Want to support him but one thing really bothers me...

[Nefertiti]

I agree with those who said he believes in due process with regards to Cheney.

I have to admit, while I would love to see him out of office, I get really annoyed at people who spend their time standing around on street corners with "Impeach Cheney" signs. I wish that those people would put their time and efforts into supporting a presidential candidate that will correct the problems caused by Cheney. Otherwise, we have no guarantee of change with the new presidency. Why not fight for something rather than against something?

 

[misconstrued]

It always has something to do with the constitution man, he didnt vote to give rosa parks a medal with tax payer dollars, but he offered congress to pitch in 100 bucks a peace and pay for it theirselves. The vote was however passed, 534-1. Hes a man of principal.

It's worth noting that he suggested all members of congress donate $100 personally for the medal. Not one of them agreed to do so except him.

 

[BillyDkid]

Ron Paul explained his position on impeachment very clearly. Something as important as impeachment needs to go through the hearing process just like the impeachment of Nixon and Clinton did. Trust me, RP is no supporter or defender of Cheney.

 

[WillInMiami]

I will answer this with clarity and simplicity. It is my understanding that Ron Paul thought that an attempt to force a vote on the bill prior to going through a committie was improper. It's not the he supports the bill. He supports the proper procedure for ALL bills. He felt that he would be ignoring the rules if he voted any differently and Ron Paul is a BIG believer in rules and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's stance on impeaching any member of the current administration is well known - he's spoken publicly about it. He does NOT support any effort to impeach either President Bush or Vice President Cheney. That is NOT to say that he agrees with them. He has made it clear that he does not agree with them on allmost all of the important issues. However, he feels that it would be improper to impeach them. Furthermore, I believe that he holds Congress more responsible for the military action in Iraq than he does the President. After all, Congress refused to vote on his bill calling for a declaration of was and instead transfered their responsiblity to the President in an effort to avoid responsibility and position themselves to either side with or against the President after all of the dust settled and the public had determined if we should or should not have gotten involved militarily in Iraq.

You will notice that I did not use the word "war" and instead chose to use the phrase "military action". This is because we have NEVER declared war on Iraq. Therefore we cannot be engaged in war. Instead, we are involved in nation-building and are user our military as as police force. It is worthwile to mention that we did topple the previous government and military as usually happens in a war. None-the-less, we're not currently at war with Iraq so we should not call it a war.

PS. I'm a veteran of the 82nd Abn Division. I LOVE our soldiers and would proudly stand in the defense of my country again. This does not mean that I must support our adventures around the world that are so costly and cause our brave men and women to be injured and killed. The middle-east will never be stable. As far as I'm concerned we should pull out of the entire region and let them continue killing each other as they'be done for thousands of years.

 

[me3]

If possible, please try to remember that we have a potential new supporter sponsoring this thread. Let's try to answer his questions.

 

[steph3n]

I agree fully with this, there is a process that must be followed.

Also this entire floor vote was mockery of the system to start with, Dr Paul doesn't like spitting on the constitution, then making it litter and stepping on it, there are rules to be followed, procedure to be done. This will was right to the floor and used mostly media claims as well. One needs more hard fact that Cheney intentionally distorted the intel. In my opinion he did just like they all do the the constitution, cherry picked it for what he wanted, just that in the intel reports there were thousands of pages to pick from some it came out glowing red hot once they picked all the ripe cherries for display.

I will answer this with clarity and simplicity. It is my understanding that Ron Paul thought that an attempt to force a vote on the bill prior to going through a committee was improper. It's not the he supports the bill. He supports the proper procedure for ALL bills. He felt that he would be ignoring the rules if he voted any differently and Ron Paul is a BIG believer in rules and the Constitution.

Ron Paul's stance on impeaching any member of the current administration is well known - he's spoken publicly about it. He does NOT support any effort to impeach either President Bush or Vice President Cheney. That is NOT to say that he agrees with them. He has made it clear that he does not agree with them on almost all of the important issues. However, he feels that it would be improper to impeach them. Furthermore, I believe that he holds Congress more responsible for the military action in Iraq than he does the President. After all, Congress refused to vote on his bill calling for a declaration of was and instead transfered their responsiblity to the President in an effort to avoid responsibility and position themselves to either side with or against the President after all of the dust settled and the public had determined if we should or should not have gotten involved militarily in Iraq.

You will notice that I did not use the word "war" and instead chose to use the phrase "military action". This is because we have NEVER declared war on Iraq. Therefore we cannot be engaged in war. Instead, we are involved in nation-building and are user our military as as police force. It is worthwile to mention that we did topple the previous government and military as usually happens in a war. None-the-less, we're not currently at war with Iraq so we should not call it a war.

PS. I'm a veteran of the 82nd Abn Division. I LOVE our soldiers and would proudly stand in the defense of my country again. This does not mean that I must support our adventures around the world that are so costly and cause our brave men and women to be injured and killed. The middle-east will never be stable. As far as I'm concerned we should pull out of the entire region and let them continue killing each other as they'be done for thousands of years.

 

[thuja]

Hello. I just heard recently about Ron Paul and the amount of support he has from people. I started to read up on and I have some questions and conclusions:

- I really like his honesty. I don't believe our government represents the people and I don't believe the current administration reflects any of the ideals I associate with america.

- He wants to get rid of the fed. I don't like how the fed charges interest when it lends to the government, but I was reading that the fed is good because it can pour money into an economy to put it back on track if its faltering. I am not sure though because as much as I hate to admit it, the whole federal reserve system confuses me. Can someone knows about it tell me their thoughts on it?

- Here is my big one. There was a vote recently to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul voted to put it on the shelf. Kucinich voted the opposite. Cheney is a traitor to the United States as well as Bush. If Ron Paul has so much integrity in upholding the constitution, why did he not vote to impeach one of its most aggressive attackers? I really want to like this guy, but I don't think I can support someone that refuses to take action against domestic enemies like Cheney. I am hoping he had a good reason for it. Does anyone here know?

i want to know too.

 

[steph3n]

i want to know too.

read this topic then

 

[shadowhooch]

- Here is my big one. There was a vote recently to impeach Dick Cheney. Ron Paul voted to put it on the shelf. Kucinich voted the opposite. Cheney is a traitor to the United States as well as Bush. If Ron Paul has so much integrity in upholding the constitution, why did he not vote to impeach one of its most aggressive attackers? I really want to like this guy, but I don't think I can support someone that refuses to take action against domestic enemies like Cheney. I am hoping he had a good reason for it. Does anyone here know?

Hi and welcome. Ron Paul actually was asked this question in an interview a ways back...."would you vote to impeach?"

Ron said that it isn't only the President and Vice President's fault for this war. It is also the fault of Congress for handing over the power of war to the Executive branch. According to the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war. But they simply transferred the power to the President in 2002 instead of taking responsibility. So, all of Congress is to blame too and so you would need to impeach all of Congress as well for shirking their Constitutional duty.

 

[Pride]

* He has never voted to raise taxes.
* He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
* He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
* He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
* He has never taken a government-paid junket.
* He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
* He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
* He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
* He voted against the Patriot Act.
* He voted against the Iraq war.

Welcome to the revolution

 

[deedles]

Actually, he should be named an enemy combatant and thrown in Gitmo indefinitely - no habeus corpus, no due process, nothing but a nice warm waterboard.

GITMO!!!

 

[Dan Klaus]

Hi Castor - welcome to the boards...impeaching Cheney is a like using a bandaid instead of a turniquot...he will overturn the foriegn policy interventions and people like Cheney won't matter..we just have to get him into the white house and need good people like you to help..hope you stick around and contribute...

 

[wbbgjr]

If you notice, Ron Paul tries not to attack people personally, but he will challenge their views. I think that's a good strategy since he's trying to win over people. If you attack them then they become defensive and become even more entrenched in disproving you.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

- He wants to get rid of the fed. I don't like how the fed charges interest when it lends to the government, but I was reading that the fed is good because it can pour money into an economy to put it back on track if its faltering. I am not sure though because as much as I hate to admit it, the whole federal reserve system confuses me. Can someone knows about it tell me their thoughts on it?

Depending on the Fed to help the American economy is like depending on Credit Cards to support a hopelessly irresponsible person.

The end result is that the Credit Card companies get rich, and that person goes into bankruptcy.

 

[parke]

Actually, he should be named an enemy combatant and thrown in Gitmo indefinitely - no habeus corpus, no due process, nothing but a nice warm waterboard.

ice cold one is more like it.

 

[castor]

Wow, thanks for all of your responses! Glad to see that many of them were polite. I found an article on what happened and how the GOP tried to force it to the floor to embarrass the democrats. But I don't understand how that would embarrass them. I know Pelosi said the Dems wouldn't impeach (that amazes me) but what would really happen if it was forced to the floor?

Another question I have is on Ron Pauls bill HR 1094 - Sanctity of life act. I know he personally is against abortion, but he says that he supports the states right to decide those matters. Yet in this bill he seeks to make the definition of life start at conception. That would make it a federal law right?

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/gpoxmlc110/h1094_ih.xml


How is this in line with states rights?

Thanks for the responses!

 

[silverhandorder]

I think it would just classify that life begins at conception. So abortion if made legal would be like legal murder. Basically does not effect the law but strips away the bullshit veil where you might think you are not murdering the child. A way to influence by creating good morals. I could be wrong.

 

[xcalybur]

The vote by Ron Paul to put the impeachment into committee was because the vote driven by Kucinich was a witch hunt. I think we all believe that Dick Cheney and George Bush for that matter is guilty of treason and should be impeached, but our justice system has something called due process and innocent until proven guilty. Kucinich wanted to force a vote that would basically find Dick Cheney guilty without due process. Kucinich is like a prosecutor providing evidence that Dick is guilty. The congress vote is like the jury when voting whether someone is guilty or not. The committee is more like a judge. The judge guides the proceedings to the jury for them to make a decision. Kucinich tried to circumvent due process. Personnally, I don't blame him. Ron Paul's view is that even the guilty Dick Cheney needs due process.

This strengthens my view on Ron Paul even more. Even within the obviousness of impeachment, Ron Paul stuck to his principles.

 

[xcalybur]

The thing about HR 1094 is that the Constitution states our rights given by our creator based on presumption of human life. The problem with abortion in the last 35-40 years is that Human life isn't defined in the Constitution. Ron Paul wants to define it so it is clear cut when rights start and are thus protected by the Constitution. Yes, this would make abortion illegal from a Federal standpoint. I don't particularly think this is a bad thing.

 

[castor]

I don't think thats something for the government to decide though. I have mixed feelings about the abortion issue and I think there are very reasonable arguments for just about every side of it.

I think the constitution didn't define it for that very reason. Is there a way to contact Ron Paul about this and get a direct response? Thanks again.