Ron Paul 2012?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-03-2012, 09:46 AM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
Even though I'm certain you'll consider it an argument victory I won't bother correcting you or explaining anything. You've read it how you want to read and I'm sure nothing will change your mind. You are a partisan hack and not much can be done to overcome that.

Good luck with your debt, defecit, war, and unconstitutional legislation goals in 2012.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 09:50 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 09:59 AM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 07:28 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Neither of ya know nothing. Big Grin

I'm thinking Paul 'cause I'm thinking the Fed sux. He makes the right kinda noises; but they're all criminals. Tongue

Lets assume that is true, and also assume he could get rid of it That's still like firing a gun in your mouth to remove a sore tooth. Forget the one thing he MIGHT be able to fix, look at how much he could screw up. No thank you.

Are you guys sure that Rich Santorum is the crazy one of the bunch?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
I always find it odd that when a politician proposes extreme changes, which is often what is nescessary to make any change at all, he is considered crazy instead of revolutionary.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 10:50 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 10:57 AM by satan69.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
You made alot of points good and bad about Ron paul. I dont agree with all of RP positions. i dont agree with him being against the civil rights act. segregation went against the constitution. he should have been for that law.This is why he will NEVER be president. Obama would spend 1 billion dollars on tht issue alone. your wrong on a number of points. illegals do not deserve welfare or any benefits. can you get benefits in mexico. i dont think so. he has been right on on inflation. the dollar has lost 95% of its value in the last 75 years. here are some charts. http://seekingalpha.com/article/137051-t...ry-decline
remember the FED was supposed to protect the dollar and stop inflation. they have been lying since 1913. its a fraud. THE FED IS THE CAUSE OF INFLATION.
This is why I am for http://www.garyjohnson2012.com he has a record that cant be beat.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 11:11 AM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 11:17 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 10:50 AM)satan69 Wrote:  You made alot of points good and bad about Ron paul. I dont agree with all of RP positions. i dont agree with him being against the civil rights act. segregation went against the constitution. he should have been for that law.This is why he will NEVER be president. Obama would spend 1 billion dollars on tht issue alone. your wrong on a number of points. illegals do not deserve welfare or any benefits. can you get benefits in mexico. i dont think so. he has been right on on inflation. the dollar has lost 95% of its value in the last 75 years. here are some charts. http://seekingalpha.com/article/137051-t...ry-decline
remember the FED was supposed to protect the dollar and stop inflation. they have been lying since 1913. its a fraud. THE FED IS THE CAUSE OF INFLATION.
This is why I am for http://www.garyjohnson2012.com he has a record that cant be beat.


Well I disagree with you about the severity of the civil rights repeal. It's not a race issue. It's a private property issue. But everything else is spot on.

Quote:Paul has been described as conservative and libertarian.[7] According to University of Georgia political scientist Keith Poole, Paul had the most conservative voting record of any member of Congress from 1937 to 2002,[122] and is the most conservative of the candidates seeking the 2012 Republican nomination for president,[123] on a scale primarily measuring positions on the role of government in managing the economy -- not positions on social issues or foreign policy matters.[124] Other analyses, in which key votes on domestic social issues and foreign policy factor more heavily, have judged Paul much more moderate. The National Journal, for instance, rated Paul only the 145th most conservative member of the House of Representatives based on votes cast in 2010.[125][126]

The foundation of Paul's political philosophy is the conviction that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."[127] He has been nicknamed "Dr. No,"[16] reflecting both his medical degree and his insistence that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."[21]

Paul is a proponent of Austrian School economics; he has authored six books on the subject, and displays pictures of Austrian School economists Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Ludwig von Mises (as well as of Grover Cleveland)[128] on his office wall. He regularly votes against almost all proposals for new government spending, initiatives, or taxes;[129] he cast two thirds of all the lone negative votes in the House during a 1995–1997 period.[16]

He has pledged never to raise taxes[130] and states he has never voted to approve a budget deficit. Paul believes that the country could abolish the individual income tax by scaling back federal spending to its fiscal year 2000 levels;[131][132] financing government operations would be primarily by excise taxes and non-protectionist tariffs. He endorses eliminating most federal government agencies, terming them unnecessary bureaucracies.

On April 15, 2011, Paul was one of four Republican members of Congress to vote against Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal, known as "The Path to Prosperity."[133]

Paul has a consistent record as an inflation hawk, having warned of the threat of hyperinflation as far back as 1981.[134] While Paul believes the longterm decrease of the U.S. dollar's purchasing power by inflation is attributable to its lack of any commodity backing, he does not endorse a "return" to a gold standard – as the U.S. government has established during the past – but instead prefers to eliminate legal tender laws and to remove the sales tax on gold and silver, so that the market may freely decide what type of monetary standard(s) there shall be.[135] Since 1999, he has introduced bills into each Congress seeking to eliminate the Federal Reserve System in a single year.[136][137][138]

Paul's foreign policy of nonintervention[139] made him the only 2008 Republican presidential candidate to have voted against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002. He advocates withdrawal from the United Nations, and from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for reasons of maintaining strong national sovereignty.[140]

He endorses free trade, rejecting membership in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization as "managed trade". He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty;[141] he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11 attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists. An opponent of the Iraq War and potential war with Iran, he has also criticized neoconservatism and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, arguing that both inadvertently cause terrorist reprisals against Americans. Paul has stated that "Israel is our close friend" and that it is not the place of the United States to "dictate how Israel runs her affairs".[142]

Paul endorses constitutional rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, and habeas corpus for political detainees. He opposes the Patriot Act, federal use of torture, presidential autonomy, a national identification card, warrantless domestic surveillance, and the draft. Paul also believes that the notion of the separation of church and state is currently misused by the court system: "In case after case, the Supreme Court has used the infamous 'separation of church and state' metaphor to uphold court decisions that allow the federal government to intrude upon and deprive citizens of their religious liberty."[143]

Citing the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, Paul advocates states' rights to decide how to regulate social matters not cited directly by the Constitution. He opposes federal regulation of the death penalty[144] (although he opposes capital punishment),[145] of education,[146] and of marriage, and endorsed revising the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy to concern mainly disruptive sexual behavior (whether heterosexual or homosexual).[147]

Paul says his years as an obstetrician led him to believe life begins at conception.[148]

He terms himself "strongly pro-life",[149] "an unshakable foe of abortion",[150] and believes regulation or ban[151] on medical decisions about maternal or fetal health is "best handled at the state level".[144][152] His abortion-related legislation, like the Sanctity of Life Act, is intended to negate Roe v. Wade and to get "the federal government completely out of the business of regulating state matters."[153]

Paul has stated that "The government shouldn't be in the medical business." He pushes to eliminate federal involvement with and management of health care, which he argues would allow prices to decrease due to the fundamental dynamics of a free market.[154] Paul also opposes the federal War on Drugs,[155] and believes the states should decide whether to regulate or deregulate drugs such as medical marijuana.[156] He also opposes federal government influenza inoculation programs.[157]

As a free-market environmentalist, he asserts private property rights in relation to environmental protection and pollution prevention.[citation needed] He called global warming a hoax in a 2009 Fox Business interview, saying, "You know, the greatest hoax I think that has been around in many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on the environment and global warming."[158] He acknowledges there is clear evidence of rising temperatures in some parts of the globe, but says that temperatures are cooling in other parts.[159]

Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society".[160] Paul opposes affirmative action.[161]

He is an outspoken proponent of increased ballot access for 3rd party candidates,[162] but has sought to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, also known as the Motor Voter law.[163]

I dont' see how everyone doesn't find him to be by far the best candidate. You may disagree with his position on civil rights acts but it's not really an issue because Congress will not repleal those laws. Same thing with social issues like gay marriage and abortion. He won't legislate them at a federal level so his opinion of them is moot.

(07-03-2012 09:29 AM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  
He endorses increased border security and opposes welfare for illegal aliens, birthright citizenship and amnesty; he voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006
-
(That is an awesome plan. Build a small fence for billions that can easily be circumnavigated, or simply overcome with a $1 pair of wire snips, or even a stick you pick up along the way. BRILLIANT!!)

LOL. The savings far outweigh the costs. And it's not exactly a chain link fence.

[Image: image132.jpg]

Much of it is constructed of 'I' beams that extend as far underground as above.

[Image: 1370002408_3d86cc8375_z.jpg]

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 11:49 AM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
mystic, explain to me how you could be against not paying a income tax as long as they are able to balance the budget. do you realize how many jobs would be created. taking money out of politicians hands means taking my tax dollars away from special interest groups like bankers and military industrial complex. dont you realize we have all these wars because the politicians think its a economic boom. its bullshitt. do you realize vietnam and the second iraq war have contributed to bankrupting this country.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes satan69's post
07-03-2012, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 01:47 PM by mysticjbyrd.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 11:49 AM)satan69 Wrote:  mystic, explain to me how you could be against not paying a income tax as long as they are able to balance the budget. do you realize how many jobs would be created. taking money out of politicians hands means taking my tax dollars away from special interest groups like bankers and military industrial complex. dont you realize we have all these wars because the politicians think its a economic boom. its bullshitt. do you realize vietnam and the second iraq war have contributed to bankrupting this country.

We aren't bankrupt. We have a shitload of money, but we blow it on stupid shit like war, defense, and a non-universal health care plan.

I don't even care if they balance the budget tbh, as such an event is stupidly rare. Having a deficit is not the end of the world, unless a democrat is in the white house of course. In fact, a lot of economist argue that its a good thing as other countries have an invested interest in what happens to your country. Regardless, there are far better ways to fix the budget than removing income taxes + ?.

The disparity between the rich and the poor is the real problem in this country. Forget the budget, forget the deficit, and help the people. I would rather see unemployment at 10%, and the people get a fair wage, than 5% unemployment and slave wages. Better to have 90% people doing well, and 10% unemployed as opposed to 100% getting screwed. If given a fair wage, even the 10% out of work could actually afford to be out of work for an extended time. We might even be able to get some of those nice paid vacations like in Europe.

The problem is we don't want to pay a fair wage anymore. Wages of the middle class hasn't increased at all since 1980, whilst the 1% skyrocketed. The middle class is dying because it requires 2 parents to work, and a handful of credit cards.

These rich assholes are only interested in accumulating wealth. So why in the world would you trust these aristocrats with all the money they save by not paying income taxes? We have continually reduce taxes and regulations for these people, and they just keep accumulating more and more wealth. Yet no jobs, not here anyways. Obviously a greedy individual cannot be trusted to do whats in the best interest for the people. Greed is human nature!!! So again, why on earth would you want to trust them over the govt? You know you are going to lose out betting on the aristocrats.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 02:05 PM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 01:43 PM)mysticjbyrd Wrote:  I don't even care if they balance the budget tbh, as such an event is stupidly rare. Having a deficit is not the end of the world, unless a democrat is in the white house of course.

The disparity between the rich and the poor is the real problem in this country. Forget the budget, forget the deficit, and help the people. I would rather see unemployment at 10%, and the people get a fair wage, than 5% unemployment and slave wages. Better to have 90% people doing well, and 10% unemployed as opposed to 100% getting screwed. If given a fair wage, even the 10% out of work could actually afford to be out of work for an extended time. We might even be able to get some of those nice paid vacations like in Europe.

The problem is we don't want to pay a fair wage anymore. Wages of the middle class hasn't increased at all since 1980, whilst the 1% skyrocketed. The middle class is dying because it requires 2 parents to work, and a handful of credit cards.


Well I've criticized Bush plenty for his wreckless spending. And I agree with the 2nd part. But do you feel Obama is helping to resolve this problem any more than a Republican would? I don't see it happening. And if raising taxes on household incomes of only 250K to as much as 40 or 45% is his solution then I want no part of it. One day I'd like to have that kind of income and I can't imagine how pissed I'd be to get my paycheck and have nearly half of it gone. What incentive would there be to make money in the top tax bracket if you'll just end up funding garbage like wars in Libya and Iran, massive entitlement spending, and bailouts?

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 03:18 PM
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
As long as people profit from the creation of money....as long as there is money in politics..... and as long as we have this fucked up banking system. I am of the opinion fuck all will change.

Now if a politician said this....





...... I may be swayed to support them.

Other than that your just dreaming Sad

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2012, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2012 09:55 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Ron Paul 2012?
(07-03-2012 02:05 PM)germanyt Wrote:  And if raising taxes on household incomes of only 250K to as much as 40 or 45% is his solution then I want no part of it. One day I'd like to have that kind of income and I can't imagine how pissed I'd be to get my paycheck and have nearly half of it gone.

You do understand the concepts of progressive tax rates and the decreasing marginal utility of money, right? Just checkin'.

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: