Ron Paul in 2012

[Woods Walker]

Just let them TRY that.

[Sailfish]

Yes dane, and one of them was me. So please tell me, just what qualifies this man to be THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE MOST POWERFUL, COMPLEX NATION IN THE WORLD???? What has he run, or managed? What kind of leadership skills has he demostrated in real life mangerial situations? Or doesn't that matter for the President of The United States? I mean, just look at what we have NOW!!! Obama is THE most unqualified, inexperienced Presidents we've ever had, and IT SHOWS! It will take the better part of a decade to un-**** what this imbecile is doing to us. A legislator who's served as a US Rep or Senator knows how Washington works. But that's only PART of the job. A President also needs to know how to MANAGE and LEAD. Obama was only a US Senator for a mere YEAR before he started running for President. He doesn't know **** about running anything, and the dumb SOB doesn't seem to be learning anything either.

I just hope to God that as a nation we've LEARNED from this colossal error that we made this last election, and that whomever we elect, regardless of party, that they at the very least will have some JOB EXPERIENCE.

Not sure I'm quite following you........what are your true feelings about the current President???

On a more serious note, you know a forum may be taking off once politics and religion threads start.

[Dylan]

Yes, Woods. Can you please be a bit clearer on what you really think?!!! LOL.

[Big Horse]

A bit of Ron Paul’s experience...

Paul served as a flight surgeon in the United States Air Force and Air National Guard from 1963 until 1968.

In 1968 he started his own medical practice and worked as an obstetrician and gynecologist during the 1960s and 1970s. (I know WW said delivering babies doesn’t count, but while running your own business may not be “executive experience”, it does count for something)

Ron Paul has served in Congress three different periods totaling 12 two-year terms: 1976-1977, 1979-1985, and 1997 to the present. Were Paul to become President, having Congressional experience would put him on the list including; Bush 41, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, Harding, McKinley, Harrison, Arthur, and Garfield.

Paul currently serves on the Committee on Financial Services, Chairs the subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, and is on the subcommittee on International Monetary Policy Trade, the committee on Foreign Affairs, the subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and the Joint economic Committee.

Those of you not exactly thrilled with the economy might note that Ron Paul is known as somewhat of an economic expert, and as a result is assigned to committees of such nature.

In 1976 Paul founded the non- profit organization the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a group that is still in existence today and has reported yearly earning of over $630,000.

In 1984 Ron Paul initiated Ron Paul and Associates (RP&A Inc.) and organization that employed Paul and his family and was vice chaired by Lew Rockwell. RP&A reported yearly earnings in 1992 at over $940,000.

I’m not sure, does founding and running organizations earning over ½ million dollars upwards to almost a million a year qualify in the “executive experience” column?

But IMHO what sets Ron Paul aside from everyone else and may be his most redeeming quality is his knowledge of the United States Constitution and his unwavering resolution to let it be the guiding factor in his decisions.

Know this, where Ron Paul President, every decision and expenditure would first be weighed with Constitutional scrutiny.

Imagine that, the nation’s leader adhering to the limits and powers of the constitution and applying sound economic strategies. Well, a boy can dream can’t he?

[Woods Walker]

Yup. All that sounds good, and he's 1000% more qualified than the current bozo we have as President. But then you get to the part where the terrorists have to be blowing up grammer schools on US soil before he'd fight back. Or siding with the 9-11 "truthers" that 9-11 was an "inside job". Or his comments that we SHOULDN'T have killed terrorist leader Al Milwaukee (or whatever in hell his name was). In fact, that, and the killing of Bin Laden are the ONLY things that President Incompetent has done right so far!

That's when I hear the Twilight Zone music in the background!

He's got a lot of good ideas that I agree with....and then he goes off the reservation......

And he STILL has no executive experience, and the next President we have must ABSOLUTELY have that to un**** the mess Obamanation has put us in!!!!

And may I point out that Robert Reisch (Clinton's Sec of Commerce) is also an economic "expert", but if you put him in charge of a lemonade stand where he'd have to face actual day to day problems of running a business and not juist spout book theory, he couldn't find his *** with both hands!

[Big Horse]

Woods, you quote Ron Paul as saying 911 was an inside job. I would really like to see that full quotation in context, because every answer I can find to that question Ron Paul consistently says he does not think that 911 was an inside job/conspiracy of the Fed government. In fact to the direct question, "No bloviating, do you believe that the 911 attack on the world trade center was an inside job?" Paul answered "The answer is no, if by inside job they mean our Government made it happen, no I don't believe that." In another interview he was asked, "Do you think the American government, the US Government, had anything to do with bringing those towers down, either directly or allowing it to happen?" Ron Paul answered, "I think indirectly out of ineptness rather than participating in it or allowing it to happen."

What he has stated over and over is that 911 is essentially the result of Newtons law "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Paul uses the term "blow back" to describe what he says is the reaction to flawed foreign policy. Paul's position is that our occupation is a factor in the aggression we see from those who's land we are occupying.

As for Bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and terrorist in general, not only was Ron Paul not opposed to killing them, he was out front on the issue and introduced legislation in accordance with constitutional powers to allow it. Just a month after the 911 attacks, on October 10, 2001 Ron Paul introduced HR 3076, stating...

"(a) The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.
(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act."

Unfortunately, one of the biggest reasons Ron Paul doesn't get any more traction than he does is due to the constant dissemination of misinformation about his positions, such as I've seen in this thread. It's my belief this comes mostly from a lack in understanding of our constitution in today's society. Most people today react to problems through emotion. Ron Paul weighs every situation against the powers and limitations of the United States Constitution. He's not opposed to going after our enemies, be them terrorists or nations, he simply wants it done in accordance with the laws of our land.

[Woods Walker]

White House hopeful Ron Paul and the American Civil Liberties Union each condemned the United States' killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime.

Al Qaeda's Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen


Paul, a staunch Libertarian, said in New Hampshire Friday that it's "sad" if "the American people accept this blindly and casually," adding that "nobody knows if he ever killed anybody," According to the Wall Street Journal. the Texas Republican lawmaker said United States officials "have never been specific about the crime."


************************************************************************************************************************************


Rep. Ron Paul, a soon-to-be presidential candidate known for opposing U.S. military intervention overseas, said if he were president, he would not have duplicated President Obama's plan for taking out the man responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Paul plans to announce his candidacy Friday in New Hampshire, two sources told Fox News. Ahead of that announcement, he suggested in a radio interview Tuesday that the U.S. government could have worked with Pakistan to secure Usama bin Laden's capture instead of unilaterally entering the country and killing him -- despite concerns that the Pakistanis could have tipped him off.

"It was absolutely not necessary," Paul said of the May 1 CIA-led Navy SEALs raid.

****NOT NECESSARY???? I hear the Twilight Zone theme again......*****

Like I said, he does have some good ideas. But he's nuts. When you have a nest of vipers in the field next to your backyard, do you wait until one comes into your yard and bites your child before you do anything about it? I don't. I take care of it.

And finally, he STILL has no high level executive experience, or any other record of leadership, and believe you me, we are sure as hell going to NEED an experienced leader to clean up the mess that Obama is making. Good ideas are fine, but that's not enough.

[Big Horse]

So many people simply refuse to turn off the theme music and ask the question, why doesn't he think it was necessary?

When the simlpe answer is, because he believes we lacked the constitutional authority. Constitutional authority like the legislation Ron Paul proposed only a month after the 911 attacks.

I'm not sure exactly sure about vipers. If you have a convicted sexual predator living next to your children or grandchildren do you "take care of it" any way you see fit, or do you follow all legal means to insure the safety of those you care for from potential threats?

The top three contenders currently are a guy that has no elected or government experience. I don't believe we have ever had a president without at least one or the other. The guy that couldn't beat McCain. Lord help us. And the reincarnation of GWB. I don't have much hope we are going to change anything.

[Woods Walker]

The vipers I refer to are the Islamo-Loonies. The back yard is American soil. When the threat is there, then you don't wait for the UN to tell us what we can do or waste valuble time doing a political Kabuki dance. They are not far from having nuclear capability. So yes, do what we have to do. Paul's position is unacceptable to me. If we went by what he would do, then both Bin-Laden and Al-Milwaukee would still be alive while we dither away of advantage and security.

And in an extreme case, if there was a person that was threatening my child, and the law wouldn't or couldn't do anything about it, then yes, I would take care of it. My first responsibility in the world, even above my own life, is to protect my child.

[Big Horse]

Ron Paul wants us out of the UN. He believes only the Congress in combination with the President thru the powers vested by the U.S. Constitution have the authority to control what we do as a Nation.

Paul is not afraid to fight our enemies. One, he simply wants it done by Constitutional means, and two, when the constitutional authorization is achieved he believes in a no holds barred all out offensive to win, . No occupation. No nation building.

As I pointed out, and provided portions of the proposed legislation, Paul's position was to go after Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and to capture them DEAD or alive. Legislation he proposed only one month after 911. No 10 year occupations of nation building. Constitutional authorization to KILL our enemies. His position is stronger than most and he was one of the few with the courage to act on it. It wasn't a failure of Ron Paul that allowed Bin Laden and others to terrorize the world for another 10 years after 911. It was a congress unwilling to pass legislation in accordance with constitutional powers to allow our enemies to be "hunted down". Ron Paul's position likely would have brought the demise to Bin Laden and other AlQaeda conspirators such as al-Awlaki much sooner rather than later. The fact's of Ron Paul's position, unlike the misrepresentations we typically hear, and the action he took not just talked about, are in the legislation he submitted to Congress, which I posted here for your viewing. Choose to ignore it if you wish.