

BiPolarBear
11-08-2007, 06:03 PM
Here's how I would respond. Go into address book, find his e-mail address and remove from my address book. Who has time for friends like that? Seriously?

JMO
11-08-2007, 06:03 PM
He sounds like he has already made up his mind. best to work on undecided voters or voters that have a candidate and not excited about them.

allyinoh
11-08-2007, 06:04 PM
I emailed my friends and family about Ron Paul and how he raised 4.3 million in one day. This is a response that I got from one of my friends. How would you respond to this? I will post my response later after people have given it a shot.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/stephen_colbert_tops_ron_paul_and_dennis_kucinich_ in_presidential_poll

Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.

What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

I'd say don't respond. It's not even worth the time.

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 06:07 PM
yea, it's kinda of sad... I have had two of my friends respond in a similar fashion.

I guess I need to look for new friends lol!

The emails seemed pretty mean spirited if you ask me..

Taco John
11-08-2007, 06:07 PM
I emailed my friends and family about Ron Paul and how he raised 4.3 million in one day. This is a response that I got from one of my friends. How would you respond to this? I will post my response later after people have given it a shot.

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
You know it's pretty funny that his entire website, especially the red bar indicating how much money he has raised thus far is almost exactly identical to Howard Dean's campaign website from the 2004 primaries. However, I think when national polls show that your own party would rather elect Stephen Colbert than you, it's time to give up.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/stephen_colbert_tops_ron_paul_and_dennis_kucinich_ in_presidential_poll

Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.

What's even better is that one of the main issue platforms he lists on his website is "Home Schooling." Seriously? Wow. Also, he starts talking about "Eminent Domain" but the president can't do jack shit about that, since it's a taking clause issue and will go before the court. Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels. This guy is seriously a joke and is going to get crushed at the primaries by someone at the Republican Party's front lines.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



Do you know what his core issues are?

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 06:09 PM
here is what I sent back...


//////////////////
I'm sorry, I didn't know what party you leaned towards. I sent these past few emails to all of my friends. Not just you.

Yes it is funny how Stephen Colbert beat Paul in that poll. It may be that the particular poll that Stephen participated in appealed to persons who would probably not vote in the primaries. Stephen seems to attract the Pop culture youth in America, and these people probably will not be a factor at the polling station. Also, I think polls are totally worthless, and they can be manipulated so easily that they are not even worth looking at. With that said, here is a link to all of the straw polls that have been held and how Ron Paul has faired. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

He has come in first place 21/42 times, with 12/19 coming in the past two months.

Right now the Republican base is so small that even if many persons in the base supported someone other than Paul he would still have a chance. People are changing their party affiliations from democrat to republican just to vote for him. A good majority of the independents support him, and a HUGE amount of people that would not have voted this year support him. I think he has a really good chance. The media hasn't really covered him much, but his grassroots support almost makes up for it.

New Hampshire is almost 50% independent. And this may be the first primary. If he wins NH then it will affect voters in other states.

Eminent Domain:

"Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada."

Have you researched this? Paul is against the North American Union, and our new currency the Amero. Which includes the building of a superhighway stretching from Mexico to Canada, running in close parallel to I-35. You know the highway that goes through Dallas and Denton. The government will be exercising eminent domain to take land to build this highway as part of the NAU. Paul wants to do away with the entire concept. Not just the eminent domain taking of land for a highway. He wants to do away with the idea completely. This wouldn't involve messing with any of the courts authority. He would squash the plans for the NAU which include the NAFTA highway before eminent domain was even invoked.

What is so bad about homeschooling? He just wants regulation of homeschooling to stop. I dont see a problem with this.

Where does he claim to be in favor of unconstitutional legislation? Because I am pretty sure that it is a misunderstanding. He is known as Dr. No in congress because he never votes for anything that is not expressly stated in the constitution.

check out this video, it is great insight into the NAU and the plans that are being made without the knowledge of the American people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo5CZvD3-QM

If you don't like me sending you these past few emails, then I am sorry, I sent these to all of my friends and family who I have emails for...
////////////////////////

ronpaulitician
11-08-2007, 06:11 PM
Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.
I assume he worked 90 hours a week for Kerry/Edwards in '04?

Waste of time. I might reply with a "I'm glad to see you weren't upset when I sent you an e-mail about something I value in my life."

Mandrik
11-08-2007, 06:11 PM
I really don't know how to respond to this, but he makes a good point here:


Also...are you seriously trying to send me Republican propaganda? For example, if you had say worked on the Bush-Cheney campaign in the Summer/Fall of 04 for about 90 hours a week, I would probably have assumed that sending you links about how great I think Barrack Obama will be as President would be an ineffective communication.

This is so true. This is also the reason why I've been very reluctant to talk to my friends and family about RP. When I'm sitting around the poker table and all my friends are smoking pot (I don't), I might say something like, "There's this dude running for president who thinks the war on drugs..." You get the idea. I try to be subtle about it because I know that politics can be a very hot topic.

Just my 2 cents.

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 06:17 PM
yea, he wasn't a really close friend.. if anything he was a legacy friend.

I really had no idea which party he likes... I now remember him telling me a long time ago that he worked on a campaign.

But that shouldn't matter, even if he is a hard core democrat, that doesn't mean that there is no chance he could support Paul.

I hate how come election time Americans start remembering which "gang" they are in.. Repub or Dem. Blue or Red. Crip or Blood.

It is all really silly if you ask me.. And quite dumb if you think about it.

You should vote for who strikes you as the best candidate with the best views.

You should research all candidates to see thier background and views before you hop on a bandwagon... People like this need to wake up.

sparebulb
11-08-2007, 06:21 PM
I'll play,

Your friend has no respect for your intelligence and ability to make an informed decision. Albeit, he may feel offended with your presentation of enthusiasm of RP, he could have easily defused the issue by saying something like: I have not made up my mind and prefer to keep my political beliefs to myself. Since he did not do this, I would have to evaluate to what extent I will go to to keep a friend, even if it includes not talking about the subject at all. If you want to play the "I told you so game, you could simply talk about all of the things that RP talks about like the tanking of the currency. The currency WILL tank and you get to remind him about who predicted it first (RP).

When it boils down to it, you are not going to change any minds all by yourself. RP's message sells itself once someone decides to hear it. I would attack the issue like RP would: sell the Constitution and the contempt that the donkeys and elephants have shown for it in recent years.

My parents and I are on board with RP. My brother is apathetic and lets Charlie Gibson do his thinking for him when he's not busy keeping up with his peers in the suburbs. My sister is a lost-cause, party-line, active in the party democrat. She Can't Understand Normal Things. Good luck.

maxmerkel
11-08-2007, 06:22 PM
on Emiment Domain / NAU i can only add that it happened exactly the same way in europe. at first some trade agreements, then securitiy partnerships, then common currency/government. the result :

the government of the EU isn't elected, it's basicly a lot of commiteees and boards (think about communism), has basically no separation of powers and EU laws decided by this unelected government break local (e.g. german/french etc.) laws.
the EU government can issue "directives" that HAVE to be implemented by the national governments. otherwise HUGE, and i mean REALLY HUGE, punishment payments have to be made. NO country could ever afford to break andy directive. furthermore no country is allowed to quit the EU.

talk about facism

Birdlady
11-08-2007, 06:36 PM
I don't think its worth your time responding. I mailed out some stuff to my family and the only person who responded to me was my Uncle and he seemed genuinely interested.

Remember someone has to feel pretty compelled to reply to you with that. He obviously feels very strongly about his Democrats and there is no explaining anything to him. :(

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 06:40 PM
I don't think its worth your time responding. I mailed out some stuff to my family and the only person who responded to me was my Uncle and he seemed genuinely interested.

Remember someone has to feel pretty compelled to reply to you with that. He obviously feels very strongly about his Democrats and there is no explaining anything to him. :(

yea, I agree.

It just really makes me upset that someone would be so rude to a friend.

Or maybe he doesnt think we are..

But in any case, he should have said "i'm glad you are excited about someone"
"you are right he did raise a lot of money"

Or "I really dont think that RP fits my views very well, but good luck"

Although, I do remember this friend hanging with a bunch of people that always felt they needed to let everyone around them know that they thought that they were intellectually superior.

Some of the smartest people I know claim to not know very much. It is the dumb ones that think they know everything. It is totally irrational to think that you know everything..

AlexK
11-08-2007, 06:48 PM
Well your friend has a point. Ron Paul's stance on education is pretty ridiculous. Home schooling is a horrible idea to support. And leaving it completely up to the states is also not very good. For example, you'll have a bunch of states, like Kansas, teaching superstition in science classes. Do we really want that, when we are already so far behind a lot of other countries on education?

Severius
11-08-2007, 06:55 PM
Well your friend has a point. Ron Paul's stance on education is pretty ridiculous. Home schooling is a horrible idea to support. And leaving it completely up to the states is also not very good. For example, you'll have a bunch of states, like Kansas, teaching superstition in science classes. Do we really want that, when we are already so far behind a lot of other countries on education?

Home schooling is a horrible idea? I was home schooled my entire life, I am now in college and have 3.67 GPA. Homeschooling is the only way to make sure the government doesn't brainwash your kids. Our education system is failing, it is producing the dumbest generation of adults this country has ever seen. Why do you think people don't understand the constitution or the way our country is supposed to work? Nowhere does the constitution give the government the power to control the education of this country. Government control of education leads to government control over the minds and ideas of the public.

westmich4paul
11-08-2007, 06:56 PM
I would just thank him for at least taking the time to read your email. I would express to him that that is the great thing about being an American and being free is that we have the right to choose for ourselves. Then I would suggest politely that if he does decide to vote for a Democrat in 08 he might want to start stockpiling gold and silver it will come in handy! BTW before Dr. Paul opened my eyes I too was a conservative democrat(I know it sounds like an oxy-moron but they are out there).

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 06:57 PM
Well, I really dont think that it should matter what they are teaching as long as that is what they want to learn and that is the way they want to learn.

Why should someone tell you what to learn?

So why is our education worse than other countries?

I think our elementary and middle school and highschool are lacking, but our colleges are some of the best in the world.

I attribute the poor performance in primary schools to culture, and attitudes of young people which are influenced by their parents.

We have seen a decline in a two parent household here in america. All too often children are raised by the mother. Without the authority figure the father represents.

I know that the mother can be the authority, but to a teenager a mother is not very scary. Fathers can be scary if they take on that role. And they do have influence.

We the people have not helped the educational mess, so the government tries to fix it... Ron paul just wants to take the Fed. Government out of the educational process and put State Govt. in it's place. That way, each state can address it's own specialized needs.

Melissa
11-08-2007, 06:58 PM
I am a teacher and went to public school and my kids do too but there is nothing"ridiculous" about being home schooled. Some of the smartest kids are taught at home!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

westmich4paul
11-08-2007, 07:01 PM
Severius, Do your home-schooling proud and adhere to the advice from the Mods and the general consensus of the forum and please refrain yourself from expressing your vulgarities. It in no way helps the campaign and actually turns some people off believe it or not. Try to keep all your responses on a respectful plain and this forum will be better for it.

F3d
11-08-2007, 07:02 PM
....

sparebulb
11-08-2007, 07:08 PM
I believe that it is not the intention to promote homeschooling rather than simply to defend the right to do it. Homeschooling is the only alternative to sending your children to an unacceptably horrible school for many, many people in this country. We are defending choice and competition in schools.

AlexK
11-08-2007, 07:21 PM
Home schooling is a horrible idea? FUCK YOU!

Calm down.


I was home schooled my entire life


Well that explains your social skills.


I believe that it is not the intention to promote homeschooling rather than simply to defend the right to do it. Homeschooling is the only alternative to sending your children to an unacceptably horrible school for many, many people in this country. We are defending choice and competition in schools.


I think there should be a choice to an extent, but there should be some kind of standards that everyone adheres to.

ionlyknowy
11-08-2007, 08:20 PM
He pressed "reply all" !!

I just found out that the guy replied to everyone that I sent the email to! lol..

I hadn't noticed until one of my other buddies asked me who the asshole was that responded to my email lol...

So I replied all, and cut and pasted my original reply to his email...lol

What a tard..

Energy
11-08-2007, 08:24 PM
He pressed "reply all" !!

I just found out that the guy replied to everyone that I sent the email to! lol..

I hadn't noticed until one of my other buddies asked me who the asshole was that responded to my email lol...

So I replied all, and cut and pasted my original reply to his email...lol

What a tard..

HAHA!! What comedy! :D

dircha
11-08-2007, 08:28 PM
Here's how I would respond. Go into address book, find his e-mail address and remove from my address book. Who has time for friends like that? Seriously?

Exactly.

Don't waste your time speaking with someone like this.

There are much better ways to get the message out, and much better battles to fight.

Arguing with this argumentative person will only validate the opinions he or she holds in his or her own mind.

Don't do it. You send out the message. It's been read. Maybe you'll get an email a month from now asking for more information. Let it settle and work itself in.

maxmerkel
11-08-2007, 08:29 PM
I think there should be a choice to an extent, but there should be some kind of standards that everyone adheres to.

there should be choice to all extent. if a homeschooling parent wants to dumb down his kid he should be allowed to do so (as long as the kid agrees with this education) - i'm pretty sure that is not the intention of homeschooling parents.
every university can test you if they think you are not properly educated.

BIG_J
11-08-2007, 08:31 PM
lmfao!

Sey.Naci
11-08-2007, 08:33 PM
When getting a response like that, it's usually best to leave well enough alone. It's a courtesy to respond to an initial email, which he (rudely) did. But netiquette doesn't require further communication. In fact, in such a situation it can escalate bad feeling.

I'd not have responded at all.

sparebulb
11-08-2007, 08:34 PM
I think there should be a choice to an extent, but there should be some kind of standards that everyone adheres to.

I tend to agree, in principle, but the standards can and would force a homeschool curriculum that some would find objectionable.

Plus, when has the state ever been able to enforce minimum standards in public schools? All schools are different and people need to be able to find an alternative if that is their choice. "No child left behind" made for a winning slogan in 2000. The reality of it is much different.

I think that, numerically, it is far easier to find failures from the public schools than failures from homeschooling. JMO

freedominnumbers
11-08-2007, 08:34 PM
I think there should be a choice to an extent, but there should be some kind of standards that everyone adheres to.

There's the problem. Who sets the standards? It's clearly evidenced that on the Federal, State and local levels the public education system has failed to set or maintain any reasonable standard of achievement.

The problem with that logic is that you assume you (or your elected/appointed government agent) knows what is going to serve every child best throughout their life and you force your assumptions on every child.

cjhowe
11-08-2007, 08:51 PM
If you wish to take the time to sway your friend, you must always seek first to understand then seek to be understood. Believe it or not, most people actually prefer federalist solutions. Allow your friend to draw their utopian picture, understand what they're wanting from government and then show them how it's better implemented at the local level. Once you've talked someone off the ledge of having the federal government solving the problem, it's easier to talk them into the market solving many problems.

gtjwkq
11-08-2007, 08:51 PM
Some people have their heads so full of statist misinformation, they're not receptive to Ron Paul's message. It's not that it's not worth arguing with them, it's just that it would take such a monumental effort to reeducate their preconceptions, that you're better off using your time more productively, talking to people who can be more easily swayed. Elections are a numbers game. The challenge is tempting though.

When I'm playing online games, and people shoot their mouths about Ron Paul with something hateful, I just say, "whatever man, I'm just here to play a game". If they're curious about RP however, I gladly find the time to talk politics and direct them to RonPaul2008.com :)

Birdlady
11-08-2007, 08:57 PM
He pressed "reply all" !!

I just found out that the guy replied to everyone that I sent the email to! lol..

I hadn't noticed until one of my other buddies asked me who the asshole was that responded to my email lol...

So I replied all, and cut and pasted my original reply to his email...lol

What a tard..

Haha that makes him look even worse in my opinion =D

And I wanted to give a little in put on homeschooling. When or if I have children they will be home schooled.

I will not dare put them into a school where they are treated like prisoners. Kids are video taped in the bathrooms, forced to give random drug tests, forced to be searched with metal detectors and have their lockers searched on a weekly basis by drug dogs. That is ridiculous and not conducive to a learning environment. Public school is meant to brainwash children and get them into the mindset of being an employee. Also teachers try to tell you that your child needs to put placed on Ritalin if they act out in school or that you must vaccinate when there is no law saying you must, but that branches off into another slew of problems...

I would get a 2nd mortgage on my house and get 3 extra jobs to pay for homeschooling tutors. That's how serious this topic is to me.

SeanEdwards
11-08-2007, 08:59 PM
Well your friend has a point. Ron Paul's stance on education is pretty ridiculous. Home schooling is a horrible idea to support. And leaving it completely up to the states is also not very good. For example, you'll have a bunch of states, like Kansas, teaching superstition in science classes. Do we really want that, when we are already so far behind a lot of other countries on education?

Ron Paul's stance on education is brilliant and based on the constitution.

If the parents of Kansas want to teach voodoo to their children, what business is it of yours? What makes you think you have a right to overrule the wishes of the parents in regards to how their children are raised? Sounds like some of that "it takes a village" bullcrap that Hillary is peddling.

runderwo
11-08-2007, 09:02 PM
Well your friend has a point. Ron Paul's stance on education is pretty ridiculous. Home schooling is a horrible idea to support. And leaving it completely up to the states is also not very good. For example, you'll have a bunch of states, like Kansas, teaching superstition in science classes. Do we really want that, when we are already so far behind a lot of other countries on education?

That is up to Kansas. It is not up to the federal government to engineer society from the top down by selectively withholding the returning of funding that it has pre-emptively stolen from the states. And the Department of Education didn't stop the Kansas school board from promoting superstition anyway...

runderwo
11-08-2007, 09:06 PM
OP, the thing is, your "friend" is so lost in how smart he sounds to himself, he is completely missing the boat. Ask him if he would vote for someone who voted for the Iraq War, PATRIOT Act, domestic spying, Gitmo without a trial for US citizens, and jailing state-legal medical marijuana users. Then demonstrate how his obvious "no" answer thins the Republican field to one person, and possibly the entire Presidential field to three people. Nothing else matters because those issues of executive power and Constitutional law trump EVERYTHING else. Doesn't matter if you're a socialist or not.

PrimarilyPaul
11-08-2007, 09:44 PM
Tell him Howard Dean wasn't pushing people to register Republican and vote in the primary like I am

http://www.primarilypaul.com/register

slantedview
11-08-2007, 09:47 PM
Then he claims proudly to be the sponsor of unconstitutional legislation, even though he also claims to want government to return to its proper constitutional levels.

What legislation is he talking about?

AlexK
11-08-2007, 10:42 PM
That is up to Kansas.


I know. My point is that it shouldn't be.


And the Department of Education didn't stop the Kansas school board from promoting superstition anyway...

It should've.



It is not up to the federal government to engineer society from the top down by selectively withholding the returning of funding that it has pre-emptively stolen from the states.


It should be done differently, but leaving it completely up to the states isn't the answer. I don't see how that would help our education situation at all.




If the parents of Kansas want to teach voodoo to their children, what business is it of yours?

Because last time I checked, we still all live in one country, and I don't want there to be a whole new generation of morons. Parents have a right to teach their kids voodoo, but a kid should'be be allowed to get a high school diploma without having a proper education in math, english, science, etc.

Mark Rushmore
11-08-2007, 10:49 PM
Because last time I checked, we still all live in one country, and I don't want there to be a whole new generation of morons.

Yeah, everyone can see how well our education system prevented the current generation of morons :confused:.

AlexK
11-08-2007, 11:05 PM
Yeah, everyone can see how well our education system prevented the current generation of morons :confused:.


Like I said, I think there should be education reform, but leaving it to the states and forgetting about it isn't going to do any good.

Roxi
11-08-2007, 11:20 PM
Home schooling is a horrible idea to support.



what is your basis for saying this? were you homeschooled? do you have siblings or friends that were?

Home schooling, if done for educational reasons and not laziness, is a GREAT thing to support, and those of us involved in homeschooling need people like Ron Paul to advocate it. Homeschooling has a horrible stigma that children don't get the socialization necessary to maintain quality social friendships into adult hood, but this is a fear based on ignorance. Most people fail to research and don't realize that A GREAT majority of homeschooled kids go everyday to socialize with other homeschooled kids. We had sports teams, cheerleading, debate, chess, drama, photo club, sign language, swimming, track.... i could keep going. The list of extra curricular activities we had the choices to participate in were WAY longer than those of public schools.

In a lot of areas the public school system is worse than horrible. schools are broke, and over ruled by the Fed. even if you want to donate money to them you can't donate it to the areas that you want. you have to donate it to a general fund not just to one project.

Im just curious as to what makes you think homeschooling is a horrible thing to support?

AlexK
11-10-2007, 03:36 AM
what is your basis for saying this?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhXKXQeLYKc

randy9294
11-10-2007, 04:13 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhXKXQeLYKc

And you think that this one kid is representative of all homeschooled children? Wow.

steph3n
11-10-2007, 04:41 AM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhXKXQeLYKc

Hello Alex,

I am not sure where you are but if you are anywhere near TX or FL let me know and we can visit :)

I am very proudly homeschooled. (also some private and public as well)

I will talk to you any day, or anyone else for that matter, I have no social problems at all except that maybe work too much, but that seems to be a trait of us as a country and not homeschoolers.

I am soon hoping to start public speaking, one thing that has long been a "fear" of mine, not because I can't speak, more just because I finally have the right motives to do so.

Our country is ripe for and NEEDS education reform. I was pulled from public school when my english teacher COULD NOT read. Maybe saying could not is a stretch, it was about a 2-3rd grade reading level that she had at the time, clearly not english teacher material.

In today's education they are more and more simply teaching a test. In the end most of these tests with the exception of the math are simply reading comprehension tests where you have a paragraph or an essay and answer questions on it. I am not against reading comprehension, I just feel this is the worst way to actually LEARN anything that will promote a life of continual learning which one requires to succeed in today's world. Some naturally learn this on their own, but many do not learn this in time to be an educated voter, worker, leader, or anything but a blind follower of those that learn.

One does not learn to learn and self educate by reading an essay and answering on it, instead one learns by self discovery to an end goal. I will be expanding on this in the coming years as our system of education now is so lost it can not find its way back through government mandate. It will take a strong grassroots effort to take back education as well as politics.

Proudly homeschooled.

Corydoras
11-10-2007, 08:29 AM
Alex, I was looking at your old posts. I was struck by how little positive you seem to have to say about Ron Paul and his supporters. Just curious, for what reasons are you backing Ron Paul?

walt
11-10-2007, 09:12 AM
get new friends :)

ionlyknowy
11-11-2007, 01:41 PM
He finally responded to my email.....here is what he said

-------------------------------------
Whoops! I mistakenly hit Reply to All and typed away!

No, I'm not upset or anything. I pretty much thought everyone in our little group knew that I worked for the Kerry Edwards campaign in 2004. So I was like...why would anyone think I would be responsive to this? For the record, I do like what Ron Paul has to say on a few issues, and his generally libertarian slant. I like that he's against the war. However, on the whole package, I'm far from sold.

I suppose only the future will tell whether or not Mr. Paul has what it takes to unseat more entrenched candidates in the Republican primaries, but even as someone who blatantly dislikes Republicans, I'm not sure he's a legitimate contender in the election just yet. However, I may be wrong, and maybe his unique approach to politics will be able to sway enough Republicans to vote for him so that more well known people like Giuliani, McCain and others will be knocked out of the way.

Again, didn't think that last thing would be taken as offensive and didn't mean to send it to the whole list!

Peace!

------------------------------------------

Then he wrote back the next day with this....

-------------------------------------------
As for the Constitutionality issue:

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v. Wade..."

For decades, Roe has withstood constitutional scrutiny, even under a conservative court. Whether it stands or not is a question of time. It's possible that the Court will overturn Roe in the future, though I think that because of stare decisis it will probably stand intact, at least as far as its central holding goes. I don't believe that Article I gives Congress the power to overturn the Supreme Court except by Constitutional amendment. Whatever his belief and whatever his cause, I find nothing impressive about a Presidential candidate bragging about his disrespect for Constitutional precedent. It is reminiscent of the Civil Rights era where states all over the South passed Jim Crow laws, because they didn't want to follow the Civil Rights acts, and Congress had to keep passing act after act after act to make that generation treat people equally.

He's got his views, and I've got mine, but even with different views on the same thing, someone in our government should have respect for process. If he want to end what he considers to be an immoral practice by getting a Constitutional amendment on the subject of abortion, that is at least a respectable attempt to follow process. Instead, he seems to support the much dirtier approach - try to get passed general legislation that will circumvent individual rights granted under Roe.

For home school:

Nothing is wrong with home school. But for the infinitesimally small percentage of the American population that attends home school, it seems odd that a candidate for President takes an entirely separate tab in the "Issues" section on his website to discuss the issue of homeschooling.

"My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate."

You know why it's unmatched? Because nobody cares. It's not a significant issue. Go to Giuliani's website. Do you think that he's going to waste valuable face-space discussing homeschooling? The Department of Education says that 1.7% of the children in America are home schooled. And 82% of those children still attend public schools. So...basically...that brings it down to less than half a percent of kids that are actually home schooled.

My interpretation is that he's not talking about anything else because he's got nothing to say. Instead, he's got some home schooling organization to sponsor him and just throws it out there. It's kind of silly. He's vying for major party candidacy, he should at least try to look like he wants that spot.

Then there's the "American Sovereignty"

He's perpetuating popular ignorance here to people who don't know anything about international legal structures. There's no transfer of our power to unelected foreign elites, like Mr.Paul claims. But if you tell that to uneducated conservatives who are ignorant of the extremely limited international order that we've got today, they'll get riled up and vote for him. Or maybe he's just ignorant himself and believes that. Here's a quote from his website:

"The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals." Ok, Ron. I'll buy that. So even if the soldiers who have "misbehaved" (rape of underaged civilians, killing unarmed female and male civilians) shouldn't be tried as war criminals but celebrated at home as heroes, the ICC would first have to have jurisdiction over us to try them, right? Do they? How about this:

The United States is not party to the International Criminal Court. We signed the Rome Statute (which established said entity) but never ratified it. So we're not party to it! But Ron Paul makes them out to be a big bad international bully that is two inches away from taking our soldiers and actually holding them liable for their crimes (which is obviously not cool).

Another thing: Guess who wrote the Rome Statute? Us. The United States of America. We wrote it, but we never enrolled.

So I'm left with two conclusions:
- Ron Paul knows these things, and is trying to lie and mislead the American people
- Ron Paul is ignorant, and talks about things that he doesn't know about.

So for both of those...I'm less than impressed.
We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?

Goldwater Conservative
11-11-2007, 02:11 PM
Honestly, your friend comes across as an uppity jerk. And his facts are wrong, most noticeably regarding HR 300 (We the People Act), which simply limits jurisdiction for federal courts, a power that is 100% constitutional (seriously, read Article 3 Section 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Se ction_2:_Federal_jurisdiction_and_trial_by_jury)), unlike many of the social programs I'm sure your friend supports.

And if Ron Paul wants to address homeschooling, I don't see what the problem is. Even if it only affects 1.7% of Americans, they're still Americans. Better than Rudy Giuliani touting the national security "credentials" he "earned" on 9/11.

As for American sovereignty, well, it's no secret that there are many people in high-ranking government positions, various influential think tanks, etc., who are pushing for a greater integration of North America, among other "free trade" goals. Aside from one president and two-third of the senators that vote on it, the people will have no say, and then we'll all have quotas, trade restrictions, and even case law foisted upon us as a result (it's happening in the EU)... and then there's the common (single?) currency.

Convert
11-11-2007, 02:16 PM
ionlyknowly, I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. I supported Kerry/Edwards in 2004. Not because I loved Kerry (I just disliked Bush/Cheney and hated their war of aggression). I'll tell you what lured me into the Paul camp (for your emails to Democrats in the future lol).

Number 1 - He is the only candidate who has the courage to state the war is unconstitutional and that he would immediately end it. The Democratic candidates are afraid of being called Doves. Hillary won't even commit to having our military home by the END of her first term.

Number 2 - I believe he will restore habeas corpus and revoke the Patriot Act and other administration power grabs that have gone on these past 6 years, and the pendulum will swing in the direction of liberty (it's swinging in a fascist direction right now).

Number 3 - I admire the man's integrity and statesmanship. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. I don't think we can go wrong by electing a man with such integrity, even if I don't agree with every little thing.

I could come up with more points, but those are the biggies.

TAWAY07
11-11-2007, 02:44 PM
Re: Roe v. Wade and all other traditional liberal issues (including home school) all Ron is saying is that these issues were traditionally meant to be state issues (you know where there is more political accountability). That is good for everyone! In very conservative states, abortion may have limitations (it would be up to state courts and legislature). If you don't like it you can remove your state politicians. In more liberal states like CA, we will never have limitations on abortion. All RP is saying is localize it! That was the premise of our early political structure: break things down to the local level, and democracy works better.

Also, how would he change the current structure? Obviously he isn't going to overturn Roe v. Wade, abolish the IRS, etc, BUT he can move in that direction by building support for issues with congress and appointing like minded federal judges -- the same things the other candidates would do. If liberals want to save abortion rights, RP is still a good choice because, unlike other conservatives, he doesn't want to enforce a single national agenda (pro choice or life) on the entire country.

ionlyknowy
11-11-2007, 04:03 PM
B]My response[/B]
---------------------------------------

Here is a description of the HR300 legislation.

HR300 (2007:110th Congress) - "We the People Act"
"To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."
Summary: This bill would prevent the Supreme Court of the United States and all federal courts from ruling on (following text quoted vertatim):
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation;
This would prevent laws passed by state legislatures on the subject of gay marriage, abortion, school prayer, and many other subjects from being declared unconstitutional by federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

In addition, this bill would prevent state courts from "rely[ing] on any judicial decision involving any issue" referred to in the previous section. This would immediately make all previous federal court decisions involving these subjects inapplicable to state laws, such as Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, Epperson v. Arkansas, or Engel v. Vitale.

Here is the speech Ron Paul gave, introducing the HR300 legislation. Reading this is a good way to find out the reasons behind a piece of legislation.

SPEECH OF_
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FRIDAY, JANUARY 5, 2007

 Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the We the People Act. The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning state laws and polices relating to religious liberties or ``privacy,'' including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the president, according to rules established by the Congress.
 The United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish and limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Founders intended Congress to use this authority to correct abuses of power by the federal judiciary.
 Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this claim overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the federal government over the states.
 In recent years, we have seen numerous abuses of power by Federal courts. Federal judges regularly strike down state and local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This government by Federal judiciary causes a virtual nullification of the Tenth Amendment's limitations on federal power. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred polices on state and local governments, instead of respecting the polices adopted by those elected by, and thus accountable
[Page: E33] GPO's PDF
 to, the people, republican government is threatened. Article IV, section 4 of the Untied States Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. Thus, Congress must act when the executive or judicial branch threatens the republican governments of the individual states. Therefore, Congress has a responsibility to stop Federal judges from running roughshod over state and local laws. The Founders would certainly have supported congressional action to reign in Federal judges who tell citizens where they can and can't place manger scenes at Christmas.
 Madam Speaker, even some supporters of liberalized abortion laws have admitted that the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, which overturned the abortion laws of all fifty states, is flawed. The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisdiction has also drawn criticism from across the political spectrum. Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious belief in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial social issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of state and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions. I would remind my colleagues and the federal judiciary that, under our Constitutional system, there is no reason why the people of New York and the people of Texas should have the same policies regarding issues such as marriage and school prayer.
 Unless Congress acts, a state's authority to define and regulate marriage may be the next victim of activist judges. After all, such a decision would simply take the Supreme Court's decision in the Lawrence case, which overturned all state sodomy laws, to its logical conclusion. Congress must launch a preemptive strike against any further federal usurpation of the states' authority to regulate marriage by removing issues concerning the definition of marriage from the jurisdiction of federal courts.
 Although marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did not create the institution of marriage. Government regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil institutions, such as churches and synagogues. Having federal officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new definition of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty.
 It is long past time that Congress exercises its authority to protect the republican government of the states from out-of-control federal judges. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the We the People Act.


As for homeschooling:

That is what is so great about Ron Paul. He doesn’t cater only to issues, which garner a large percentage of votes. He actually feels strongly about it, that’s it. The media has constantly reported on how Ron cannot be “bought” meaning he is not and will not be persuaded to follow a companies interests when they give him money for his campaign. Ron’s funding has been from individuals giving online. In the latest fundraising news, he raised $4.3 million in one day, with 37,000 contributors. That is $116/person.

American Sovereignty:

Have you looked up the North American Union yet? Or the Amero? These are real things that are really happening, and it IS the global elites that are responsible. This is fact. But not well known fact.

As for the ICC.
The U.S. government publicly supported the establishment of an ICC and on procedural issues the U.S. delegation made important contributions. However, the Clinton Administration categorically opposed a court that could indict U.S. citizens without prior U.S. approval and its representatives insisted on ironclad guarantees to preclude that possibility regardless of the impact on the ICC’s effectiveness and credibility.

On June 15, 1998, diplomats from around the world will assemble in Rome to finalize a treaty that will establish an International Criminal Court (ICC). A key issue is the role of the U.S. government in these negotiations and its apparent effort to ensure that actions of U.S. citizens, particularly U.S. military personnel, will always remain beyond the conceivable reach of such a court.

So yes we did support the idea of an ICC. And I do agree with you on this. The soldiers that are responsible for raping and killing innocent civilians, with intent to do so, should be tried as a war criminal.

It seems to me, that Paul supports opposition to the ICC because he does not support global treaties or organizations. He feels that such global organizations like the UN are a threat to our sovereignty.

In your last sentence you say this “We've already got Bush who lied to us, who mislead us, and is ignorant. Do we really need another one?”

Everyone is touting Ron’s integrity and honesty. Actually, that is why many people that do not agree with every position he states are voting for him. Honest principled integrity. Don’t believe me? Even the Daily Show knows this… “you seem to have consistent principled integrity”
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/videos/2007-06-04-daily-show/

Definition of integrity: Adherence to a code of values; utter sincerity, honesty, candor; completeness


Here is a comment from one of my friends that is also a Democrat.

“I have been a libertarian-leaning Democrat all my adult life. What lured me into the Paul camp:

Number 1 - He is the only candidate who has the courage to state the war is unconstitutional and that he would immediately end it. The Democratic candidates are afraid of being called Doves. Hillary won't even commit to having our military home by the END of her first term.

Number 2 - I believe he will restore habeas corpus and revoke the Patriot Act and other administration power grabs that have gone on these past 6 years, and the pendulum will swing in the direction of liberty (it's swinging in a fascist direction right now).

Number 3 - I admire the man's integrity and statesmanship. He walks the walk, doesn't just talk the talk. I don't think we can go wrong by electing a man with such integrity, even if I don't agree with every little thing.”


I just think that many people just haven’t taken the time to understand Ron Paul.

ionlyknowy
11-11-2007, 05:09 PM
bumpp