Tweet
And if no, why?
A lot has been made of this man’s anti-war stance.
I’d like to see him put his money & DOJ where his Texas sized mouth is.
It is no longer acceptable to talk about this issue. The law must be enforced, so the question is “Are you willing to enforce it?”
After dealing with those two (at a minimum), let’s see what he’ll do about the financial criminals ruining civilization as we know it.
In full disclosure, I can’t stand RP; he’s a certified nutcase. But if Captain Looney Tunes answers this question correctly, maybe some of us might take him seriously.
23 Comments
It WOULD add to the positive side of the ledger.
Excellent question! To easily check if, perhaps, it’s already been answered, you could post it at ronpaulforums.com.
GREAT QUESTION!!!!
With all the spotty, haphazard research I’ve done, I haven’t even gotten to this question yet and rest assured, it’s a good one. Seeing Ron Paul do things like defend Glass-Steagall or praise Bradley Manning as a hero has been admittedly, uplifting.
Still I have yet to decipher weather or not if he’s some sort of clever Randian ideologue that’s simply using strange, never-before-seen blend of populism as a tool for power- or if he really believes and intends to act on *all* of his statements.
Recommended
Excellent question!
And if the answer is anything less than an unqualified “Yes” then Paul’s positions on rule-of-law and anti-war are a complete sham.
recc’d.
“or if he really believes and intends to act on *all* of his statements.”
A perfectly legitimate concern. Perhaps you should consult his voting record?
Come on we all know the answer.
And there is no way in the deepest darkest hole of hell that he will say anything about it, … except to say something general to his Paulbots to keep them in line. Some thing vague and general like “everyone should be held accountable”, “or I will investigate” (you can take that to the bank, … along with the deed for the Brooklyn bridge).
That’s why all the pro-Paul supporters are conspicuously silent now. Whereas any other Paul story, they storm it.
Paul is Obama, but whiter. If he got elected as pres, he would pull an Obama so fast, every Paul supporter would be in the ER for whiplash. That or they would start the whole apologist line: “he’s not a king”, “it’s that damn Congress”, … [insert O apologist BS here].
Paul is the exact same as O. No difference! Don’t let the words fool you. We’ve been down this road before.
BTW, I want Paul nominated as the R nominee, only because I want certain issues debated.
And no I don’t think it matters in the end. We no longer live in a democracy.
First of all, Paul is a meme, a myth, and has no impact on the great debates, that’s all pure bullshit.
He’s an invention of the 1% who play him out like they play the DIms and GOP.
He’s of NO significance, whatsover, in any process.
Cause there IS no real process, political wise.
It’s all gamed, owned and operated by the 1% corporate fascists.
Any one who don’t get that, to this day, is not locked into any rality that impacts them on a daily basis.
I give up . . . this stuff is tiresome and you people are far gone.
Good luck as yer shit crashes down upon you . .
I like that Paul is causing problems in the Republican party, but never get succered by libertarianism. It may give some liberties, but it will leave the 1% with all the control. Hence, Paul takes us nowhere.
You say Ron Paul is insane but if he answered your question correctly “some of us might take him seriously”. Would this correct answer cause “some of us” to conclude that RP is in fact NOT insane? Or would he still be insane but now we take an insane man seriously?
http://www.infowars.com/ron-paul-enters-evidence-of-bush-war-crimes-in-congressional-record/
If only we had thought to grill Obama on what his actual intentions were as he was spreading his smooth campaign bs around, or even check his voting recording. For instance, he promised to filibuster the retroactive telecom immunity. When instead of a filibuster, he had the audacity to vote for it, I guess I (we?) should have figured out what was up and started taking action immediately. That was the true & appropriate meaning of his book title. In other words, anyone would have to be very audacious to hope that he would keep his promises. I am ashamed to say, I wasted more than 2 years giving him the benefit of the doubt. I just really really wanted it to be true.
I think Ron Paul is sincere. He has held the positions that he espouses for many years and often has been the lone voice in the Senate. He is an Ayn Rand admirer and hence his unfriendly social positions, such as the social safety net & SS being unconstitutional.
Thank you, working class, for taking the time to find some actual information to share. It would have been nice if jest had bothered to do some research before posting his diary; thanks for doing it for him.
No.
First, Paul’s anti-war stance is one of the few sane things he stands for. This link has nothing to do with proving otherwise.
Second, this is the WRONG George Bush. If you expect me to get excited over a critique that is 20 years late, while there are multiple violations occurring under his nose as we speak, then no. This is nowhere close to being enough.
Finally, my point has to do with law enforcement, not flapping his gums. He can talk all he wants to about this, but I am specifically asking about active prosecution. No more, no less. This link does neither.
I tried to do it.
But seriously, I spent about a minute at that place reading that stuff, and honestly I couldn’t take it and had to leave that place.
Sorry, someone who is braver and has a higher intestinal fortitude for that crap is gonna have to do it. I can barely stomach kos.
That link was regarding the wrong president, the wrong war, and was 20 years late.
“Paul’s anti-war stance is one of the few sane things he stands for.”
I see. So Paul is not completely insane? But you suspect he may be lying about one of the “few sane things he stands for”. Maybe someone more familiar with Paul on the issues will shed some light for you. But I think you could help yourself by making up your mind about RP’s alleged mental illness. I’m no psychiatrist but I think Paul is probably either crazy or he is not. If he is crazy you have your answer. No matter how he answers any question you can never take him seriously.
NO Jest!
“So Paul is not completely insane?”
Being crazy is like being pregnant; you can’t do it half way. The guy is nuts. That does not mean everything he does is bonkers. I do not expect him to play with his feces anytime soon, for example.
http://ronpaulforcongress.com/
Views on fiat money/inflation:
Anyone who has seen the Fed’s balance sheet knows that all the money printing that was done has not caused major inflation. His views on money, which are the basis for many of his views, are false.
Energy:
“As your Congressman, I am working to restore a free-market in energy. In particular, I am seeking for Congress to repeal federal regulations and taxes that impede the development of new energy sources.”
Do you believe deregulation and tax cuts will solve our energy problems?
Education:
“I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.”
Do you believe tax cuts and ending the Dept. of Ed. will make kids smarter?
Roe v. Wade:
“In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.””
Do you consider abortion to be “population control?”
Do you want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Ending the 14th amendment:
“End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.”
Are you a member of the Latino community? Do you know how serious this is?
Voted against renewal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=374&chamber=H&congress=1092&state=tx
Are you black? I am. How am I supposed to react to a presidential candidate who votes against assurances to MY right to vote? Even Louie Gohmert voted yes.
I certainly figured it out when he voted for FISA.
As a rule of thumb, ALWAYS pay attention to what they do and refuse to listen to them when they are flapping their gums.
It seems to be that Paul has voted consistently against war and erosion of civil liberties.
Can you please detail, ie. quotes or just where in your link, that Paul says he will prosecute the war crimes of Bush II and Obama if he is prez.
I can’t find it i the link you gave (although good link about Bush I).
Bravo! Now you are talking about where Paul is wrong. A big improvement over simply asserting that he is insane.
As if you really cared what his positions are, as if you’d ever vote for him, as if it’s worth the bother, I’ll respond that Bruce Fein has signed on as Ron Paul’s senior campaign advisor. Way back in 2009, Bruce Fein wrote: “The evidence is now undeniable. President Barack Obama is flouting his unflagging constitutional obligation enshrined in Article II, Section 3 to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” He is also reneging on his signature campaign promise to restore the rule of law, transparency, and accountability to the White House.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/04/17/how-obama-excused-torture.html
So you might begin with Bruce Fein if you really want to know what Ron Paul’s views are on prosecuting torturers. I doubt Ron Paul is going around saying he’d prosecute Bush and Obama at every stop. That wouldn’t be very politically expedient, would it? I do think, though, rather than seeking answers, you just enjoy calling Ron Paul a “certified nutcase” and “Captain Looney Tunes,” stale, old tactics which have been used over and over again against someone who doesn’t toe the two-party line.
Furthermore, I have a question: if the left cares, as it claims to do, about the plight of the marginalized, does it ever occur to them how much it hurts those who have experienced mental illness or have family members who have been diagnosed with mental illness, when they use words like “nutcase” or “crazy?” Boy, all that caring about those who are hurting just flies right out the window if someone can come up with a cute putdown like “Captain Looney Tunes,” doesn’t it?
Wow, well said.
First Fein, talked about the prosecuting Obama and Bush for war crimes. Egad.
And then of course Paul can’t comment on it. It would not be politically expedient.
And then of course the turn around about the mentally ill. Ouchie.
Well you got me. Don’t listen to these commies.