Sorry, Khalid, Ron Paul is a flake. No way, no how are they going to abolish the income tax. It'll be Romney or McCain on the Republican ticket this season.
lynnette, do you have to be the mean realist? let us dream happily here!
no seriosuly, i ralize his chances to be a president are a bit higher of my chances to be the president of the united states, but he honeslty is the first US politician ever i watch that i relate to and sounds honest and real. and you have to admit a lot of the things he says are amazing!
Good to see some serious posting from you again. I agree with you about Ron Paul, although he doesn't stand a chance at being nominated much less elected. I find myself paying attention to this man. He is straightforward, sincere, and has obviously given a great deal of thought to current American political problems. Unfortunately, he doesn't have, as we say in show business, "IT."
Three days ago, I voted absentee in the Missouri primary. Now, I'm done, if the one I voted for gets his / her party's nomination, because I shall vote for the same person. If not, I'll definitely go with the candidate of my party. The circus can go on, and I shall enjoy it, but I have no more angst. Great feeling. Mimi in Missouri
lol! There's always got to be a fly in the ointment. ;)
Seriously, though, we all would like honest and real. And really, I am sure there have been politicians who have been quite sincere in their promises to voters. It's just that when they meet political reality in Washington those promises become very difficult to keep. Hillary Clinton and her health care initiative when Bill was President comes to mind. They did try to accomplish what they had promised. Didn't work out though. There are also things that happen, beyond their ability to predict, that can short ciruit their best intentions, as well. *sigh*
And I didn't say that Ron Paul wasn't nice. :) He actually does seem to be. It's just that some of the ideas he supports, such as abolishing the income tax, are not going to attract the support he needs to win.
America is a very diverse country. People in different areas have different concerns. They will vote for those candidates that they think best address those concerns. For example, the immigration issue is very big with the southern states along the border with Mexico. Here in Minnesota, not so much.
Yes, truely a dream. Speaking of dreams.. I often wish for a world where we still had Kennedy and Rev.Martin Luther King Jr. That's a dream.
Ron Paul is far too reasonable and practical for corporate interests. Eliminating income tax? Less likely than universal care which is pretty freaking unlikely since pharmacutical companies and insurance companies are corporate big wigs. Although he is not even a 2nd tier candidate... someday, God Willing, we can elect a decent, peaceful and level headed politician. -aisha-
Khalid, Hi. re Ron Paul, he is a fraud and a very nasty man. One of his long apparent characteristics is that he is a total racist (and that includes being anti-Muslim) but he has learned that in these days he has to keep it hidden. But the ones to whom it is important, know and he has gotten the support of many White Supremacy groups.
He uses coded language as this from his discussion on Social Security: "It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor."
This is nothing but a blatant appeal to the racists. The truth is that no one "who has not paid into the system" gets retirement benefits now except for wives who have not worked outside the home (rare now) who get reduced spousal benefits.
Paul implies that there are all these evil Mexican "illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor." Great words to unite all the racists. But they are not. The funny thing is that the undocumented workers have Social Security taxes taken out and can't get any benefit at the end! The system benefits FROM them by many hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That can be checked out on the SS website.
By the way, all quotes not otherwise labeled come from Ron Paul's website. (Or later on, from Obama's.)
Paul says enough good things that some people flock to him and admire him without looking or even thinking about what the meaning of what he says. For example, Aisha says "Ron Paul is far too reasonable and practical for corporate interests. Eliminating income tax? Less likely than universal care which is pretty freaking unlikely since pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are corporate big wigs."
Actually Corporate folks love his positions as far as they go but know he has no depth. He wants to take all taxes off of corporate profits and corporations. That would mean that ordinary people would pay HIGHER taxes! He does NOT want to get rid of the income tax on individuals (that's Huckabee) and in fact if he were to eliminate tax on corporations and dividends (which mostly go to the wealthy) the corps and super wealthy would be very happy.
Paul also wants to eliminate all governmental regulation of corporations which the corps would LOVE. He would take OFF the regulation of pharmaceuticals which would leave people vulnerable to all sorts of possibly deadly untested medicines. Furthermore, he is totally against universal health care as are all the Republicans. They all call for "personal responsibility" and tax deductions. Oh, and savings accounts. But what American in the lower 95% is able to save up money for a possible medical disaster. What about a car crash, cancer, even a heart attack can bring bills enough to bankrupt average people.
There is one candidate that many people have likened to Martin Luther King, Jr and John Kennedy: Barack Obama.
He too, wants to get our troops out of Iraq. In fact he was against the war from the start and spoke out strongly. He said:
"Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
And after: "Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail; * In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops; * In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors; * In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008. * In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president. . . . Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
That's kinda the standard by the Democratic. I wish it were bolder.
But he continues:
"Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing. Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
[This is the part that no other candidate has.]
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
That sure got to me. Obama feels for all those in pain. And he will do something about it. Although he has been in the US Senate a very short time, He has gotten passed into law more legislation than any other candidate running (except possibly Mc Cain who has been there forever, but hasn't accomplished too much. He's the one that wants to stay in Iraq 100 years maybe; after all we've been in So Korea for more than 50).
Obama's site = http://www.barackobama.com/ Go to the issues page and click on any you are interested in.
**************
Khalid: what's the story with the CRP??? I just signed up last Nov(?) for a monthly donation but I'd rather work with you and your mother. email me.
Ron Paul is the only man worthy of office. Unfortunately Americans today want someone who is more 'hollywood' then someone who will help their country and put things back on the right track. Obviously the constitution has a decreasing value as the years progress. Americans will get another corporate lacky in the white house. You ALL had your chance to change, you ARE blowing it and you can live with the consequences. Ignorant yes you are (Americans), innocent hell no! Shame on the American people for doing this.
9 Comments:
Ron Paul is America's true hope and change that we all yearn for.
tell us more about him!
Sorry, Khalid, Ron Paul is a flake. No way, no how are they going to abolish the income tax. It'll be Romney or McCain on the Republican ticket this season.
lynnette, do you have to be the mean realist? let us dream happily here!
no seriosuly, i ralize his chances to be a president are a bit higher of my chances to be the president of the united states, but he honeslty is the first US politician ever i watch that i relate to and sounds honest and real. and you have to admit a lot of the things he says are amazing!
Khalid,
Good to see some serious posting from you again. I agree with you about Ron Paul, although he doesn't stand a chance at being nominated much less elected. I find myself paying attention to this man. He is straightforward, sincere, and has obviously given a great deal of thought to current American political problems. Unfortunately, he doesn't have, as we say in show business, "IT."
Three days ago, I voted absentee in the Missouri primary. Now, I'm done, if the one I voted for gets his / her party's nomination, because I shall vote for the same person. If not, I'll definitely go with the candidate of my party. The circus can go on, and I shall enjoy it, but I have no more angst. Great feeling.
Mimi in Missouri
lynnette, do you have to be the mean realist?
lol! There's always got to be a fly in the ointment. ;)
Seriously, though, we all would like honest and real. And really, I am sure there have been politicians who have been quite sincere in their promises to voters. It's just that when they meet political reality in Washington those promises become very difficult to keep. Hillary Clinton and her health care initiative when Bill was President comes to mind. They did try to accomplish what they had promised. Didn't work out though. There are also things that happen, beyond their ability to predict, that can short ciruit their best intentions, as well. *sigh*
And I didn't say that Ron Paul wasn't nice. :) He actually does seem to be. It's just that some of the ideas he supports, such as abolishing the income tax, are not going to attract the support he needs to win.
America is a very diverse country. People in different areas have different concerns. They will vote for those candidates that they think best address those concerns. For example, the immigration issue is very big with the southern states along the border with Mexico. Here in Minnesota, not so much.
But you can always dream. :)
Yes, truely a dream. Speaking of dreams.. I often wish for a world where we still had Kennedy and Rev.Martin Luther King Jr. That's a dream.
Ron Paul is far too reasonable and practical for corporate interests. Eliminating income tax? Less likely than universal care which is pretty freaking unlikely since pharmacutical companies and insurance companies are corporate big wigs.
Although he is not even a 2nd tier candidate... someday, God Willing, we can elect a decent, peaceful and level headed politician.
-aisha-
Khalid,
Hi. re Ron Paul, he is a fraud and a very nasty man. One of his long apparent characteristics is that he is a total racist (and that includes being anti-Muslim) but he has learned that in these days he has to keep it hidden. But the ones to whom it is important, know and he has gotten the support of many White Supremacy groups.
He uses coded language as this from his discussion on Social Security: "It is fundamentally unfair to give benefits to anyone who has not paid into the system. The Social Security for Americans Only Act (H.R. 190) ends the drain on Social Security caused by illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor."
This is nothing but a blatant appeal to the racists. The truth is that no one "who has not paid into the system" gets retirement benefits now except for wives who have not worked outside the home (rare now) who get reduced spousal benefits.
Paul implies that there are all these evil Mexican "illegal aliens seeking the fruits of your labor." Great words to unite all the racists. But they are not. The funny thing is that the undocumented workers have Social Security taxes taken out and can't get any benefit at the end! The system benefits FROM them by many hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That can be checked out on the SS website.
By the way, all quotes not otherwise labeled come from Ron Paul's website. (Or later on, from Obama's.)
Paul says enough good things that some people flock to him and admire him without looking or even thinking about what the meaning of what he says. For example, Aisha says "Ron Paul is far too reasonable and practical for corporate interests. Eliminating income tax? Less likely than universal care which is pretty freaking unlikely since pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies are corporate big wigs."
Actually Corporate folks love his positions as far as they go but know he has no depth. He wants to take all taxes off of corporate profits and corporations. That would mean that ordinary people would pay HIGHER taxes! He does NOT want to get rid of the income tax on individuals (that's Huckabee) and in fact if he were to eliminate tax on corporations and dividends (which mostly go to the wealthy) the corps and super wealthy would be very happy.
Paul also wants to eliminate all governmental regulation of corporations which the corps would LOVE. He would take OFF the regulation of pharmaceuticals which would leave people vulnerable to all sorts of possibly deadly untested medicines.
Furthermore, he is totally against universal health care as are all the Republicans. They all call for "personal responsibility" and tax deductions. Oh, and savings accounts. But what American in the lower 95% is able to save up money for a possible medical disaster. What about a car crash, cancer, even a heart attack can bring bills enough to bankrupt average people.
There is one candidate that many people have likened to Martin Luther King, Jr and John Kennedy: Barack Obama.
He too, wants to get our troops out of Iraq. In fact he was against the war from the start and spoke out strongly. He said:
"Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.
He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."
And after: "Obama has been a consistent, principled and vocal opponent of the war in Iraq.
* In 2003 and 2004, he spoke out against the war on the campaign trail;
* In 2005, he called for a phased withdrawal of our troops;
* In 2006, he called for a timetable to remove our troops, a political solution within Iraq, and aggressive diplomacy with all of Iraq’s neighbors;
* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.
. . .
Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq.
That's kinda the standard by the Democratic. I wish it were bolder.
But he continues:
"Press Iraq’s Leaders to Reconcile
The best way to press Iraq’s leaders to take responsibility for their future is to make it clear that we are leaving. As we remove our troops, Obama will engage representatives from all levels of Iraqi society – in and out of government – to seek a new accord on Iraq’s Constitution and governance. The United Nations will play a central role in this convention, which should not adjourn until a new national accord is reached addressing tough questions like federalism and oil revenue-sharing.
Regional Diplomacy
Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.
[This is the part that no other candidate has.]
Humanitarian Initiative
Obama believes that America has a moral and security responsibility to confront Iraq’s humanitarian crisis — two million Iraqis are refugees; two million more are displaced inside their own country. Obama will form an international working group to address this crisis. He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven.
That sure got to me. Obama feels for all those in pain. And he will do something about it. Although he has been in the US Senate a very short time, He has gotten passed into law more legislation than any other candidate running (except possibly Mc Cain who has been there forever, but hasn't accomplished too much. He's the one that wants to stay in Iraq 100 years maybe; after all we've been in So Korea for more than 50).
Obama's site =
http://www.barackobama.com/ Go to the issues page and click on any you are interested in.
**************
Khalid: what's the story with the CRP??? I just signed up last Nov(?) for a monthly donation but I'd rather work with you and your mother. email me.
sam
Ron Paul is the only man worthy of office. Unfortunately Americans today want someone who is more 'hollywood' then someone who will help their country and put things back on the right track. Obviously the constitution has a decreasing value as the years progress.
Americans will get another corporate lacky in the white house. You ALL had your chance to change, you ARE blowing it and you can live with the consequences. Ignorant yes you are (Americans), innocent hell no! Shame on the American people for doing this.
Post a Comment
<< Home