http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst102807.htm Struggling for Relevance in Cuba: Close, Still No Cigars Since Raul Castro seems to be transitioning to a more permanent position of power, the administration has begun talking about Cuba policy again. One would think we would be able to survey the results of the last 45 years and come to logical conclusions. Changing course never seems to be an option, however, no matter how futile or counterproductive our past actions have been. The Cuban embargo began officially in 1962 as a means to put pressure on the communist dictatorship to change its ways. After 45 years, the Cuban economy has struggled, but Cuba 's dictatorship is no closer to stepping to the beat of our drum. Any ailments have consistently and successfully been blamed on US Capitalism instead of Cuban Communism. They have substituted trade with others for trade with the US , and are "awash" with development funds from abroad. Our isolationist policies with regards to Cuba , meanwhile, have hardly won the hearts and minds of Cubans or Cuban-Americans, many of whom are isolated from families because this political animosity. In the name of helping Cubans, the US administration is calling for "multibillions" of taxpayer dollars in foreign aid and subsidies for internet access, education and business development for Cubans under the condition that the Cuban government demonstrates certain changes. In the same breath, they claim lifting the embargo would only help the dictatorship. This is exactly backwards. Free trade is the best thing for people in both Cuba and the US . Government subsidies would enrich those in power in Cuba at the expense of already overtaxed Americans! The irony of supposed Capitalist, free-marketeers inducing Communists to freedom with government hand-outs should not be missed. We call for a free and private press in Cuba while our attempts to propagandize Cubans through the US government run Radio/TV Marti has wasted $600 million in American taxpayer dollars. It's time to stop talking solely in terms of what's best for the Cuban people. How about the wishes of the American people, who are consistently in favor of diplomacy with Cuba ? Let's stop the hysterics about the freedom of Cubans – which is not our government's responsibility – and consider freedom of the American people, which is. Americans want the freedom to travel and trade with their Cuban neighbors, as they are free to travel and trade with Vietnam and China . Those Americans who do not wish to interact with a country whose model of governance they oppose are free to boycott. The point being – it is Americans who live in a free country, and as free people we should choose who to buy from or where to travel, not our government. Our current administration is perceived as irrelevant, at best, in Cuba and the message is falling on deaf ears there. If the administration really wanted to extend the hand of friendship, they would allow the American people the freedom to act as their own ambassadors through trade and travel. Considering the lack of success government has had in engendering friendship with Cuba , it is time for government to get out of the way and let the people reach out.
Ron Paul is the only conservative I actually agree with. Listen up lock stepping Repubs: If you nominate Paul, this (and I bet a lot of other) "Liberal"(s) would actually vote for him...
The DOE is a pretty worthless agency though. A bigger issue is that Paul is in favor of demolishing things like the FAA (try imagining private tower operations at airports), the NIH/National Academy of Sciences (watch medical research die), etc...
agree by a margin of 200% on this issue. But since Cuban dissents hold a seizable voting power in Florida, any policy that reflect the wish of the public majority will succumb to the dirty game of politics. Whoever elected MUST put Ron Paul in a foreign relation committee.
Stay away Andy... http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html Some excerpts, but worth the whole read... And from here: http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/trouble-with-ron.html, a few more excerpts:
And just like how Fox news does it, you can paint anyone in a very negative light. What does speak are actions. Why don't you bring up past voting records instead of a blog whos intent is to smear ron paul.. THen again you probably think that Hilary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani are fine candidates. That whole fear mongering **** is just laughable. If you even watch the debates, the fear mongering he does is nowhere close to the levels of the so called top tier candidates. They make it out as if Iran was ACTUALLY A THREAT. Never mind the fact that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia harbors more terrorists. The racist claim is also funny. That came from a newsletter in which he did not write. Also, his viewpoints and what he has said in public over the years have not been anywhere close to what was said in that newsletter. Also, who showed up to that PBS debate?
Rimrocker, thanks for the revealing info on Ron Paul. I have long known that I would never vote for him, as extreme Libertarians are for abolishing nearly all government to the point of nuttiness. Like many Libertarians he is probably against the Iraq War because it involves government spending and taxation. I wonder if Paul would be against privately financed mercenaries overthrowing a government in Africa, for instance. Maybe not. I did not know how strong Ron Paul's connections were to extreme right groups. When you put the whole story togetther, Ron Paul sort of reminds me of the La Rouchites. If you are on the left, they occasionally have a position that sounds somewhat attractive. It would not surprise me if they, too, are against the Iraq War. Unless Andy is a one issue voter, I doubt that he would support Paul once he reads your materials.
And yet you don't see the bias? Usually blogs like that are meant only for one reason...to slander. His so called "connections" are basically him receiving donations for his campaigns. He does not actively run a staff that actively seeks out. With all the corruption that surrounds clintons and Rudy Giuliani, this whole take is a stretch to begin with. Why not base your opinion on what Ron Paul has stated himself and his voting record instead of someone elses opinion on some blog. The fact is he is one of the most consistent voters out there and actually one of the more truthful politicians out there. Don't believe me? Just watch the debates. The guy will not back down on his position no matter how much it alienates him from the neoconservative base. This just shows your ignorance. He has STATED REPEATEDLY that his views on the Iraq war was that it is unconstitutional. His basis for being against the Iraq War has everything to do with the constitution in which the president cannot declare war without congressional consent. If we want to be in Iraq, a formal decleration of war must be declared. And yes...it is a war, even you yourself calls it the Iraq "war".
Hardly. He claims it was "ghostwritten." This ghostwritten piece was printed in the "Ron Paul Political Report," typically an 8-page publication sent to his supporters. What a coincidence! Also, if you read the piece, you'd see nobody's accusing Paul of out and out racism... he just hangs with racist and seems to favor some of their ideas and positions. My intent is not to smear Ron Paul. My intent is to let folks know who he really is... anyone with any progressive leanings whatsoever needs to look beyond the anti-war stance of this guy. And his voting record is out there.. and I do mean out there.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3w4B7QxL_n4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3w4B7QxL_n4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Hmm...so the looniest candidate makes the most sense on the outside. I'll probably vote for him anyways as a protest vote.
I know him personally and everything you have posted pretty much is off base with what he has told me unless he lied. It is more the views of those Paul supporters who are extremists (and there are plenty) and take his stance upon issues like the Federal Reserve and the North American Union to attach him to their causes and conspiracies. First of all Ron Paul is not a conspiracy theorist. Second, he is just a strict constitutionalist and alot of dems and repubs oppose him for it. He is not for abolishing any federal program at the expense of hurting people, not without having an alternative and transitional strategy. He would never pull the plug on a federal agency. His view is to decentralize the power of the fed where it better serves to be in the hands of the people. I have read alot of right wing, conspiracy, wacko, black helicopter stuff, I have asked Ron Paul about it. He doesn't go for it. He is concerned about a powerful centralized fed government that ignores the US constitution. For that you can find him guilty IMHO.
Any of who does not support the fiat currency is not fit to be president. Look at the history of the world in economic terms.
The way I look at it a vote for any other candidate on both parties is a vote for the status quo. I really don't want America to remain as divided and a mess as it is today, thus I will be voting Ron Paul. Dr. Paul can bring about real change to this country, something a serious candidate has not brought to the table in a long time.
