Just Got An Email From Ron Paul

[Thunderbroom]

It's a pretty simple concept that would help with border security and the illegal alien problem we have, too.

 

 

Unfortunately he couldn't get his colleagues on board.

[ThudMaker]

Unfortunately he couldn't get his colleagues on board.

I'm taking a guess that others with a bit less spine worry about the Hispanic vote, which is interesting considering Paul is from TX and they have no problem keeping him as Rep.

[RSBro]

I'm taking a guess that others with a bit less spine worry about the Hispanic vote, which is interesting considering Paul is from TX and they have no problem keeping him as Rep.

 

 

Even moreso, considering what part of our state he's from.

Besides El Paso and the very very most southern cities, Houston easily has the largest hispanic population.

Houston is going to poop. And it'll spread, one day.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Just a sample: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400311&tab=bills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

 

 

Are you honestly implying that putting us back on a gold standard, not minting pennies "until they're needed" and other coinage acts, not to mention removing the Federal Reserve would have prevented the banking meltdown we're experiencing today?? To be honest, I'm seeing a guy who wants to hop into the Wayback machine with that legislation. I've seen this stuff and thought perhaps I've missed other, useful, legislation pertinent to averting our present crisis.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

Well in fairness to Paul, his constituents love him. He must be getting the job done in their eyes, which is his job. Personally, I like him and I also like most of his positions. He just doesn't appear to have much of an ability to work with other elected officials, and he lacks the charisma necessary for a large group of people to follow him. It's too bad, because he could be a real game changer on the conservative end of the Republican party.

 

 

He can't, for the two reasons you cited. It's why I was so incredulous at so many here going ga-ga over his campaign fund wins a while back. It doesn't matter how much money he has. As soon as he opens his mouth, he loses most of the audience. I like what he *represents*, to a point, but what he *does* screws that up right quick. I'd rather deal with a Bill Clinton type...you may not always agree with his ideas, but he's not abrasive in presenting them. If you're gonna get ass-{censored}ed, it's always better with a little lube.....(or so I'm told:rolleyes:)

[rcz]

If you're gonna get ass-{censored}ed, it's always better with a little lube.....(or so I'm told:rolleyes:)

overcoming that assumption is the most difficult thing about presenting liberty -- the insistent belief that what a candidate says will not and cannot translate to policy in office. certainly that is our experience. but at some point i'd like to believe people would learn from the past, maybe take a little risk, and attempt to effect change. it certainly is better than the impending ass-{censored}ing.

robb.

[Jugghaid]

He can't, for the two reasons you cited. It's why I was so incredulous at so many here going ga-ga over his campaign fund wins a while back. It doesn't matter how much money he has. As soon as he opens his mouth, he loses most of the audience. I like what he *represents*, to a point, but what he *does* screws that up right quick. I'd rather deal with a Bill Clinton type...you may not always agree with his ideas, but he's not abrasive in presenting them. If you're gonna get ass-{censored}ed, it's always better with a little lube.....(or so I'm told:rolleyes:)

I prefer someone who talks straight and does what they say they are going to do. I don't want Mr. Personality, I want someone who is going to do the right thing.

Everyone made the same assumptions about Reagan, That he bullied people, that he was impossible to work with, wouldn't budge on his positions, yada yada yada.

And now he's known as "the great communicator" and remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history by a huge percentage of the population.

I wish more people would be "abrasive". Maybe then someone would listen. When you talk and talk and talk and no one listens, sometimes you need to slap them upside the {censored}ing head to get their attention.

But apparently people in this country are more concerned with "image" and "demeanor" than "ideas" and "results". That's really the only reason Obama is anywhere near the White House. He's smooth.

People want a used car salesman for president. Not the smartest guy in the room who actually has the answers. Not the one who displays common sense and can back it up with study after study after study by the worlds leading economists. Not the guy who has an actual economic plan that benefits the american people instead of padding his own pockets and his colleagues.

They don't want the real answers to the questions we have.....they want to be told "don't worry, I'll take care of it". Look how well that has actually worked for us.

And we wonder why this country is going down the {censored} pipe. "Image over Substance" should replace "E pluribus unum" and "In God We Trust" as our national motto(s).

[ThudMaker]

I prefer someone who talks straight and does what they say they are going to do. I don't want Mr. Personality, I want someone who is going to do the right thing.

Getting people to listen to you and follow you is a sign of effective leadership. That's one of the reasons W isn't a very good president. There are lots of things on his record that his Administration has actually done right. The press would never let you know, but that's not their job. It's his job. In that regard he's failed. That's a shortcoming of Ron Paul, too. They don't have to be charismatic, but they do need to be able to communicate effectively. Whether you or I want or need that trait is irrelevant to what the general population's needs are.

[J.]

This was one that should gain more traction. . . . . H.J.Res. 46: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens nor persons who owe permanent allegiance to the United States. It's a pretty simple concept that would help with border security and the illegal alien problem we have, too.

 

 

That would be a wonderful idea. We should also make sure that our local and state governments enforce federal immigration law, which many don't. I happen to live in a sanctuary city. It sucks. We need tighter controls, more penalties for those knowingly hiring illegals, and better all-around policies.

 

I'm in favor of reintroducing older quotas. It should be easier for skilled immigrants to come in than unskilled ones. It seems that we roll out the red carpet for legions of poor, unskilled workers, but as soon as a foreign student graduates from medical or engineering school, back he/she goes! Maybe it's different in reality, but that's the perception.

 

Here in the Twin Cities we've experienced the negative effects of unchecked immigration. We let in huge amounts of refugees, many of whom aren't interested in becoming Americans - they just want to transplant their culture from their homeland to here. We've already seen the ugly side, like the Poultry Plant, the taxi cab drivers, the Macy's debacle, the MNSCU footbath travesty, etc.

 

You know, ideally people could come and go from country to country with realtive ease. Unfortunately open borders immigration isn't compatible with the modern welfare state. It seems as soon as we accept a large group of immigrants, especially unskilled workers and refugees, our social services our overwhelmed. Welfare receipts go through the roof. I'm not blaming the immigrants - if I was one I'd probably sign up too. We caused this problem ourselves.

[BlueEcho811]

It seems as of late Dr. Paul is one of the last remaining politicians who truly stands for what he believes in and will not give in to lobbyists and private interests. I wish more people would listen to what he has to say.

[Johnny_Crab]

What dictatorial powers is Paulson going to get out of this? Looks like someone is trying to scare people. That person would be Ron Paul.

There's a Section 8 in the original proposal. It reads as follows:

 

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

 

The deal proposed by Paulson is nothing short of outrageous. It includes no oversight of his own closed-door operations. It merely gives congressional blessing and funding to what he has already been doing, ad hoc. He plans to retain Wall Street firms as advisors to decide just how to cut deals to value and mop up Wall Street's dubious paper. There are to be no limits on executive compensation for the firms that get relief, and no equity share for the government in exchange for this massive infusion of capital.

 

This means he, being former CEO of one of the failures he proposes to bail out, could do WHATEVER HE WANTS WITH the money WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED AND NO ONE CAN LOOK AT THE BOOKS.

 

Does that clear things up?

[Jugghaid]

Getting people to listen to you and follow you is a sign of effective leadership. That's one of the reasons W isn't a very good president. There are lots of things on his record that his Administration has actually done right. The press would never let you know, but that's not their job. It's his job. In that regard he's failed. That's a shortcoming of Ron Paul, too. They don't have to be charismatic, but they do need to be able to communicate effectively. Whether you or I want or need that trait is irrelevant to what the general population's needs are.

 

 

The general population is stupid. They value style over substance. The shortcoming is not Ron Paul's. It's the public's.

[Thunderbroom]

 

 

Thanks for finding/posting this. I looked for it when the question was first asked but couldn't find it. Some folks were talking about this very quote on the radio.

 

I think your (Thudmaker's) question has been answered.

[ThudMaker]

Does that clear things up?

Not at all. He's not able to dictate anything to me, since he's not going to be taking over my business. Unless you're a company that absolutely needs that cash, you won't be taking it. He's making sure that the companies that take the deal can't pull hanky panky and take things to court. No limits on executive compensation? Please. Where do you get your information? That's one of the things that was questioned by the Democrats and has been reported on. The Bush Administration has been more than willing to negotiate on this stuff. Why do you think the Dems were ready to pounce on it and the House Republicans and McCain weren't buying? It was a starting point, not an end. That's how proposals and negotiations work. This is nothing more than sensationalism and has little to do with common sense and the way the world works.

[Craig Vecchione]

I prefer someone who talks straight and does what they say they are going to do. I don't want Mr. Personality, I want someone who is going to do the right thing. Everyone made the same assumptions about Reagan, That he bullied people, that he was impossible to work with, wouldn't budge on his positions, yada yada yada. And now he's known as "the great communicator" and remembered as one of the greatest presidents in history by a huge percentage of the population. I wish more people would be "abrasive". Maybe then someone would listen. When you talk and talk and talk and no one listens, sometimes you need to slap them upside the {censored}ing head to get their attention. But apparently people in this country are more concerned with "image" and "demeanor" than "ideas" and "results". That's really the only reason Obama is anywhere near the White House. He's smooth. People want a used car salesman for president. Not the smartest guy in the room who actually has the answers. Not the one who displays common sense and can back it up with study after study after study by the worlds leading economists. Not the guy who has an actual economic plan that benefits the american people instead of padding his own pockets and his colleagues. They don't want the real answers to the questions we have.....they want to be told "don't worry, I'll take care of it". Look how well that has actually worked for us. And we wonder why this country is going down the {censored} pipe. "Image over Substance" should replace "E pluribus unum" and "In God We Trust" as our national motto(s).

 

I'm not saying we need "Mr. Personality" with no substance. I'm saying that between two politicians who can be effective, I'd prefer the one who can work well with others...he/she can be *more* effective.

 

And people don't want anything that you're accusing. Given the choice between proven effectiveness and smooth delivery, they'll take the former. The problem is that they've only been given choices among the latter. If you're only given rotten apples to choose from, you'll look as if you like rotten apples.

 

My point...or the point I feel I'm getting to...is that Ron Paul is abrasive, or at best not a good compromiser, in an office that demands compromise. His record shows nothing to the effect that he attempted legislation to avoid our present crisis. I find it at best questionable, at worst an embarrassment for him (or ANY other politician...I'm picking on him because this thread appeared about him) to act indignant and visionary in regard to this crisis, when the record shows he allowed it to happen as much as any other elected official in Washington. They ALL should be ashamed of themselves.

[ThudMaker]

Thanks for finding/posting this. I looked for it when the question was first asked but couldn't find it. Some folks were talking about this very quote on the radio. I think your (Thudmaker's) question has been answered.

No it hasn't. And Congress. . .isn't an administrative agency. Why would a decision made by Paulson be reviewable by another agency, when his boss is the President?

[Jugghaid]

And people don't want anything that you're accusing. Given the choice between proven effectiveness and smooth delivery, they'll take the former. The problem is that they've only been given choices among the latter. If you're only given rotten apples to choose from, you'll look as if you like rotten apples.

 

 

If that was truly the case, the Obama would not even be the Dem nominee. Nor would McCain for the GOP. There were better choices for both parties.

 

Sorry, bro. But you're wrong on this one. Obama has a record of exactly ZERO effectiveness. He has accomplished essentially NOTHING while in office. You can not say the same about his opponents in the primaries. You may not AGREE with what they have accomplished but they have been MUCH more effective than he has. Yet he won based on style over substance. He won based on cult of personality.

[Thunderbroom]

No it hasn't. And Congress. . .isn't an administrative agency. Why would a decision made by Paulson be reviewable by another agency, when his boss is the President?

So you're okay with that language? I'm assuming you're okay with the bailout in general.

[ThudMaker]

So you're okay with that language? I'm assuming you're okay with the bailout in general.

I didn't say I was happy with the language. I was happy that the House Republicans and McCain were against the supposed agreement and that McCain flying in to DC may have helped in that particular piece not getting through. I also see that Ron Paul incorrectly forecasted this in his letter-

"The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is, or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days."

I guess he was wrong. Surprise, surprise, this is just a prime example of Paul losing friends and not influencing enemies.McCain did quite a bit of good, because the Democrats were more than happy to blame McCain for ruining the deal. I wasn't OK with the bailout, but I have been swayed that something must be done. Again, none of the Libertarians here will answer the question as to whether or not the Chrysler bailout worked. I wonder why?

The language is written in a way that folks understand where the buck stops. There is a firm place the blame can be laid-the Tres Sec, which is important, since Chrysler was to blame if something didn't work. Here, the buyout would be by the government. Who at the government would have responsibility over the mortgages and their repayment? You can bet that if I'm put in charge of those issues, that I would want considerable control over how to handle it. As for the specific language, I'm confident that the house Republicans and McCain will do what they can to make sure what's done protects the taxpayer as best as possible in this scenario. What will end up being done may not even be close to what Paulson originally put out as a proposal. You'll also note that the names mentioned as being in opposition are Boehner and McCain. There is no mention of Ron Paul. If you're not a player in the game, it's pretty hard to change it.

[Craig Vecchione]

 

If that was truly the case, the Obama would not even be the Dem nominee. Nor would McCain for the GOP. There were better choices for both parties. Sorry, bro. But you're wrong on this one. Obama has a record of exactly ZERO effectiveness. He has accomplished essentially NOTHING while in office. You can not say the same about his opponents in the primaries. You may not AGREE with what they have accomplished but they have been MUCH more effective than he has. Yet he won based on style over substance. He won based on cult of personality.

 

 

Those other choices were ???

[Jugghaid]

Those other choices were ???

Clinton, Kucinich, Edwards, etc etc.

They have ALL accomplished more than Obama.

Then again, YOU may have accomplished more than Obama.

[Jugghaid]

There is no mention of Ron Paul. If you're not a player in the game, it's pretty hard to change it.

 

 

Paul has been very outspoken against the bailout package. Very. You just won't hear from him in the media, or from his own party. Much as no one heard from McCain about Fannie and Freddie back in 2005.

 

does that mean McCain isn't a player in the game too?

[ThudMaker]

Paul has been very outspoken against the bailout package. Very. You just won't hear from him in the media, or from his own party. Much as no one heard from McCain about Fannie and Freddie back in 2005. does that mean McCain isn't a player in the game too?

False analogy, unless you can show Paul as a senior member involved in any way in effecting change in this "bailout" negotiation. He's neutered.

[Thunderbroom]

Again, none of the Libertarians here will answer the question as to whether or not the Chrysler bailout worked. I wonder why?

 

Did it work or did is it just prolonging the inevitable? Last year they LOST $1.6 BILLION.

 

Do you believe that it's the federal government's job to prop up unprofitable businesses?

[Jugghaid]

False analogy, unless you can show Paul as a senior member involved in any way in effecting change in this "bailout" negotiation. He's neutered.

 

 

So the only people that matter are senior members of congress and the senate? What do we elect the other 500+ for then? there are 535 members of congress. And ABSOLUTELY NONE OF THEM have done anything about the current economic problems. Except help cause them.

 

If McCain wasn't a candidate for Prez, he would STILL be ignored. By BOTH parties and the media.

 

BTW, Paul grilled the living {censored} out of SECTREAS recently about the bailout. Just because the media didn't show it every 5 minutes, doesn't mean it didn't happen.