The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity is a project of Dr. Paul’s Foundation for Rational Economics and Education (F.R.E.E.), founded in the 1970s as an educational organization. The Institute continues and expands Dr. Paul’s lifetime of public advocacy for a peaceful foreign policy and the protection of civil liberties at home.

The Institute mobilizes colleagues and collaborators of Dr. Paul’s to participate in a broad coalition to educate and advocate for fundamental changes in our foreign and domestic policy.

A prosperous America is profoundly linked to a foreign policy rooted in peaceful relations and trade with all. With peace, comes real prosperity.

Ron Paul’s real legacy in his writing, teaching, and in politics is his success bringing people of very different backgrounds and perspectives together under the common cause of peace, individual liberties, and prosperity. His institute energetically continues this kind of “coalition-building” in all aspects of its work. The Institute board is itself one of the best examples of how broad a coalition can come together and work for the same shared goals and values.

First and foremost a resource for supporters, the Institute provides timely news and provocative analysis through its engaging website. Features such as “Congress Alert” and “Neo-Con Watch” bring to life the latest threats to our liberties at home and abroad in a capsule format. Longer features and press analysis, as well as blog posts, regularly appear, giving the Institute the character of an online magazine.

The Institute places special emphasis on education and on the next generations, with a foreign policy summer school for university students studying international affairs and journalism.

It will aggressively promote student writing on foreign affairs on its website and will launch a student writing award program to recognize the best of college journalism.

also, neocon shit head James Kirchick wants u 2 kno that ron praul's institute has people in it who don't think NATO's bombing of Serbia was all that great:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/25/the-ron-paul-institute-be-afraid-very-afraid.html


uhm fuck that guy

HenryKrinkle posted:

Elotana posted:

The bill repeats earlier calls for intervention and sanctions in the Findings section. That alone was probably enough for Paul to vote against it, the increased Presidential discretion and interstate commerce figleaf notwithstanding. But I'm more interested in why this vote is manifestly a deal-breaker, rather than whatever obscure doctrinal point caused Paul to vote against it. I'm hoping that nobody in this thread criticizing Paul is planning on voting for Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination, right? Because the war in Iraq has needlessly killed even more people than in Darfur. And while Paul is being torched for, at worst, allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good and voting against a bill that might reduce the funds available to Sudan due his inflexible formalism, other "mainstream" candidates voted for the war in Iraq itself and continue to support funding it today. What makes one stance insane and the other excusable?

peenworm posted:

Well it's a good thing we could somehow shoehorn some insane "clinton did it too" into this.

Yeah that's a fair comparison, Clinton voted to authorize the president to go to war under the pretense of Hussein having WMDs is a lot like Paul voting to continue funding to a nation that is actually presently conducting genocide. The raw numbers of dead people is a fair comparison as well because Clinton was able to see into the future and count them up.

And no, I don't give Clinton a pass on that, but your tortured process of equating the two is contorted and fucking dumb.

autopsyturvey posted:

Elotana as you are aware I have great respect for you as a poster and a thinker but on this issue I must respectfully disagree

Iraq and Darfur and not comparable, one is a desert and the other is the floodplains between two of the world's greatest rivers. Violence in darfur qualifies and genocide even if it is less intense than in iraq just because the population density is so much lower, and intentional genocide is more reprehensible than conventional war even if the conventional war is on a larger scale.

Ron Paul votes in support of genocide, Hillary Clinton doesn't

seculardarwinism posted:

There were good reasons to vote for the war. In the end it was a mistake, but at the time that wasn't an obvious, guaranteed outcome.

There are good reasons to continue funding the troops. It may be that it's a futile waste of money, but it might also be that it actually helps Iraq become a stable democratic ally - neither is certain.

Both of these positions are motivated by the ultimate goal of saving lives and helping people. Leaving Darfur to its fate has neither ambition, and there are no good reasons for opposing this.