Are you going to vote for Ron Paul for president 2008?


List some of the reason why please.

Update 2:

Good work Ron Paul supporters.....continue to get the word out as there are still way too many naive and/or complacent people. I'd say "forget 'em" if it weren't for the fact that the aware people will suffer along beside them if they don't discover the truth and do something about it. Join the Ron Paul Revolution Now before it's too late. Wake up people ! ! !

23 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Yes, and this is a response to Sageandscholar's points.

    Sage, I know you have gotten this information before, but I will try again.

    Q1: ...liar - claiming the Federal Reserve System is privately owned...

    A1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (the law of the land) stipulates that the Federal Reserve Banks of each region are owned by the member banks in it. These Fed banks are privately owned corporations that make a great effort to hide the fact that they, in fact, own what the public largely thinks is part of the public treasury and government. It's easy to think that as Fed chairmen and seven of the twelve Governors are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate. As such, the FRB is a sort of quasi-government entity, but the fact is the System is a privately owned for profit enterprise just like any other business. It has stockholders like other public corporations that are paid 6% risk free interest every year on their equity holdings. The public doesn't know this, and it likely wouldn't be good PR if it found out. People might be even more upset if they learned some of the owners of our Federal Reserve are powerful foreign investors in the UK, France, Germany, The Netherlands and Italy. They're partners with giant US banks like JP Morgan Chase and Citibank as well as powerful Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs in a new world order banking cartel that influences and affects business activity everywhere and our lives.

    The issue of private ownership of the Federal Reserve Banks has been challenged several times in the federal courts to no avail. Each time the courts upheld the current system under which each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. One such case was Lewis v. United States that was decided by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that ruled the Reserve Banks are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations.

    Any of these books are good reads

    Another good write up and history.

    Q2: ...hypocrite - arguing for smaller government while leading congress in earmarks this year.

    A2: One, he is one of a few that even DISCLOSES his earmarks for constituents. His own statement is, if the money is there, he is going to try and help his constituents. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better. From another source, "He feels the IRS takes the money and so it's [his] job to make sure money comes back in the district," Mr. Lizardo said.

    Source 1 Ron Paul on the house floor

    Source 2

    Q3: ... He opposed the UN program to eradicate small pox...

    A3: I'm not certain it was a UN program, as you did not provide a source for your allegation. However, upon some research on this interesting statement, I did find these two seperate bodies of information. One of the article states "though it[smallpox] was eradicated publicly 25 years ago"

    1 : " An influential World Health Organization committee is sending shock waves through the scientific community with a recommendation that researchers be permitted to conduct genetic-engineering experiments with the smallpox virus.

    The idea is to be able to better combat a disease considered a leading bioterrorism threat though it was eradicated publicly 25 years ago.

    The WHO previously had opposed such work for fear that a "superbug" might emerge. Because the disease is so deadly, the WHO at times has recommended destroying the world's two known smallpox stockpiles, located in secure labs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta and in the former Soviet Union.

    The recommended policy shift has reignited a debate over whether such research will help or hinder bioterrorism defenses.

    The World Health Assembly — the ruling body of the 192-nation WHO — would decide whether to approve the experiments, which would include splicing a "marker" gene into the smallpox virus so its spread can be better tracked in the laboratory. The WHO committee said that inserting the marker gene wouldn't make the disease more dangerous and that allowing such experimentation would speed depletion of remaining smallpox-virus stocks.

    It has been U.S. policy to refrain from genetically engineering smallpox, but that would change if the WHO endorses such research.


    HR 5710 grants major new powers to the Department of Health and Human

    Services (HHS) by granting HHS the authority to "administer" the smallpox

    vaccine to members of the public if the Department unilaterally determines

    that there is a public health threat posed by smallpox. HHS would not even

    have to demonstrate an actual threat of a smallpox attack, merely the

    "potential" of an attack. Thus, this bill grants federal agents the

    authority to force millions of Americans to be injected with a potentially

    lethal vaccine based on nothing more than a theoretical potential smallpox

    incident. Furthermore, this provision continues to restrict access to the

    smallpox vaccine from those who have made a voluntary choice to accept the

    risk of the vaccine in order to protect themselves from smallpox. It is

    hard to think of a more blatant violation of liberty than allowing

    government officials to force people to receive potentially dangerous

    vaccines based on hypothetical risks.

    Source 1

    Source 2

    Q4: ...wants to deregulate ID controls in the finance industry...

    A4: Where do you come up with this? Care to provide a source? All I know is that he is against a "national ID card" AKA "Real ID Act".

    "Federally imposed standards for drivers' license and birth certificates make a mockery of federalism and the 10th amendment. While states technically are not forced to accept the federal standards, any refusal to comply would mean their residents could not get a job, receive Social Security, or travel by plane. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.

    One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals."

    Source 1

    Q5: ...wants to isolate America from multilateral treaties and organisations...

    A5: “The United States should be wary of joining sweeping multilateral treaties negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations,” ... “Specifically, the benefit to U.S. national interests should be indisputable and clearly outweigh the predictable negative consequences of ratification.”

    Some treaties can be used as a back-door to implement policies against global warming without any accountability to the American people. Treaties can mandate international regulation of U.S. economic and industrial activities. Read up on the "Law of Sea Treaty" and see how that helps or harms us. I agree with you that we should have treaties with other countries, but only if we cannot be taken advantage of w/o our elected officials being accountable. We do not elect the thinktanks, and policy makers at the UN, which is why this is so important.

    Q6: ...He is devoid of any form of compassion - blaming the poor for being poor and advocating regressive taxation and reduced government services...

    A6: That sounds like an opinion that has no correct answer. You whittled him down to a few words, great! If you think so, that is your right. How is no PERSONAL income tax "regressive taxation"? The Fair Tax and Flat Tax are examples of regressive taxation. Inflation, is a "hidden" regressive tax if you think about it. If you type in "regressive taxation ron paul" into google, most of it points to your own posts under Yahoo Answers. How come no one else talks of this convoluted view of his tax policies? What is wrong with making the government more efficient, so fiscally, we can get out of the hole, instead of adding more good intentioned, but ultimately hurtful federal agencies? Your state could do a much better job, according to your states conditions. If you don't like your state, vote, or move, it's much easier to pass policy in your state, rather than nationwide. What may be required for one state, may be a hinderance and waste for another.

    Perhaps your commendable, but misguided compassion for the poor overwhelms logical thought, and consequences for our country's future. Perhaps you think the government knows how to run programs really well, better than the private or state sectors. Perhaps this is why we argue so much. I have much compassion for the poor, I donate and volunteer. I don't expect everyone to, but a lot do. Why force everyone to? Do you feel no compassion for them? Do you hate rich people solely because they are rich? That smacks of jealousy. It's written ""Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". You are free to pursue it all you want, that is the only guarantee.

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, I am voting for Ron Paul for President. Here's why:

    1. Unrestricted gun rights - This is the backbone of freedom in my opinion.

    2. Securing our border - if we have no border then we have no country.

    3. Revise our foreign policy - we're in the same situation as the the Roman Empire was in that our military is spread too thin throughout the world. There's no reason for us to have troops in 130 other countries.

    4. Balanced Budget and Equal Trade - we're going broke and the Chinese are the one's buying our country.

    The candidate that embodies these qualities the best is Ron Paul. These are the issues that are important to me, I'm well aware that other people have different priorities and will vote accordingly.

    To sageandscholar - I will attempt to respond, although jessicaisbeautiful and ThomasS have already done so in brilliant fashion:

    1. ThomasS already answered this one much better than I could.

    2. According to Citizens Against Goverment Waste, Ron Paul is rated at 95% for the year 2006 and 82% lifetime in voting against wasteful spending. By comparison, Hillary Clinton comes in at 14% for the 109th Congress while earning a 10% lifetime score. - Along with continually earning grades of A by the National Taxpayers Union, this would suggest that he's not a hypocrite and actually a fiscal conservative. To date, you have not provided any proof to the contrary. Besides, like jessicaisbeautiful said, earmarks are money that's already in the budget. If you faild to represent the best interests of your constituents, then you will not be re-elected.

    3. I wouldn't go along with ANYTHING the U.N. wants to do. It's the most corrupt organization in the history of the world and is more and more becoming the spring board to a one-world-dictatorship. If the U.N. was saying their goal was to try to eradicate small pox, I have no doubts that there was an alterior motive, but I'd have to read their proposal for myself. Link?

    4. I know he's opposed to the REAL ID, which was a tool of Nazi Germany, so opposing it is a good thing for freedom. Again, I would need to read this for myself. Do you have a link?

    5. He doesn't want to isolate America. He doesn't want the rest of the world to be involved in our business the same that he doesn't believe it's right for us to be involved in everyone else's business. If the Chinese government were trying to tell Americans how to live the same way our government seems to tell other countries how to live, what would your reaction be? Again, this takes me to the corrupt U.N. and it leading the world towards a one-world-dictatorship.

    6. He doesn't blame the poor for being poor and he's not going to gut social services. In fact he has stated that if we, as a country, would stop spending so much overseas in terms of wars and unbalanced trade that we would be better able to help the citizens of this country.

  • 1 decade ago


    1. Because I'm sick of the lip-service politicians of both parties.

    2. Because Ron Paul is the only one who understands the real situation of the economy.

    3. Because Ron Paul is the only one who will trim the government down to a smaller size.

    4. Because Ron Paul is the only one who promises to bring the troops immediately.

    5. Because Ron Paul is the only one who respects the constitution and has voted consistently according to the constitutional principles.

    6. Because Ron Paul is the only one who is honest and consistent, and has a voting record to prove it.

    7. Because Ron Paul is the only one who is a libertarian and a true conservative Republican. The other Republicans are neocons.

    8. He is the only one who will encourge the move to the gold standard.

    Edit: by the way, to sageandscholar: The Fed is a private banking organization, but the Fed board of governers are appointed by the President of the US. So, it creates the illusion is that it is public. It is not. It doesn't even share detailed minutes of it's meetings to the Congress.

  • Joe S
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    I will vote for Ron Paul. I'm in agreement with his other supporters here. In the interest of also providing a more brief answer, I'll weigh in.

    I hate politics. I think that it is corrupt by nature. I believe that Ron Paul is the only serious candidate likely to reduce the burden of politics on my life.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    of course! why shouldn't I?

    Some great answers on here. Glad to see others do their research - unlike SageandScholar who "claims" that the Fed is controlled by Congress, thus a federal institute. That is not even a basis for saying that it is Congress that is currently coining its own money just because they have a hand in selecting the board. It is proven that it is owned by private banks abroad.

    You need to go back to read about how the Fed started and research the role it has today (not through a brochure you pick up at a bank - LOL).

  • 1 decade ago

    Yes, of course! Make no mistake about that!

    Ron Paul for president.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I am definitely voting for Ron Paul. There are two many reasons to name why but they are listed in his platform.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    With a fiat money system such as ours, you will have perpetual war as well.

    Ron Paul 2008.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I really like him, Hunter, and Tancredo. I sure can't top some of the answers here! I want whoever will get us out of the new world order disaster!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    When he runs as an Independant

    He has my vote for sure !!

    This is the one man that has new vision

    tempered by the core of the Constitution

    centered around the values of the Forefathers

    and in tune with a real world -- not the "fantasyland"

    that most American politicians are envisioning !!!

    And to an earlier responder here

    Rudy IS the CURRENT White House's Jester !!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    yes i am , i like his platform of smaller government , privatizing social security , bringing home all our solders not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, going back on the gold standard. making medication easier for us citizens to get. privatizing health care. and i can just keep going.

    and he has a true positive view for America and his supporters reflect that unlike the supporters for the other candidates as reflected here lol.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.