[PeterParker]

See my other thread on the "Republitarian" Movement for the political philosophies. See this thread, http://flamefans.com/forums/posting.php, for a primer on the terms and the RLC.


I broke this into a separate thread to specifically discuss the candidate Ron Paul who is a Libertarian, a member of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who is in Congress as a Republican and recently participated in the Republican Presidential Candidates Debates. As I am still learning about this guy, I have not come to a conclusion on my yea or nay support, but I am definitely intrigued from what I've read so far. This is what I've been able to dig up thus far.

Dr. Ron Paul (R) Texas


1. http://www.house.gov/paul/ Ron Paul Website


2. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Presidential run site.


3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul Get to know Ron Paul wiki style.


4. http://www.ronpaul.org/ More info.


5. http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu ... d=70183124
Get to know Ron Paul for the Gen X, Y and Millenials.


6. http://electronpaul.blogspot.com/ Blog about Ron Paul


7. http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html A view from Ron Paul:

The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders’ political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs. Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.



8. http://digg.com/search?s=Ron+Paul Those who've "dug" Ron Paul

**I am curious how the good ol' baptist boy network has not "found" their guy out of the available options after reading what this guy has to say (ok the war banter will be an issue for some due to their own soundbites about it), even if it pains them to have to move away from most of the bought politicians that comprise both the Democrat and Republican parties these days. Before you fashion a preconceived opinion, read some of this stuff I've unconvered about this guy over the last week and free free to add what you may find. (BTW, this is a thinking man's exercise not an excuse for flaming, simply a call to re-evaluate your own automatic allegiances due to habit and really hold them up to the light for a good exercise in re-examination.)

[Sly Fox]

The reason many folks aren't getting on board with Paul is because many leaders know what we Texans already realize, Ron Paul is a weirdo. As someone who has interviewed him a number of times and been represented by him in Congress, I think he can best be described as a strange dude. So no matter how strong people may feel about his ideas the powers that be don't consider him electable because his odd personality would draw negative attention once he was publicized. That's just my two cents worth.

[PeterParker]

So, if I read you correctly, then "video killed the political star?"

So aside from his alleged odd, weirdo personality, what about his views? Upon a quick perusal of some of his points, it appears, at least initially, that a lot of what he says makes rational sense on its own merit in text apart from any so-called personality quirks.

[Sly Fox]

Yeah I generally don't have many problems with his political agenda. Although he's sometimes a bit too Libertarian for my tastes in regard to foreign policy. But its all a matter of personal opinion.

[PeterParker]

Interesting points.


After a little more digging I came across this article; should create further interesting discussion:

1. http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance109.html

In the typical presidential election, conservative Christians who have some understanding of the benefits of liberty and limited government and don’t blindly follow the Republican Party do one of three things: they don’t vote, they "waste" their vote on a third party, or else they hold their nose, close their eyes, stop their ears, and fight a gag reflex as they vote for the Republican candidate because they consider him to be the lesser of two evils. But most of these Christians have short memories, for when the lesser evil turns out to be just as evil as the greater evil, or sometimes even worse, they generally repeat the process all over again.

The newest individual to announce that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president is Ron Paul. He formally declared his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on March 12, 2007, when he appeared as a guest on C-SPAN.

Ron Paul is a veteran. He is a physician. He currently represents the 14th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives, a seat which he has held since 1997. He previously represented Texas’s 22nd district in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985. Dr. Paul was the Libertarian Party nominee for president in 1988. He is the former honorary chair of the Republican Liberty Caucus. He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine’s "Conservative Index." He has received many awards and honors during his career in Congress from organizations such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

But will he be the candidate of the Christian Right? By the Christian Right’s own criteria, their candidate ought to be Ron Paul....

[click the link above to learn the criteria of Ron Paul]

....But even though he appears to live up to the usual criteria of the Christian Right, the question still remains: Will Ron Paul be the candidate of the Christian Right?

As a Christian, I admire Dr. Paul’s principled stand on many issues, but I don’t believe the leadership of the Christian Right will embrace him. I think they love centralization more than federalism. I think they love political power more than liberty. I think they love war more than peace. I think they love politicians more than principles. I think they love faith-based socialism more than the free market. And I think they love the state more than God Almighty.

2. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/html/AboutRon_fx.html Some snippits from bio:

Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record....

....Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution. In the words of former Treasury Secretary William Simon, Dr. Paul is the "one exception to the Gang of 535" on Capitol Hill....

....While serving in Congress during the late 1970s and early 1980s, Dr. Paul's limited-government ideals were not popular in Washington. In 1976, he was one of only four Republican congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president....

....He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels....

....Congressman Paul’s consistent voting record prompted one of his congressional colleagues to say, “Ron Paul personifies the Founding Fathers' ideal of the citizen-statesman. He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are." Another colleague observed, "There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few."

[RubberMallet]

i'm just voting for romney

mormon, christianity...same difference

[RagingTireFire]

i'm just voting for romney

mormon, christianity...same difference

I can't vote for Romney. He's the Republican (flip) John (flop) Kerry. Ditto for McCain.

[Rocketfan]

i'm just voting for romney

mormon, christianity...same difference

So how many wives do you have?

[kel varson]

i'm just voting for romney

mormon, christianity...same difference

[kel varson]

There really are some stand up Republican candidates, unfortunately most of them are unelectable. All the front runners in my opinion are as wishy washy as they come. The one guy who I like the best (among the spineless) is probably Giuliani, but he, of course, is anti-life. I think Rudy would be great on the war on terror and if it comes down to it, he may be the best choice we have and likely the only choice who will beat Mrs. Clinton.

These are my favorites, but like I said, they may be un-electable.

Sam Brownback, Tom Tancredo, and Mike Huckabee.

[El Scorcho]

After the last two elections, I decided I'm no longer compromising. I don't care if my vote is the one that puts Hillary Clinton in office. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of any number of evils. I'm voting for a candidate that supports causes I believe are worth supporting and the rest of them can kiss it. The Republican party had 6 years of unopposed governmental control and they didn't do anything in that time (save the appointment of justices who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion) to justify me voting for them again. In fact, they did many many things that made me feel completely betrayed. Then, on the left, the Democrats act like that girlfriend who only cares about how other people see you rather than who you really are. They want the United States to be just like the European Union. They basically want to sit at the cool table in the cafeteria. I have no interest in that. The Libertarians are anti-life and pro-legalization or they'd get a vote from me. The Constitution party essentially wants a government reminiscent of the Taliban, so I can't support them either.

When I find someone who says the support what I support, and they don't have a record of flip-flopping, I'll cast a vote. Until then, consider me disenfranchised.

[kel varson]

After the last two elections, I decided I'm no longer compromising. I don't care if my vote is the one that puts Hillary Clinton in office. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of any number of evils. I'm voting for a candidate that supports causes I believe are worth supporting and the rest of them can kiss it. The Republican party had 6 years of unopposed governmental control and they didn't do anything in that time (save the appointment of justices who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion) to justify me voting for them again. In fact, they did many many things that made me feel completely betrayed. Then, on the left, the Democrats act like that girlfriend who only cares about how other people see you rather than who you really are. They want the United States to be just like the European Union. They basically want to sit at the cool table in the cafeteria. I have no interest in that. The Libertarians are anti-life and pro-legalization or they'd get a vote from me. The Constitution party essentially wants a government reminiscent of the Taliban, so I can't support them either.

When I find someone who says the support what I support, and they don't have a record of flip-flopping, I'll cast a vote. Until then, consider me disenfranchised.

So do you like either Tancredo or Brownback? They seem to be less on the flip-flopping side.

[PeterParker]

After the last two elections, I decided I'm no longer compromising. I don't care if my vote is the one that puts Hillary Clinton in office. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of any number of evils. I'm voting for a candidate that supports causes I believe are worth supporting and the rest of them can kiss it. The Republican party had 6 years of unopposed governmental control and they didn't do anything in that time (save the appointment of justices who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion) to justify me voting for them again. In fact, they did many many things that made me feel completely betrayed. Then, on the left, the Democrats act like that girlfriend who only cares about how other people see you rather than who you really are. They want the United States to be just like the European Union. They basically want to sit at the cool table in the cafeteria. I have no interest in that. The Libertarians are anti-life and pro-legalization or they'd get a vote from me. The Constitution party essentially wants a government reminiscent of the Taliban, so I can't support them either.

When I find someone who says the support what I support, and they don't have a record of flip-flopping, I'll cast a vote. Until then, consider me disenfranchised.

So do you like either Tancredo or Brownback? They seem to be less on the flip-flopping side.

Weirdo or off-kilter personality aside (as proposed by Sly), here are the criteria of the R. Paul dude (for the link impaired) and he is also opposed to the national ID card, police state, etc.

It may just be me, but it seems at face value that these are right up the Faith Based voter's alley. But what do I know, I just post on Flamefans.

1. Ron Paul is a man of faith. He is a Protestant Christian and a regular churchgoer.

2. Ron Paul is pro-life. As a specialist in obstetrics/gynecology, he has delivered more than 4,000 babies. Dr. Paul is not just an opponent of partial-birth abortion; he is an opponent of abortion itself. He is also opposed to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

3. Ron Paul is a believer in family values. Unlike many Christian "leaders" and Republican politicians who have admitted to adulterous affairs and/or been married multiple times, Dr. Paul has been married to the same woman for fifty years. He and his wife have been blessed with five children and seventeen grandchildren.

4. Ron Paul is opposed to same-sex marriage.

5. Ron Paul is a patriot....He opposes federal court jurisdiction over the question of whether the phrase "under God" should be included in the pledge of allegiance.

6. Ron Paul is opposed to unrestricted immigration.

7. Ron Paul is opposed to gun control...Not only does he believe that gun control makes people demonstrably less safe, he also thinks it’s a myth that gun control reduces crime.

8. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist...He never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

9. Ron Paul is opposed to the United Nations. Dr. Paul is against any kind of world government or new world order.

10. He strongly supports private property rights. He believes that government exists to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens.

>Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

1. He has never voted to raise taxes.
2. He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
3. He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

4. He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
5. He has never taken a government-paid junket.
6. He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

7. He voted against the Patriot Act.
8. He voted against regulating the Internet.
9. He voted against the Iraq war.

10. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
11. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

[ATrain]

Sometimes I wish I had a "None of the Above" on the ballot b/c I really don't like anyone who's running. I wish Mark Warner would run, I'd vote him even though he is a Democrat...maybe I'll just write him in, lol.

[El Scorcho]

Mark Warner is from Connecticut.

[ATrain]

Mark Warner is from Connecticut.

oh well...no one's perfect

[LUconn]

[RubberMallet]

After the last two elections, I decided I'm no longer compromising. I don't care if my vote is the one that puts Hillary Clinton in office. I'm no longer voting for the lesser of any number of evils. I'm voting for a candidate that supports causes I believe are worth supporting and the rest of them can kiss it. The Republican party had 6 years of unopposed governmental control and they didn't do anything in that time (save the appointment of justices who upheld the ban on partial birth abortion) to justify me voting for them again. In fact, they did many many things that made me feel completely betrayed. Then, on the left, the Democrats act like that girlfriend who only cares about how other people see you rather than who you really are. They want the United States to be just like the European Union. They basically want to sit at the cool table in the cafeteria. I have no interest in that. The Libertarians are anti-life and pro-legalization or they'd get a vote from me. The Constitution party essentially wants a government reminiscent of the Taliban, so I can't support them either.

When I find someone who says the support what I support, and they don't have a record of flip-flopping, I'll cast a vote. Until then, consider me disenfranchised.

i completely agree....

all i hear is get out and vote, get out and vote....well sorry i'm not going to vote for which retard is probably going to walk into less walls.....in 04 and 00 i didn't vote for a president because i felt either choice were nincompoops....i guess its my way of forming a protest....

unfortunately people seem to be so apathetic towards voting, my not voting goes seen as i dont care....when you wonder why less than 60% of the voting population have actually voted in the past few years...i think the majority of the 40+% don't vote because they dont' like the choices....voting just to vote is stupid....and voting just because you saw the michael moore movie of the year makes you an even bigger retard...

[ATrain]

One thing that would help would be if people realized they had more options than the Republican and Democratic candidates, and if the other minor parties would step up their spending and campaigns in order to gain attention as well. I refues to not vote b/c I believe not voting is a sin, and there are other things you can do like a write-in vote or vote for a minor party candidate.

[RubberMallet]

I refues to not vote b/c I believe not voting is a sin,

pfff ok

[SuperJon]

Explain that one.

[LUconn]

I refues to not vote b/c I believe not voting is a sin,

pfff ok

ha, I said the same thing outloud and then I read yours.

As for you 3rd party candidate guys, it's a nice idea, but if there's one thing the Dems and Pubs can agree on, it's to keep all 3rd parties out of the race. Good luck.

[ATrain]

ARGH!!! I GMTM'd

Anyway, thats just the way I feel about it...I know a lot of you disagree and thats ok, its kinda like that whole situation in Acts with the eating of the meat giving to idols.

[LUconn]

so you vote because not voting could alter the spiritual walk of a weaker brother and would therefore be a sin? I'm not sure I follow.

[ATrain]

No, not voting would make me feel really bad and could possibly alter my spiritual walk thus being a sin...thats my take on it. God gave us a great blessing by allowing us to live in a country where we can elect our leaders (at least politically-somewhat), and as such we are called to be stewards and take care of that privelege and voting is the greatest way, in my opinion, to do that.