Ron Paul says he'll push through to convention no matter what
213 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35707202]Sales tax isn't the only thing he plans to use to replace income tax. He aims to reform tariffs and import taxes as well. I forget how, exactly.
But a big claim of his against income tax is that the federal government should not be wildly spending so much money that they need the income tax to begin with. Everyone freaks out that the government will have no money if he gets rid of income tax, but you have to remember that he also plans on cutting a HUGE amount of government spending as well.[/QUOTE]
Well again, you cannot have this idea of replacing the income tax with reforms in other taxes and boosts in sales tax without also saying 'we need to cut all the stuff', including medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and so many things that people depend upon now and should be able to count on existing in the future.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35707430]Well again, you cannot have this idea of replacing the income tax with reforms in other taxes and boosts in sales tax without also saying 'we need to cut all the stuff', including medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment insurance, and so many things that people depend upon now and should be able to count on existing in the future.[/QUOTE]
Yah I'm looking forward to my powerchair at little or no cost to me!
holy shit snip, I'm retarded.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Hmmm, his stance on abortion seriously concerns me.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35706542]Being genuine doesn't really stand out as a 'good trait' on its own. You could just as easily be a genuine Fascist but I very much doubt many of us here would applaud that kind of person.[/QUOTE]
I never said it did. Just pointing out that while his views are crazy and I disagree with nearly all of them you still have to give him credit for sticking to them for several decades. I can respect that atleast.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35707713]holy shit snip, I'm retarded.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Hmmm, his stance on abortion seriously concerns me.[/QUOTE]
Who cares what his stance on abortion is? His entire campaign is based on the fact that the federal government should have less power and the state governments should have more. That includes abortion. It would be regulated by the states and the federal government would stay out of it. So his personal stances on issues mean less than if a different politician was elected.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35707713]holy shit snip, I'm retarded.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Hmmm, his stance on abortion seriously concerns me.[/QUOTE]
then I suggest you stay away from getting pregnant.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;35705672]They are pretty crazy unless you think that there should be a gold standard, and removal of the departments of agriculture and education.[/QUOTE]
He just doesn't want the U.S Government to have it's fingers in everything, the states can individually handle things like healthcare etc.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35707713]holy shit snip, I'm retarded.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Hmmm, his stance on abortion seriously concerns me.[/QUOTE]
Wow, THAT is what concerns you? nevermind the government is fucking the entire country over inside and out.
[QUOTE=Laferio;35707766]then I suggest you stay away from getting pregnant.[/QUOTE]What about in cases of rape and or incest?
[QUOTE=lucasjr5;35707760]Who cares what his stance on abortion is? [/QUOTE]
Uh, women?
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;35707815]What about in cases of rape and or incest?[/QUOTE]
Massachusetts: No problem
Mississippi: GIFT FROM GOD
[QUOTE=The Aussie;35706362]Even though he's racist, and batshit insane on the economy standards. He does try to swing the republican party back from batshit country. He's got suprisingly modern views for an old person.[/QUOTE]
holy shit newsletters from 1990s that he didnt even write it's clear he's a white supremicist nigger lynching, what a horrible human being!
[QUOTE=Megafan;35706542]Being genuine doesn't really stand out as a 'good trait' on its own. You could just as easily be a genuine Fascist but I very much doubt many of us here would applaud that kind of person.[/QUOTE]
I dunno man the nazis had pretty good fashion sense.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35707876]I dunno man the nazis had pretty good fashion sense.[/QUOTE]
And were great at getting everyone into the spirit of things.
[QUOTE=NorseTech;35707796]He just doesn't want the U.S Government to have it's fingers in everything, the states can individually handle things like healthcare etc.[/QUOTE]
And if you're in a state that decides not to give you healthcare, or rather, even less help with it? Say you're in Alabama, and they vote to not have any aid for medical care. If you're poor enough to need that help, chances are you can't up and move, so what would you recommend?
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=lotusking;35707867]holy shit newsletters from 1990s that he didnt even write it's clear he's a white supremicist nigger lynching, what a horrible human being![/QUOTE]
Believe me, he doesn't need the newsletters to have terrible policies.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35707886]And if you're in a state that decides not to give you healthcare, or rather, even less help with it? Say you're in Alabama, and they vote to not have any aid for medical care. If you're poor enough to need that help, chances are you can't up and move, so what would you recommend?
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
Believe me, he doesn't need the newsletters to have terrible policies.[/QUOTE]
Hell man, I don't have healthcare now, I don't know what you talkin. If I'm in a state that doesn't want healthcare then at least I won't have to pay taxes on it, unlike the current system where I'm putting money into some things that I'll probably never use.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35707886]And if you're in a state that decides not to give you healthcare, or rather, even less help with it? Say you're in Alabama, and they vote to not have any aid for medical care. If you're poor enough to need that help, chances are you can't up and move, so what would you recommend?
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
Believe me, he doesn't need the newsletters to have terrible policies.[/QUOTE]
If a state decides not to, it would suck to live in that state.
If the U.S Government decides not to, it would suck to live in the country.
Having a gigantic socialist baby-sitter system never ends well.
[QUOTE=NorseTech;35707919]Having a gigantic socialist baby-sitter system never ends well.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because everyone knows that the Canadian single-payer healthcare system and the UK's NHS, along with the numerous other countries that have universal healthcare just [I]don't work, [/I]am I right? It's not like we pay more for healthcare per capita than those nations, or that even still less of our citizens are covered.
Oh wait, we do.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35707930]Yes, because everyone knows that the Canadian single-payer healthcare system and the UK's NHS, along with the numerous other countries that have universal healthcare just [I]don't work, [/I]am I right? It's not like we pay more for healthcare per capita than those nations, or that even still less of our citizens are covered.
Oh wait, we do.[/QUOTE]
Canadians will be the first to tell you that their medical system isn't the best. They have a lot of trouble holding good doctors (what kind of doctor wants to get paid by the Canadian government when they get paid more in USA and other countries) and their wait times on even simple procedures (especially simple procedures) are absurd. I speak from personal experience as my wife is Canadian (I am not.... yet) and she has been in the hospital for various medical problems and has been waiting on 1 particular procedure for 5 years because there are only 2 doctors in Canada (as apposed to thousands in America, wish I was rich) who do the procedure. If she could get American insurance this would have been done 5 years ago.
Edit: So sure the grass is always greener right? Not saying don't need healthcare reform because we do, just don't point out Canada as a poster child because their system is broken as well.
[QUOTE=NorseTech;35707796]He just doesn't want the U.S Government to have it's fingers in everything, the states can individually handle things like healthcare etc.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
Wow, THAT is what concerns you? nevermind the government is fucking the entire country over inside and out.[/QUOTE]
Of course that's what concerns me. Jesus people, let me clarify: I simply said that his stance on abortion [b]CONCERNED[/b] me, not that I was discounting him entirely because of it.
The reason that I stand so adamantly on the right of abortion is because of the fact that, if he truly is against big government, then why would he want to even [b]touch[/b] the Row V. Wade ruling? It shows a contradiction of values in my opinion. Abortion also concerns me as a right simply because of the slippery slope argument: You give away one right, and you've given them all away. It's simply just a matter of time.
the canadian healthcare is pretty good but it's taken up a mammoth's share of the budget in every province, if I'm not mistaken.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
I think some of the glaring flaws that it has won't be much of an issue in the states though.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=NorseTech;35707919]If a state decides not to, it would suck to live in that state.
If the U.S Government decides not to, it would suck to live in the country.
Having a gigantic socialist baby-sitter system never ends well.[/QUOTE]
Except in norway where they have one of the highest standards of living in the world.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=lucasjr5;35707760]Who cares what his stance on abortion is? His entire campaign is based on the fact that the federal government should have less power and the state governments should have more. That includes abortion. It would be regulated by the states and the federal government would stay out of it. So his personal stances on issues mean less than if a different politician was elected.[/QUOTE]
I think every women has the right to an abortion if they so choose. I don't want some fart in the state congress or federal congress getting in the way of that right.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35706542]Being genuine doesn't really stand out as a 'good trait' on its own. You could just as easily be a genuine Fascist but I very much doubt many of us here would applaud that kind of person.[/QUOTE]
Well, you have to appreciate a man saying what he means in the middle of a politic landscape that changes opinions as other people change underwear. I don't appreciate his views, but at least he's genuine about them. Would never (and neither can I) vote for him though. Unless the other guy was rick Santorum or something.
[QUOTE=lucasjr5;35707760]Who cares what his stance on abortion is?[/QUOTE]
yeah who cares about the rights of women
[IMG]http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/wp-content/blogs.dir/1944/files/ron-paul-and-his-bicycle/ron-paul-bike-bicycle-michael-maresco-lake-jackson-texas-photo.jpg[/IMG]
Ron Paul is actually one of the most in-shape of the presidential candidates and has a great attitude towards just about everything. He seems to be the nicest/most zen of the presidential candidates, at least.
I'm glad he's still pushing through. I hope things start changing in Washington because of his run.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35707056]They don't sound bad to me.[/QUOTE]
Have fun with your gold standard.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35707069]Don't be like that. I get it, you don't like Ron Paul, fine, but you don't have to go around being outright disrespectful to anyone who supports him.[/QUOTE]
I'm not required to respect you or your opinions.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;35707177]I'm sorry, I'm just being an idealist. I'm under the impression that, perhaps if we stopped viciously insulting each-other, then maybe we could have some nice conversations about our differences in opinions.[/QUOTE]
I've never met a conservative idealist. Typically you guys hate everything.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708316]
I've never met a conservative idealist. [/QUOTE]
'"Ron Paul rEVOLution!" not idealistic enough for you?
[QUOTE=thisispain;35708148]yeah who cares about the rights of women[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have a good politician than a moral crusader
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
besides he'd leave that up to the states anyway, so he wouldn't have any power to enforce laws regarding it, nor want to, so it doesn't matter.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;35707985]the canadian healthcare is pretty good but it's taken up a mammoth's share of the budget in every province, if I'm not mistaken.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
I think some of the glaring flaws that it has won't be much of an issue in the states though.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
Except in norway where they have one of the highest standards of living in the world.
[editline]24th April 2012[/editline]
I think every women has the right to an abortion if they so choose. I don't want some fart in the state congress or federal congress getting in the way of that right.[/QUOTE]
And what happens when the national government is full of corrupt bastards?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;35707202]Okay, then:
[U]Education[/U]
He wishes to get rid of the Department of Education because, besides the usual unconstitutionality arguments, it achieves nothing. And I agree. We have poured billions into the federal education system for decades and it has gotten us no where in education levels. The US is constantly falling behind in education and the government's response is to pass stupid laws like No Child Left Behind.[/quote]
You do realise the countries the US are behind ALSO have ministries and departments dedicated to education, right?
Who will run the school system then? Private business? You REALLY want private business to run the schools? I can think of a list of VERY bad ideas, on that list is nazism, the combination of a pencil sharpener and your finger, and privatising the school system.
Now if you're going into this archaic articles of confederation idea, and letting the states run it - uhh, they already do. The Department of education isn't just one big federal entity. Simply removing the federal aspect, which is small, is absolutely useless. And on a city and state level, education is sometimes in WORSE hands. Look at the New York education system, it's state run and an utter mess.
[quote]There's a phrase in my geography class used to describe Russia's influence over it's eastern end - "Distance decay". It means, the further something gets from the core, the less influence the core has. And that's what I feel I see in the federal government with education. The distance between the school down my street to the high offices in the Depart. of Ed. is too great.[/quote]
Good thing the federal government doesn't' completely control education.
What is with you people and deciding the ONLY possible solution to any problem is to just completely remove the programme or group that is having the issue. "DOE is having issues? Well, better completely bypass any fix and just remove it completely!" Not going to work, that's a dumb idea.
[quote][U]Foreign Policy[/U]
I'm sure we'll all agree on this one - noninterventionism. America should stay out of the internal affairs of every single nation on this planet. Not only do we get many American lives slaughtered, but the civilians of the regions we occupy.[/quote]
There's a big difference between not being an interventionist and being completely isolationist.
Iraq was a cluster fuck, as was every CIA fuck up across the world with their coup's and arming of rebels. This all comes down to motive. The motive for these are all political and for resource gain. But when you intervene for a ethical reason for the reason to help people, then it becomes necessary. Again with Ron Paul's absolutely fucking brilliant Stalinist idea of taking a problem and just removing it. If there is genocide going on, it is the DUTY of other nations to put a stop to it. If there is a dictator who is controlling a stable nation, then it's the duty of its people to rise against them, and if they do, you then assess it. That is why this fallacy of isolationism is a complete failure. Ron Paul is the type of person who would stand by while genocide occurs. And for that, it's unforgivable.
[quote]Our constant interference in the affairs of other nations is what made 9/11 happen. Bin Laden said it himself in his speech about the attacks. Yet instead of doing the logical thing and withdraw, we invade more places, displace more populations and kill more Americans and foreigners alike. What does that doe? Nothing but fuel the next terrorist attack.
Just as such, we should cut off foreign aid. The government hasn't a right to take money from you that you justly earned and throw it away to some dictator overseas. That money is yours, the least the government can do is spend it on helping you in some way.[/quote]
Again with your 'no man no problem' "solution", instead of simply not giving money to dictators and putting it towards helping people like some of it does, you remove it completely. These ideas are fucking awful.
[quote][U]Pro-Life[/U]
He's against abortion, I know that much. But honestly, I have yet to read any of the chapters in any of his books on the subject because he always repeats a graphic personal story of his regarding the topic that I just can't stomach myself to go through.
But I should remind you that he is 100% pro-life, which means he opposes capital punishment. He morally opposes it on all levels of government, but holding true to his belief in the Constitution, he allows for state held executions. As for the federal government, he is strongly opposed to it.[/quote]
He lost all credibility of his states right argument the second he signed DOMA. I wouldn't trust him with anything after that.
When your whole platform is on dismantling the federal government, and you pretty much help sign the opposite, you lose any validity.
[quote]Sales tax isn't the only thing he plans to use to replace income tax. He aims to reform tariffs and import taxes as well. I forget how, exactly.
But a big claim of his against income tax is that the federal government should not be wildly spending so much money that they need the income tax to begin with. Everyone freaks out that the government will have no money if he gets rid of income tax, but you have to remember that he also plans on cutting a HUGE amount of government spending as well.[/QUOTE]
Government spending won't pay for that gap. You're forgetting this little thing called a debt. It may, and that's a huge may, pay for the income tax gap, maintaining the country as well as the poor state of the economy wouldn't last. The country would collapse if you just killed the income tax.
If I were to coax obama right this second to get rid of the income tax, the government would financially collapse over night. The state of the economy is too poor to wipe out its base budget. You'd effectually execute the entire country.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708465]
Iraq was a cluster fuck, as was every CIA fuck up across the world with their coup's and arming of rebels. This all comes down to motive. The motive for these are all political and for resource gain. But when you intervene for a ethical reason for the reason to help people, then it becomes necessary. Again with Ron Paul's absolutely fucking brilliant Stalinist idea of taking a problem and just removing it. If there is genocide going on, it is the DUTY of other nations to put a stop to it. If there is a dictator who is controlling a stable nation, then it's the duty of its people to rise against them, and if they do, you then assess it. That is why this fallacy of isolationism is a complete failure. Ron Paul is the type of person who would stand by while genocide occurs. And for that, it's unforgivable.
[/QUOTE]
Wait...that's an argument supporting the invasion of Iraq right there. By your logic the US was obligated to invade and remove Saddam Hussein because of his crimes against the Kurdish people. Without the US invasion of Iraq, Hussein might never have been tried for his genocide campaign.
Not to mention this is obviously supporting an armed incursion into Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, and many other nations that are currently committing either genocide or politicide.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708568]Wait...that's an argument supporting the invasion of Iraq right there. By your logic the US was obligated to invade and remove Saddam Hussein because of his crimes against the Kurdish people. Without the US invasion of Iraq, Hussein might never have been tried for his genocide campaign.
Not to mention this is obviously supporting an armed incursion into Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, North Korea, and many other nations that are currently committing either genocide or politicide.[/QUOTE]
No I didn't.
You didn't read what I said. I said if the area has become destabilised by a rebelling populace, you assess it.
If there is active crimes being committed, you need to take action. Simply having a brutal dictator, nice as it would be to down him, it would destabilise the entire region. Which it did in Iraq.
Let me also point out the Iraq war did one good thing, ousted Saddam. HOWEVER, it was so poorly handled that Saddam ran the country better and kept it in shape; compared to post-war Iraq.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
You should try comprehension, yawmen.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35708602]No I didn't.
You didn't read what I said. I said if the area has become destabilised by a rebelling populace, you assess it.
If there is active crimes being committed, you need to take action. Simply having a brutal dictator, nice as it would be to down him, it would destabilise the entire region. Which it did in Iraq.
Let me also point out the Iraq war did one good thing, ousted Saddam. HOWEVER, it was so poorly handled that Saddam ran the country better and kept it in shape; compared to post-war Iraq.
[editline]25th April 2012[/editline]
You should try comprehension, yawmen.[/QUOTE]
So you support an invasion of Sudan and the Congo then?
[QUOTE=yawmwen;35708678]So you support an invasion of Sudan and the Congo then?[/QUOTE]
I never said invasion anywhere. Where did I say invasion?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.