Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I found a new candidate to endorse via write in this election. He is a Republican (well sort of) Representative from Texas of all places and I will be happy to support a Presidential bid by him in the near future. I hope he runs in 2008 (he is pushing for write-in votes this year).
Ron Paul says alot in his weekly column. Read some of them! He's cool and I have a feeling he a true representative of the desired politcal paradigm of Jefferson and our founding fathers. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/welcome.htm
He is Anti-UN, anti spending, anti tax, pro-responsibility but maintains the idea that the Governments job is to promote morality and ethics by BEING moral and ethical versus merely legislating morals. He is a vocal laisse Faire proponent and a true American. READ UP!

Ron Paul on the emboldened FCC said:
Congressional Indecency

Congress is patting itself on the back after passing legislation last week that expands the power of the Federal Communications Commission to crack down on broadcasters with heavy new $500,000 fines. Most politicians were all too eager to appease those demanding that Congress “do something” about racy Super Bowl shows and distasteful radio hosts, especially in an election year. It is clear that most members of Congress gave little thought to the legality or wisdom of the bill, caring only that they be seen as defenders of all things decent.

In doing so, Congress ignored a fundamental truth: government control over radio and television broadcasts is incompatible with a free society. FCC control of broadcast content, whether through licensing, regulations, or fines, is naked censorship that is utterly at odds with the plain words of the First Amendment. It could not be any clearer: “Congress shall make no law.”
Ron Paul on assinine spending policies said:
Spending and Lying

The Congressional Budget Office issued a sobering report last week showing that federal debt, already more than $7 trillion, will increase $2.4 trillion by the end of this decade. The single-year deficit for 2004 will be nearly $500 billion.

The federal spending frenzy of the last few years is well documented, but these latest figures have congressional Republicans and the White House scrambling to figuring out how to explain the budget mess to voters in November. Having abandoned even the limited government rhetoric of the Reagan and Gingrich years, mainstream Republicans now must attempt to out-pander the Democrats. The Medicare bill is clear evidence of this.
Ron Paul on Government and Marriage said:
Government and Marriage

If government subsidized beaches, we would have a shortage of sand.” -Ronald Reagan


The president recently announced a new program designed to promote “healthy marriages” by using welfare funds to subsidize media campaigns and feel-good relationship counseling, all courtesy of U.S. taxpayers. In fact, Mr. Bush proposes spending $1.5 billion over the next five years, all to promote an institution that flourished for centuries without state encouragement.

The irony is that an initiative aimed at promoting moral values will be funded immorally, by taxing people who may have no interest in such government folly.

The idea is not new, as politicians have talked about using government to advance marriage for decades. But federal promotion of marriage, even if well-intentioned, is a form of social engineering that should worry anyone concerned with preserving a free society. The federal government has no authority to promote or discourage any particular social arrangements; instead the Founders recognized that people should live their lives largely free of federal interference. This is not to say that the Founders intended or imagined a libertine America. On the contrary, they envisioned an America with vibrant religious, family, social, and civic institutions that would shape a moral nation. They understood that strong private institutions, so important in a free and just society, could not coexist with a strong, centralized government.
Ron Paul on a consistent Congress said:
A Wise Consistency for Liberty

Anyone who follows events in Washington quickly understands that there is no guiding philosophy behind the actions of Congress. New laws are made in a haphazard manner; new regulations are imposed on an ad hoc basis; trillions of dollars are spent without regard to whether the programs and agencies funded do any good whatsoever. Both political parties blame each other for the resulting mess, but both are guilty of an egregious lack of principle in virtually everything they do. Both parties cite the Constitution when it suits their purposes, but both regularly violate it-- particularly through legislation that exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress and tramples on states’ rights. Both support various actions by their party or president, yet strenuously oppose the same actions if taken by the other party. In short, there is no consistent guiding philosophy on Capitol Hill except political expediency. The battle in Washington is about political spoils, not ideology.

Consistency is sorely needed in Washington. A guiding philosophy of liberty, based on constitutional restraints, should be followed consistently. Without philosophical consistency, the rule of law becomes nothing more than the imperial whims of the latest gang in Congress.

Those who reject principle in favor of expediency often cite the famous quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” My own colleagues have rebuked me with this quote for my refusal to vote for some seemingly innocuous yet unconstitutional bill. But Emerson didn’t criticize consistency, he criticized foolish consistency. A wise consistency is the foundation of free society.
He is a Republican/Libertarian/Democrat... I know.. that's scary... a man who culls the best from the theoretical positions of both parties while discarding the bunko lobbied skewed bullshit of both... I'm writing him in for President this year and will work on his campaign in the 2008. http://www.paul2004.com/

Here is a list of bills he has sponsored and supported. http://www.paul2004.com/Bills/index.html

Those of you who pay attention to my rhetoric know that I don't really support any candidates and treat them all with disdain. Take my endorsement of this man for what it is, thought out, researched and heartfelt, from a position of disgust with politics as usual and the general moral malaise of all parties of late. I am not chosing him in response to what I don't want but am chosing in response to what I do want.

The only platform point of his I don't like is on human cloning, and governmental fiscal encouragement of research into sciences as a means of garaunteeing the fiscal solvency of our market system for generations to come. We can work on this though.
I don't know if he would support my ideas regarding this but they are as follows: We use tariffs to encourage US companies to produce their goods at home and use the funds generated to give back to the companies in question a percentage (75%) earmarked for R&D into projects of specific interest deemed so by the National Science Foundation, to be in the popular interest in securing long term environmental and fiscal sustainability and solvency. Such as alternative fuels, space exploitation, sub orbital power production, health initatives and cures etc... While maintaining a lassaie faire approach to the marketing sale and licensure of the said developed products AS LONG AS the production of said products occurs on US soil while employing US citizenry. Ok enough of my rhetoric. Please read and comment. :wink:

Ron Paul for President!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I'm dead serious here man. I have ideals which in the context of our current way of thinking are compromised by the fact that NONE of the availible candidates trully intend or promote actions that move us toward those goals. I am most closely described as a libertarian NOT a Democrat.

The UN is unconstitutional. So be it. I know it is but in the current context of global politics we have to pay a degree of heed to them. We need to begin divesting ourselves from them. We aren't there yet but it doesn't mean I endorse the UN! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I also don't endorse going to war for well.. just about anything. We don't need the UN because we don't NEED to be involved so heavy handedly in Global Politics. OUr interests should be home first.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
14,046 Posts
91 16V Jetta said:
He is Anti-UN, anti spending, anti tax, pro-responsibility
I think someone stole spirare's account...
Nope, that's the Spirare I've always known. You've just seen his personal hatred for Bush and you're missing his views mixed in with the anti-Bush stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,541 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Urlik said:
91 16V Jetta said:
He is Anti-UN, anti spending, anti tax, pro-responsibility
I think someone stole spirare's account...
Nope, that's the Spirare I've always known. You've just seen his personal hatred for Bush and you're missing his views mixed in with the anti-Bush stuff.
Thank you Urlik! You made my day! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,574 Posts
Wow, we are a lot closer in viewpoints than I thought! :thumbup:
 

·
Reverend Arthur Dimmwit
Joined
·
3,988 Posts
I think that Spirare has done his homework. He is much more well read on the subject of politics than I am. I agree with most of his viewpoints. Ron Paul sounds interesting. I will do some research of my own...Thanks for the insight.

I hope that he chooses to run as a 3rd party candidate. I doubt the Republicans would give him the nomination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,378 Posts
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top