• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Real Change - Ron Paul

Texan

Well-known member
Texas Straight Talk
A weekly column

Real Change

One reason people are unhappy with the way politics and governments operate is that people who run for office are known to “say one thing and do another.” Thus, we have the call for “change.” Candidates for high office make frequent use of that word. Even our House Republican Conference’s recently released slogan highlights that word.

Yet, bringing about change is easier said than done. The American people are aware that government is broken and must be fixed. They will demand more than lip service as our problems become more severe.

Change, then, cannot simply be a word. It must be the right program, one that gets us out of this mess, not one that just accelerates us down the same treacherous path. With our economy facing a perilous situation, the need to bring fiscal reform to our government is the cornerstone of the kind of change that is needed. Real budgetary and monetary reform would signify a true change of direction, instead of merely a change of speed toward the economic cliff we are approaching.

Americans realize that their own financial situation is perilous. The nation as a whole is deeply in debt, having mortgaged the future of our children and grandchildren. When politicians talk about what they plan to do for future generations, they ought to begin by stating how they will remove the huge debt burden, not how they will find more ways to spend more money they don’t have.

In order to allow Americans to pay for their needs, whether for healthcare, education, or basics like food and gasoline, we need to change tax and monetary policies so the American people control more of their own money. That money needs to stay in the economy, and out of the government money pit.

This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

We need to take a view of government that better reflects our own experience, as well as the wisdom of our nation’s founders. There are very few constitutionally authorized federal powers, and returning daily government to this wisdom is real change.

Working toward a less intrusive, less expensive federal government focused on defending against overt actions of force and fraud, is the means to bringing about real change. As we hear the repeated claims of those who wish to cast themselves as agents of change, we will do well to recall that more federal meddling is not a change in direction at all, but just “more of the same.” We should be repealing programs, not proposing costly new bureaucracies.

Change, real change, the only kind of change that will quench the thirst of the American people for a new direction and provide us with the prosperity and security necessary to preserve our Republic as a beacon of liberty, requires bold initiatives designed to move our country away from economic peril by putting faith in free citizens instead of in Washington.


Posted by Ron Paul (07-07-2008, 12:06 PM)


http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not
%20found,ID=080707_2130,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml
 

per

Well-known member
It doesn't look like the Liberals or the Conservatives have anything to loose by trying the Ron Paul alternative. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
per said:
It doesn't look like the Liberals or the Conservatives have anything to loose by trying the Ron Paul alternative. :wink:

Yep-- He was on CSPAN tonite talking....He sure makes a lot of sense...He said his greatest fear right now is that GW will push us into or let himself get goaded into a war with Iran- and he said it could easily be the downfall of the country- as oil prices would go well over $200 a barrel- and our economy is that shakey that we couldn't handle it- and we would be insolvent since our money now only exists on our trust by and standing in the world instead of gold reserves anymore....

He said he keeps believing that Bush isn't that stupid- but that many of his conservative friends are not as sure...

He compares Irans fear of the US, after our invasion of their neighbor Iraq, as the same as what our fear of Russia would be if they invade Mexico tomorrow using the excuse of all the people being killed in Mexicos drug wars....
 

MoGal

Well-known member
Texan, TY for posting that.

Let me ask you a question??? Is there ANY part of that in which you do not agree???

To me, that's the kind of candidate I'm looking for........not only as president but in the congress as well and I don't care what party affiliation they have as I will cross over and vote for them.
 

fff

Well-known member
Ron Paul has said he won't run as an Independent, so he's not an option for your vote. Have you taken a look at Bob Barr?

http://www.bobbarr2008.com/home/skip/?s=0618-video
 

Texan

Well-known member
MoGal said:
Texan, TY for posting that.

Let me ask you a question??? Is there ANY part of that in which you do not agree???
No, MoGal - I can't find anything in there that I don't agree with.

In fact, that's an interesting question. I wonder if anybody here can find any part of it that they don't agree with?
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

Let me ask you purveyors of wisdom...how many 9/11s will it take to collapse our (and western civilization's) economy? After all, that is the sworn goal of our enemies!!!!!!! How many 9/11s will you accept as collateral damage because we are not engaging our enemy? These are barbarians that will put a bomb vest on a down syndrome child, send them into an innocent crowd of women and children, and blow them up!!!!

Who do you think is "the money" behind the speculators that are running up the price of crude knowing it will weaken the western economy?? Our enemies have told us they will use oil as a weapon...they are doing it!!!!!!!!!

Which of the two possible candidates for President have any political views in common with Ron Paul?

National defense is one of the few powers actually given to the federal government by the Constitution...that's where I disagree with Ron Paul!
 

per

Well-known member
I hope I'm wrong on this Robertmac but the answer the question #1 might just be 1. The next question on my mind would be "how many US economic collapses could Canada take? The answer is every bit as worrisome as the one to the first question.

The money behind the oil speculation comes from both here and there. Not all pursuit of money has a cause.
 

Texan

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

Let me ask you purveyors of wisdom...how many 9/11s will it take to collapse our (and western civilization's) economy? After all, that is the sworn goal of our enemies!!!!!!! How many 9/11s will you accept as collateral damage because we are not engaging our enemy? These are barbarians that will put a bomb vest on a down syndrome child, send them into an innocent crowd of women and children, and blow them up!!!!

Who do you think is "the money" behind the speculators that are running up the price of crude knowing it will weaken the western economy?? Our enemies have told us they will use oil as a weapon...they are doing it!!!!!!!!!

Which of the two possible candidates for President have any political views in common with Ron Paul?

National defense is one of the few powers actually given to the federal government by the Constitution...that's where I disagree with Ron Paul!
Good points, RobertMac. I wouldn't disagree with you about keeping troops in places where we have economic or security interests. Obviously, we can't ever leave the Middle East. And we sure as hell shouldn't ever consider leaving Iraq or Afghanistan until our work is done.

But we have troops in a lot of places where they aren't actually necessary. That military presence costs a fortune. And those troops could be used to give the guys in Iraq and Afghanistan a little relief if they weren't deployed in other places.

Why the hell do we need 75,000 troops in Germany? Why do we need troops in the UK? Except for a few officers to act as liaisons with our allies, and some troops to provide security for our diplomatic personnel, I don't think we need troops in a lot of the places where we have them. And if we have to shut down some embassies in third-world shitholes and cushy vacation resort spots so that we can bring troops home, let's do that.

This is the latest list I could find of where we have troops deployed. It's a few years old and I'm sure needs updating, but this is ridiculous:

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Antigua
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Bulgaria
Burma
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Congo
Costa Rica
Cote D’lvoire
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji
Finland
France
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Guatemala
Guinea
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Liberia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Mali
Malta
Mexico
Mongolia
Morocco
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
North Korea
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia and Montenegro
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovenia
Spain
South Africa
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
Uruguay
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

Just like RobertMac said - it is essential to our security and our economy to maintain a military presence in places where we have economic or security interests. But do we really need to be spending the money it takes to keep troops in all of those places?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

Let me ask you purveyors of wisdom...how many 9/11s will it take to collapse our (and western civilization's) economy? NONE...as we're doing a good job all by ourselves it seems After all, that is the sworn goal of our enemies!!!!!!! How many 9/11s will you accept as collateral damage because we are not engaging our enemy? These are barbarians that will put a bomb vest on a down syndrome child, send them into an innocent crowd of women and children, and blow them up!!!!

Who do you think is "the money" behind the speculators that are running up the price of crude knowing it will weaken the western economy?? BUSH, CHENEY as an investor, and BIG OIL Our enemies have told us they will use oil as a weapon...they are doing it!!!!!!!!! Our "enemies" are in our own house!
Which of the two possible candidates for President have any political views in common with Ron Paul? Paul has some damn good ideas....but the he seems to go off the track at times.


National defense is one of the few powers actually given to the federal government by the Constitution...that's where I disagree with Ron Paul!
 

fff

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

Let me ask you purveyors of wisdom...how many 9/11s will it take to collapse our (and western civilization's) economy? After all, that is the sworn goal of our enemies!!!!!!! How many 9/11s will you accept as collateral damage because we are not engaging our enemy? These are barbarians that will put a bomb vest on a down syndrome child, send them into an innocent crowd of women and children, and blow them up!!!!

Apparently it only takes one 9/11 if you have an idiot as president of the US. He's doing a great job collapsing our economy. Osama must be laughing himself silly. You call them barbarians that put a bomb on a down syndrome child. Of course they are. If they were civilized like us, they'd send out some fighter jets and helicoptors and take out hundreds, including children, at once!

Who do you think is "the money" behind the speculators that are running up the price of crude knowing it will weaken the western economy?? Our enemies have told us they will use oil as a weapon...they are doing it!!!!!!!!!

Anyone with money can jump into the speculation business. And it doesn't even take a lot of money. You can tie up a lot of futures without risking much of your own money. Again, our economy is in ruins because of Bush and his policies, not because of 9/11.

Which of the two possible candidates for President have any political views in common with Ron Paul?

Which of Ron Paul's views? He has some views that are off the wall.

National defense is one of the few powers actually given to the federal government by the Constitution...that's where I disagree with Ron Paul!

:shock:
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
fff said:
RobertMac said:
This means we must curb the voracious spending appetite of our federal government. We need to rein in international commitments, especially the very expensive costs of maintaining a worldwide military presence, as a key first step to restructuring our budget and economy in a fashion that will allow Americans to provide for themselves.

Let me ask you purveyors of wisdom...how many 9/11s will it take to collapse our (and western civilization's) economy? After all, that is the sworn goal of our enemies!!!!!!! How many 9/11s will you accept as collateral damage because we are not engaging our enemy? These are barbarians that will put a bomb vest on a down syndrome child, send them into an innocent crowd of women and children, and blow them up!!!!

Apparently it only takes one 9/11 if you have an idiot as president of the US. He's doing a great job collapsing our economy. Osama must be laughing himself silly. You call them barbarians that put a bomb on a down syndrome child. Of course they are. If they were civilized like us, they'd send out some fighter jets and helicoptors and take out hundreds, including children, at once!

Who do you think is "the money" behind the speculators that are running up the price of crude knowing it will weaken the western economy?? Our enemies have told us they will use oil as a weapon...they are doing it!!!!!!!!!

Anyone with money can jump into the speculation business. And it doesn't even take a lot of money. You can tie up a lot of futures without risking much of your own money. Again, our economy is in ruins because of Bush and his policies, not because of 9/11.

Which of the two possible candidates for President have any political views in common with Ron Paul?

Which of Ron Paul's views? He has some views that are off the wall.

National defense is one of the few powers actually given to the federal government by the Constitution...that's where I disagree with Ron Paul!

:shock:

It's Democrat's Sierra Club energy policies that's got the economy in trouble!!!
 

fff

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
It's Democrat's Sierra Club energy policies that's got the economy in trouble!!!

Yeah, try selling that to the American people.:D I think they know who has ties to big oil. They've watched gasoline prices climb for absolutely no reason until they can no longer afford to make their house payments and buy gasoline.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I think they know who has ties to big oil.

They know only what the media has led them to believe.


Just one example:

How about the ties of Al Gore to Occidental Petroleum and the Elk Hills sweetheart deal?


"BIG OIL" did pretty well on that one for sure. :lol:

Did you see that one plastered all over the New York Times?
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
I think they know who has ties to big oil.

They know only what the media has led them to believe.


Just one example:

How about the ties of Al Gore to Occidental Petroleum and the Elk Hills sweetheart deal?


"BIG OIL" did pretty well on that one for sure. :lol:

Did you see that one plastered all over the New York Times?

Do you even remember what a gallon of gasoline cost when George W. Bush was sworn into office? I do and so do lots and lots of other people. :D
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
I think they know who has ties to big oil.

They know only what the media has led them to believe.


Just one example:

How about the ties of Al Gore to Occidental Petroleum and the Elk Hills sweetheart deal?


"BIG OIL" did pretty well on that one for sure. :lol:

Did you see that one plastered all over the New York Times?

Do you even remember what a gallon of gasoline cost when George W. Bush was sworn into office? I do and so do lots and lots of other people. :D

I also remember what a gallon of gasoline was when Eisenhower was sworn in. :roll: :roll:

But that is no more pertinent than your small minded innuendo. :roll:
 

fff

Well-known member
Mike said:
[Do you even remember what a gallon of gasoline cost when George W. Bush was sworn into office? I do and so do lots and lots of other people. :D

I also remember what a gallon of gasoline was when Eisenhower was sworn in. :roll: :roll:

But that is no more pertinent than your small minded innuendo. :roll:[/quote]

"innuendo"? :D This stresses the difference in the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. Try as you might, you can't hang the gasoline prices on Gore or Clinton. They belong to the Republican Party.
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
Mike said:
[Do you even remember what a gallon of gasoline cost when George W. Bush was sworn into office? I do and so do lots and lots of other people. :D

I also remember what a gallon of gasoline was when Eisenhower was sworn in. :roll: :roll:

But that is no more pertinent than your small minded innuendo. :roll:

"innuendo"? :D This stresses the difference in the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. Try as you might, you can't hang the gasoline prices on Gore or Clinton. They belong to the Republican Party.[/quote]

I don't hang gasoline prices on anyone in particular.

Would you care to tell us SPECIFICALLY how Bush made oil prices go up?

The "Green" Dems have wanted gasoline to go up for years so that we would revert to alternative energy sources. Wouldn't they be more likely to have helped cause increases?

Try using some logic..........................

Yes, "Innuendo"!!!!! :lol:
 
Top