Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

A Doubt About Ron Paul

I'm concerned to hear that he did not vote to Impeach Cheney last week. I would have preferred that he take that route, but he appears to have "played it safe" in the way that politicians do. I wondered how far he would take it.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Nov. 12th, 2007 11:47 pm (UTC)
As Ron Paul explained, he voted it to the committee becuase not formal review had been done ... voting for impeachment without having all your ducks in a row sets a alarming precedent .. something that goes against the grain of Dr. Paul's conservative and constitution approach
Nov. 13th, 2007 01:11 am (UTC)
Nov. 12th, 2007 11:52 pm (UTC)
This summary of Mr Paul's legislative history might be worth a reading:

Nov. 13th, 2007 12:55 am (UTC)
I decidedly do not like Ron Paul after reading about his positions on most of the items he has listed on his website, including a woman's right to make decisions regarding her body, his positions on immigration, his desire to cut the U.S. off from the rest of the world, and his views on gun ownership.

I like his positions on health freedom and the patriot act, but those don't weigh heavily enough against the other things to get my vote.
Nov. 13th, 2007 01:16 am (UTC)
I know that he is against abortion--which isn't really a surprise since he was an obstetrician before this political gig. As for "cutting off" the US from the rest of the world, that is a very broad statement that is in parts true and in other parts untrue. What was it about his immigration stance that you didn't like? Is there an immigration platform that you can support? I find it a difficult question and lean more toward closing the borders as time passes.
Nov. 13th, 2007 01:58 pm (UTC)
I agree "cutting off" is broad but that was how I felt after reading that he is opposed to opening the borders with Canada and Mexico, and wants to retreat from the U.N.

With the immigration issues:

Physically secure the border and coastlines - how does he plan to do this? It would be a massive expense, and I picture our military being moved from their posts around the world to stand guard at the borders... since he said he plans to remove all military from foreign posts. What will he do with all of them?

Track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law - Again, how else could this be done unless he uses the military or another massive police force to track these people down?

No amnesty - how will we track down 20 million people?

I agree with his other two immigration positions to end birthright citizenship and pass true immigration reform - but I think it needs to be done from this point forward. The things listed above fit in again with cutting us off from the rest of the world. Somehow after reading about his positions on issues I visualized our country being patrolled by our own military, going into people's homes to find illegals, and patrolling our borders. It gave me the creeps and I envisioned living in a police state.

One thing I DO like about Ron Paul is that he doesn't beat around the bush. He tells you exactly where he stands on issues and what he plans to do. I find the other candidates to be more vague on their websites, but I lean toward Obama's positions on the immigration issue.

Nov. 13th, 2007 11:03 pm (UTC)
I hear you. Ron Paul would immediately end our military presence around the world, and he would keep our borders more secure than they are currently. He is in favor of communications and trade among nations, so in that sense we would not be cut off.

I think you answered your own question about border control: by removing our military staff from around the world we would have the staff needed to secure our borders and have money left over, relative to current expenditures. Tracking visa holders is something we are already supposed to be doing. And extradition of illegals as they become apparent (get arrested, etc), rather than ignoring them, would save us a lot more money than continuing to ignore them. If our government were not so inept, it would not have to be a large/expensive program to find the illegals.

I am certain that Ron Paul would not create more of a police state than we have already. Our police would be required to respect the law of the land more than they currently do. Back to illegals, when they are permitted to stay and reproduce in our nation we have a continued expansion of our neediest population segment that does not pay taxes, and that drags down the general standard of living. White folks can do manual labor too, and will want to when there is no other work available...

I like that RP is direct, too. I wish Obama would come on out and pin himself down instead of squirming around as much as he does. He's a constitutional scholar. He knows the law.
Nov. 13th, 2007 01:28 am (UTC)
here's the story The Pen told
The Pen is at <democracy@peaceteam.net>

On Nov. 6, 2007, Dennis Kucinich brought a privileged resolution
calling for the impeachment of Vice President Cheney, based on just a couple of Cheney's constitutional high crimes. And for two hours the House of Representatives was tied up in knots trying to figure out how to try to shut him up.

In their contempt for the people, the Republicans committed the
colossal tactical blunder of trying to mock the momentous occasion. When the Democratic so-called leadership tried to table the Kucinich resolution, as we expected them to do, the Republican big shots suddenly directed their underlings to change their votes, to start voting AGAINST the motion to table, thereby forcing the very vote Kucinich sought.

The entire House of Representatives was thrown into a turmoil. It was high drama as the motion to table suddenly was being rejected numerically, with Republican help. The scheduled 15 minute vote extended into two hours, with nobody in a leadership position knowing how to deal with the crisis of one man standing up and speaking the truth. And did you hear about this incredible drama on your cable TV? No you did not.

Now the defeatists out there, and we know they are out there, will
try to tell you that because the impeachment resolution was
ultimately sent to the Judiciary Committee that nothing more will
happen. That's like saying because the indictment was given to a
judge and a prosecutor, that will be the end of it. But whatever the vain intent of certain so-called Congressional leaders, the Judiciary Committee is exactly where we want the resolution, for that is where the actual impeachment articles must emerge from.

Look at what's actually happening, and not what the right wing
spinners are trying to tell you is happening. Progressive talk
personalities are calling for action all over the dial. They are
giving out toll free congressional phone numbers and calling on their listeners to now put real pressure on the Judiciary Committee. This is happening only because your voices forced the issue in the first place, by calling those shows and talking about impeachment and the necessity for it.

Look at what's actually happening. Members of the House are being forced to justify why they have not yet acted to defend and protect the Constitution. And their lame and pathetic excuses are exposing just how poorly represented the people of the United States are. More people are realizing that their voices do count, and that Congress has no answer to defend their failure to do their sacred constitutional duty.

It is only because of the impeachment movement that attention is
being focused on Cheney's insane fixation on bombing Iran and
starting the last World War of them all. It is only your voices that
can stop the secret march to Armageddon, as they make up new lies to sucker the American people into yet another, and even more monumental, military debacle.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )



Latest Month

September 2022



Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by chasethestars