Slashdot Mirror

You might have missed it due to the media blackout that was perpetrated on him, but Ron Paul seems to be what you wanted Obama to be.

Excerpted from RP2008, a discussion about charity, which in the limited usefulness of space exploration the space program is. I assume you could say it employs people, but those people would have no problem working other places as well.

If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.'

"'Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have Thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.'

That's three, not two, and Ron Paul is the only one that is owned by the people, not the corporations.

Does this include anyone who is actively running for president? RP has dropped out

Curiously I find myself enamored with this guy also. While over-all I don't agree with most of his politics I find his candor refreshing. If only we could get more politicians to tell the truth when asked questions. While we may be on opposite ends of our political beliefs thanks for your honesty. There is another guy speaking honestly.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

How dare they NOT snoop Ron Paul's passport records? He's still running for president, you know. http://ronpaul2008.com/

Modded down by the nigger-loving liberal left, once again. You won't get rid of me, Slashdot. I have made it my mission to alert America to the dangers posed by blacks, a hidden threat that grows ever larger with the continuing success of Barack *Hussein* Obama. Liberal America is sleepwalking into electing a black Islamic militant as President and don't even see it as a problem.

WAKE UP, AMERICA! It's the White House, not the Black House!
Keep the blacks out, support Ron Paul in 2008.

And that sounds just like Ron Paul's entire platform.

Like the fact that he's pro-life. Or the fact that he wants to withdraw from the UN and reinstate a foreign policy that borders on isolationism. Or his 19th Century economic policies.

Well there you go.

"Borders on isolationism" is nearly a direct quote from the media, and false. Going after the terrorists directly (via Marque and Reprisal) while persuing diplomacy with foreign countries and encouraging fair trade and travel does not equal isolationism or even borderline isolationism. Ron's policy is one of non-interventionism, which is dramatically different. Here are a few examples that explain the difference. You claim people know Ron's message. In my experience, this is one of the most repeated falsehoods I hear.

And for crying out loud, you dislike the war in Iraq yet want to stay in the U.N.?! The U.N. is largely responsible for our involvement in Iraq! (see Resolution 1441) How can you condemn pulling out when they are an abomination that does nothing but threaten our sovereignty for the so-called benefit of the world ... and at our expense and reputation?


And what about Ron's economic policies are 19th century? Are you saying that Steve Forbes, who has praised Ron's economic ideas, also has the same 19th century mentality?

• Stopping the declining value of the dollar by printing more money?
• Less spending by the federal government?
• Ending over-regulation?
• Stop the wasted attempts to pay of debt and its interest with more debt?
• Providing tax credits to increase competition and new ideas rather than "writing checks" to the companies with the best lobbyists?
• Getting rid of the organization largely responsible for our economic woes - the Federal Reserve?

Oh wait, I bet you're referring to the "gold standard" myth. Though it hasn't stopped the media from twisting his words, Ron has stated more than once that he's not necessarily for a gold standard. What he does want, is to restore the value of the dollar and has suggested competing currencies (he even just made a speech in congress about this in the last few weeks) as one way to achieve that.

Ron's economic plan (if you bothered reading it), is clearly far from being 19th century.

Please tell me I'm wrong and you have a solid example of what you mean.

In any case, it is NOT the president's job to manage the economy! Nor should it be. He or she should uphold the constitution and let the market take care of itself (where possible of course, there are exceptions thanks to years of government involvement).


Pro-life is his personal view, not his federal policy. His position is to get the federal government out of moral issues such as this one. While I don't agree with his personal view necessarily, moving the issue to local government (where people have more of a say) is a fair and constitutional compromise.

Regardless, the issue of abortion is nothing more than a diversion from the real problems we face. It's a talking point to make people feel good about themselves. Choosing a president based on this issue, when the federal government has no constitutional abilit

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Dr. Paul's supporters are almost diametrically opposed to most of the other Republicans' stands on issues, so it's highly unlikely they'd even vote Republican if Dr. Paul weren't running.

Paul supporters may be diametrically opposed to the Republican platform, but by and large, Dr. Paul himself is not. In different circumstances, Ron Paul is a Republican/conservative wet-dream:

• Ron Paul is pro-life. Whether his Libertarian sensibilities would prevent him from directly supporting anti-abortion legislation, I don't know.
• Ron Paul believes strongly in the 2nd amendment, and that it guarantees an individual right to gun ownership.
• On environmental issues, Ron Paul believes the best solutions come from ownership of private property and the exercise of a free market economy.
• Ron Paul opposes increases in the FDA's power.
• Ron Paul opposes affirmative action. (Maybe. I think that's what it boils down too, but I'm not going to make a big case for it.)
• Ron Paul apparently supports free market solutions to the health care debate in the U.S., not various "mandatory" and "one-payer" solutions put forward by Democrats.
• Ron Paul supports home schooling, and wants the government to be less involved in education.

Other information on his site indicate that he may be a "strong borders" candidate.

Now, why is he not a conservative darling? It's that one difference on Iraq. Conservatives have have hitched their wagon to Iraq, and they'll be there to the end, for good or ill. (Well, the principled conservatives, anyway.) Other than that, he is Old School conservative, even more hard-core than Reagan. Other than that, I would have his sign in my front yard.

What puzzles me is, why do so many liberals support him? Just because of his Iraq stance? The Democrat candidates don't want us in Iraq, and they believe in abortion, 2nd amendment restrictions, etc. I believe the reason is this: many liberals know that neither Obama nor Clinton, no matter what their rhetoric, would pull our presence from Iraq immediately. Paul, however, might just do it.

Moreover, please point out those "less government is better conservatives" who haven't spent the last 8 years supporting George W. Bush's rampant expansion of the federal government.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

As to your reasonable requirement, that depends very much on your point of view.

Clearly some Republicans are not evil

Don't give up hope... Here's clarification from the official campaign:

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates

February 9th, 2008 by Dan McCarthy
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.

Republicans do not want John McCain to be their nominee. He has only been able to become the front-runner because the field was so divided and because he's a media darling. We can see just how unpopular McCain is in the heartland by his performance in the Kansas caucuses today. Kansans resoundingly rejected the Arizona senator, and McCain's big wins so far have mostly been in blue states -- states he won't win in November if, heaven forbid, he's the Republican nominee.

Republicans want and need an alternative. Some people think Mike Huckabee provides an alternative to McCain. But Huckabee, who now tries to sound like Ron Paul when he talks about abolishing the IRS, raised taxes in Arkansas and vastly expanded spending in that state when he was its governor. Huckabee is no alternative at all. Ron Paul, on the other hand, has never voted for a tax increase, never voted for an unbalanced budget or for an unconstitutional war or government program.

At stake here is not just the Republican nomination -- which McCain still has not locked up -- but the future of the Republican Party and, much more importantly, the future of our liberties. We have to organize in every single state, including the ones that have already voted in the primaries and caucuses, to continue the fight to take back the Republican Party and to ensure that Ron Paul's principles, the principles of Washington and Jefferson, prevail. For the sake of that cause, Ron Paul's campaign continues, all the way to the convention.

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates

READ THE LETTER rofl. Here is his official press release on this mess if you're still not convinced

http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/

Here's a small excerpt "A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way."

gg ./

You do realize that Paul (like most big-L Libertarians, though perhaps even more extremely than most) is firmly and explicitly opposed to any such "New Deal" domestic policy, right? (We are, after all, talking about a man who would seek to completely eliminate the Department of Education and defund education spending at a federal level.)

If an end to expensive and counter-productive military adventurism and a re-commitment to New Deal-style domestic programs is something you feel strongly about, you might find yourself better served by a candidate like Barack Obama.

You do realize that Paul (like most big-L Libertarians, though perhaps even more extremely than most) is firmly and explicitly opposed to any such "New Deal" domestic policy, right? (We are, after all, talking about a man who would seek to completely eliminate the Department of Education and defund education spending at a federal level.)

If an end to expensive and counter-productive military adventurism and a re-commitment to New Deal-style domestic programs is something you feel strongly about, you might find yourself better served by a candidate like Barack Obama.

Apparently not, he's staying in the race. http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/

His answer to whether we should consider the Chinese and Indian space programs threats or opportunities is that we shouldn't be subsidizing their defense. The only way that answer makes sense is if it means "Americans shouldn't be giving money to Chinese and Indian businesses" because that's how we're subsidizing their defense.

That's exactly what he says, "America should stop subsidizing the defenses of the rest of the world and worry more about its own national security interests".

The question then becomes, by what means does he propose to prevent this?

Though it's not in the Q&A he has answered it. The USA has the military stationed in 130 countries and he wants to bring them home.

My god, do some research people: Paul's positions on just about all of this is available on his site. And in the Google interview he answers most of these too. He has got to be one of the least evasive politicians around.

Most politicians answer these questions to some degree, too. But you have to dig. It sounds like you're upset that the media doesn't talk about issues like these, and there I agree with you. The established media has totally failed to raise the bar in public political discourse. In fact it's just about completely buggered it up. Everyone should know exactly where all the candidates stand on all the questions you mention. The fact that so few do is pretty sad. But since the info is out there, you're a bit to blame too. Don't just sit back and complain that nobody brought the info to your doorstep. Go out and learn about these things. And then vote what you believe.

In any case, hope you find some good answers. Cheers.

I wrote a pretty long response to this and then decided it was garbage.

I will grant you that the campaign could do a better job giving bullet point plans for specific things.

However, I would suggest that the reason they haven't done this is not so much that they are like every other campaign, but because Ron has been in Congress 20 years and has proposed hundreds of pieces of legislation, and they have too much faith in people doing their own research. It's also true that his message is just simpler than most. He doesn't need a 600-page plan to explain how he's going to leave you alone so you can solve your problems as works best for you instead of as dictated by Washington. The Constitution allows the Federal Government to do very little. This is not a bug, it's a feature.

They did recently summarize his economic recovery plan, with specific bills cited. It's currenetly linked from the top-right corner of his page:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/prosperity

For bills he's written on other issues, speeches, etc., see http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/ If you can't find what Ron Paul specifically thinks on pretty much any issue, I'd be very surprised. But if that's the case, you can in fact get an answer. Go to a rally and stick around after and ask him. He's famous for not leaving until everyone has a chance to talk to him. His staff hates it because he has a schedule to keep. But I've seen him take the time to answer in detail some pretty off the wall questions. Beyond that, find people near you who are close to the campaign and let them get you an answer. That's one reason I'm in here today. I've already talked to them about trying to get /. to do a followup since people wanted more details, but I don't know if /. will do it or if the campaign will decide it's a place they can afford the time. If we as a demographic (and I'm not a politico, I'm a Linux Sysadmin, thanks for the apology) want more of these people's attention we have to actually turn out the vote. Not because we want them to pander, but because even the best statesmen have limited time and have to make hard choices on where to spend it. If he has to choose to take an hour to talk to voters in a Super Tuesday state or respond to ALIPAC or respond to /., which would you have him choose? He can't do all of them at once.

Oh, and for the record, Ron Paul is extremely pro-life.

I think it's important to note that he's extremely against the legality of abortions being a Federal issue, for the record.

He's already answered basically all these questions before but I'll go down the list for you and answer what I think he would say. Most of the info is available on his website.

Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
>> He believes that immigration is harmful to our economy because it is a burden on tax payers when non-taxpayers take advantage of social programs. The way he proposes to end illegal immigration is to phase out wellfare and the social benefits that people come here for. When those things are gone illegal immigrants won't be a financial drain and will probably be a necessary part of our economy.

Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
>> He wants to lock down the borders to prevent illegal immigration (presumably using troops recalled from overseas)

In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
>> Ron Paul specifically referred to 911 as an attack in the debate "Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" -Ron Paul

Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
>> Not sure what the goal of this question is but he definitely would want them to vote.

What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
>> Only extreme restrictions on bombs and stuff that is dangerous to other people in proximity. He opposed to ban on assault rifles in keeping with the 2nd Ammendment.

Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?
>> Yes he believes they overstep their bounds, this is pretty much the basis of his whole campaign. The second question is pretty nebulous, I guess his answer would be "one thing at a time".

How will you reduce America's dependence on foreign oil?
>> By stopping oil subsidies and wars defending oil interests and letting the markets determine the real price of oil and subsequently having alternatives pop up as the market dictates.

Is healthcare a right?
>> No, healthcare is a service. The government should have nothing to do with healthcare, including the managed HMOs and stuff we have now. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-care/

Please give you opinion regarding Kelo v. City of New London (Supreme court deciison which gives municipalities broad powers to seize private property for the purpose of increasing tax revenues).
etc.
>> I don't know the details of the case but Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax and is probably the biggest defender of individual rights.

You can find most of this stuff on his website RonPaul2008.com... he is by far the most straightforward and unapologetic about what he believes (which is quite a bit different from all the other candidates and hasn't really changed in 20 years).

Most of those questions have been answered already: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Answers from ronpaul2008.com issues page mostly. Unlike a lot of politicians, Ron makes some *very* clear statements about his intent... and with his history and voting record you can trust him to do what he says. I disagree with easily 40% of his positions- but I trust him to do what he says. ALL the other politicians left in the race, I trust to say whatever they need to say to be elected and then go right back to running the company for major corporations as soon as they are elected...

Question 1> Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
Answer 1>

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Question 2> In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Answer 2> I could find no clear answer to your question...There were answers around your question here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism

Question 3>Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
Answer 3> While I could find no clear answers to your question, I think most people who follow Ron Paul would find your question completely bizarre. Of course he is for every united states citizen's right to vote. He's never beaten his wife, and he's never called for welfare recipients to lose the right to vote.
His positions on this area (voting record) appears to be here: http://www.thelangreport.com/?p=324

Question 4>What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Answer 4>
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/
I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unc

Answers from ronpaul2008.com issues page mostly. Unlike a lot of politicians, Ron makes some *very* clear statements about his intent... and with his history and voting record you can trust him to do what he says. I disagree with easily 40% of his positions- but I trust him to do what he says. ALL the other politicians left in the race, I trust to say whatever they need to say to be elected and then go right back to running the company for major corporations as soon as they are elected...

Question 1> Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?
Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?
Answer 1>

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:

* Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
* Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
* No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That's a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
* No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
* End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
* Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods.

Question 2> In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?
Answer 2> I could find no clear answer to your question...There were answers around your question here:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Terrorism

Question 3>Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?
Answer 3> While I could find no clear answers to your question, I think most people who follow Ron Paul would find your question completely bizarre. Of course he is for every united states citizen's right to vote. He's never beaten his wife, and he's never called for welfare recipients to lose the right to vote.
His positions on this area (voting record) appears to be here: http://www.thelangreport.com/?p=324

Question 4>What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?
Answer 4>
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/
I share our Founders' belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unc

They are, according to his website. Frankly, I think we should go further, but getting the gorram Feds out of the way is an acceptable start.

I will give these a try. This is not an official campaign response, but it's also not just a fanboy response; I *have* been sent to represent the campaign before, and am on a first-name basis with the family and campaign. I will also try to get an official response to this but it's kind of Super Tuesday today so most people are working in the field.

Most of these can also be answered via google, anyway.

Do you believe the current levels of illegal immigration are harmful to America in terms of economy and culture? If so, how do you propose to reduce/end illegal immigration?

Paul is the strongest anti-illegal immigration candidate still running, primarily because of the harm done to our economy when people take entitlements they did not contribute to. He is absolutely opposed to illegal immigration and has published a 6-point plan to secure the border, including no amnesty, amendinging the Constitution to make clear children born to illegals here are not citizens, physically securing the border, etc.

That said, he does not oppose legal immigration and primarily sees the problem as economic. He has stated that immigrants are made scapegoats of our current economic problems. We can't afford to keep doing what we're doing with entitlements, so we have to fix that first, but once the economy is fixed he has stated the problem would always be too little immigration.

Do you believe in open borders -- unrestricted immigration?

I think this is included in the second half of the answer above; for more information on things Ron Paul has consistently said on immigration see here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Immigration

In Republican debate #2, you implied that America was not attacked on 9/11. What words, the, would you use to describe the events of that day -- the murder of thousands of people by organized foreign nationals subsidized by States, the destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars in property and the follow-on damage to our economy?

We were obviously attacked and I've never heard him say anything remotely otherwise. He has consistently proposed for and voted for legislation to go after the actual perpetrators (al Qaeda) as opposed to random Arabian countries that have oil we'd like to have. He has criticized our interventionist, imperial foreign policy as a strong contributing factor for why people attack us, but regardless of their reasons they need to be brought to justice. Random civilians do not need to be bombed for this to happen.

Should those on welfare be disallowed from voting?

I've never heard him speak to this directly but I would certainly say no. He is the one person running who knows we need to eventually get rid of the entitlements BUT do it in a way that keeps existing people dependent on them from being thrown in the street, and revoking their basic rights is not consistent with his approach. We need to cut our imperial spending and take care of things at home, while promoting better policies for the future (as in letting kids opt-out of social security, while still paying back those that paid in already).

What restrictions to firearm ownership do you support?

None, though private property owners set the policy on their own property.

Do you believe the Federal government has exceeded the authority granted to it by the Constitution? If so, how do you propose to return America's Federal government to the limited powers proscribed therein?

What softball? Ron Paul of course believes the Federal government has run roughshod over the Constitution. He never votes for unconstitutional legislation and as President would veto it. He has stated that he would veto any budget that contained unconstitutional spending. The one place for "wiggle room" here is going to be his above approach to not throw people used to entitlements out onto the str

Here you go.

He's also written extensively on economics, monetary and foreign policy, and there's a large archive of his speeches in congress here.

-jcr

I don't think these answers were written by RP; compare to his overview of Mises and Austrian Economics below or to his recent speech on economics in Seattle. He is very thorough, these "answers" are anything but. Perhaps he was consulted briefly by a staffer but wasn't told or didn't realize the size of the Slashdot audience (which is actually a bit surprising, but then again as much as he loves the Internet he isn't a geek). I think he would have personally answered the questions if he knew his answers were going to be read by several million readers world-wide (or whatever the Slashdot audience is).

Also worth mentioning is that Ron Paul is not pro-legislation. Much of the questions asked assume the introduction of some type of program or legislation (it seems), but that is not what RP is about. He is about getting rid of shit that doesn't belong. He has said on numerous occasions that he "would never use executive orders to legislate, but would use executive orders to cancel-out bad [pre-existing] executive orders".

Mises and Austrian Economics: A Personal View [PDF]:
http://www.mises.org/books/paulmises.pdf

Ron Paul on economics (Seattle, Jan 31 2008, six parts ~ 50 minutes -- several versions on YouTube this one seems the best):
part 1
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6

Official YouTube site (plenty of stuff here):
http://www.youtube.com/user/RonPaul2008dotcom

Official Website:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

I still haven't heard how he intends to go back to the Gold Standard.

Uh? He talks about that in every speech dude. And maybe you can find the answer in his website. ;) (ie. competing currencies)
Also, a couple of videos you may find interesting: fox biz interview / Forbes et al commenting Ron Paul