Ron Paul 2012

He is not going to get rid of public schooling. He just wants to bring any kind of funding for it to the state level. Whenever money exchanges hands each party takes a bit for themselves. By bringing it to the state level you now as a voter have a greater impact and a direct voice as far as how your funds are distributed.

He also wants to encourage people to look into alternatives to public schooling. With that being said he also wants to make any expense for home/public schooling a tax write off.

Ron Paul is not an evil man. He is a former doctor who has delivered over 4000 babies in his career. He wants the federal government out of our business and he wants the laws to be decided by us at a state level. He wants to give the power back to you and I... What is so wrong about that? He is not against war, he is against war without a decleration of war. He is however against the war on drugs and the racial injustice in our jails. He is also against big business in politics, he is the only canidate that I trust not to be bought and sold.

You cannot judge this man by a 30 clip of him during a debate or by what you see on tv. The only true free market for information is the internet. He wants to keep it that way btw.... you need to use this free market of information for your benefit. Do research!
 
The whole Republican Party is a joke... well, American politics for that matter. That said, Ron Paul seems like the logical choice amongst Newt, Mitt and Santorum. He's a little loopy on a couple of issues (for example, health care), but at least he has a head on his shoulders and believes in your beloved Constitution. Either way, I feel like y'all in for another 4 years of Obama. My 2 cents.

/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

 
I am totally for the guy on all policies; but all I can remember is his anti-abortion policies. If you don't care for abortion because of your religious views then I'm all for you voicing your opinion and you can think whatever you want, but if a woman can't have an abortion because you don't agree with what she's doing with her own body then you're just a fuck. That's straight ignorance to her situation. And that's from first hand experience.

I'd love to hear that he's changed his policies on that, but I haven't. I wan't going to vote in this election because of the absolutely ridiculous shit that's gone down, but Dr Paul was the only one who I thought deserved my vote, and I'm a democrat, which means a lot I think, though I'm open to whosever position sounds closest to mine because the whole party system is absolute horse shit. But anyway, besides his social agenda, he seems quite in line with my ideals so maybe I'll change my mind, though I try to not get into the whole political drama on tv because I don't have a tv to watch it on, and there are better things to do with my time.
 
You've posted some of the most conservative stuff I've seen on here, what do you have against him? Republicans who dislike Ron Paul baffle me
 
ron paul sounds crazy, and his ideas sound ridiculous at first, when you just hear a short explanation of his stance on issues or his ideas. but when you actually listen, do some research and learn about what he wants, everything makes an insane amount of sense. where the more you listen to say, Obama, or most other politicians, the less and less it makes sense. they just know what to say to the simple minded public to get themselves votes.

 
Personally he is against abortion, he is very pro life. He delivered babies for a living how can you blame him? Just like how your opinion on abortion was formed fom first hand experience I'm sure his was developed the same way....

At the same time though, he believes that the federal government should not be able to make laws for or against abortion. He believes that any laws for or against should be done at the state level. In 2005 he voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.

We all have personal ideas and issues, he can see past his own personal issues and do what is best for the country as a whole. He believes that each individual state is responsible for implementing laws and should not be superseded by the Federal government.

It is nice to see people who recognize that even though republican and democrat seem different they are enough alike to keep everything the same. I agree they are bullshit :)
 
I agree with that. You cannot judge Ron Paul off of 60 sec debate responses... but if you watch the debates chronologically as a whole, you will see that the other canidates understand the amount of knowledge he posseses. They've actually defered to him when certain topics pertaining to the constitution come up.
 
dude has ideas that are waaaaaaaaaay to extreme to be put into effect in 8 years or less.

sorry, but you aint change the whole damn system in 8 years.

we need a president that has the people skills to negegiate between the 2 sides of the aisle, so that progress can be fostered instead of distrust.

 
You really think that there are 2 sides of the aisle? Tell me how anything has changed over the last 3 presidents. Government has gotten bigger, debt has risen, we are still at war...about to start another. You are a fool if you think that the president really matters if that president can be bought and sold.

People skills are an attribute that salesmen rely on because they lack skills in other areas. The majority of people who get shit done are usually soft spoken and lack social skills.
 
You have to judge an individual by what he does not by what comes out of his mouth. Ron Paul has a voting record that is matched by no one. He does not flip flop, he will not be bought and sold. The president is currently making 400k a year He said if he is voted into office he will reduce it to 39k a year. He is not in it for the power or control, he is there to remove the power and control.

As far as the first part of my comment do you truly believe that the republican and democratic parties are truly different?

And as far as Ron Paul being too extreme... give me an example.
 
main problems abortion and enviornment, he wants to eliminate all enviornemental regulation and leave it to the big corperations who we all know are sooo responsable and care
 
As it stands right now the EPA makes money off of people who pollute... and those who are affected are no longer compensated. It is crooked and a waste of money. Big business just pays the fines and keeps on truckin' then they lobby to get the fines lessened and the penalties blunted.

I don't really understand how the free markets fix this problem as it is a concern I have as well. I do feel that individual laws by individual states are still going to be in place. This will hopefully make for better use of tax dollars with less corruption.

Ron Pauls record on the issues

[*]Sponsor of the Affordable Gas Price Act, which would allow offshore drilling in U.S. waters, allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, exempt environmental impact statements conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act from judicial review, give more tax incentives for investing in oil refineries, and suspend the federal gasoline tax when retail gasoline prices hit $3 a gallon.

[*]Cosponsor of legislation that would streamline the federal approval process for oil refinery construction or expansion.

[*]Lead sponsor of the Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2007, which would exclude industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act.

[*]Cosponsor of legislation to make bicycle commuters eligible for the transportation fringe-benefit tax credit.

[*]Cosponsor of legislation that would provide a tax deduction for the costs of using public transit.

[*]Cosponsor of the Buildings for the 21st Century Act, which would increase the allowable tax deduction for energy-efficient commercial building costs and extend the deduction through 2013.

[*]Cosponsor of numerous bills giving or extending tax credits to various forms of renewable energy (in the 110th Congress, HR 197, HR 550, HR 1772, and HR 3107).

[*]Voted against the final version of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a sweeping, oil-friendly energy bill opposed by enviros. The act passed and Bush signed it into law in August 2005.

[*]In 2002, voted against storing nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain repository now being built in southern Nevada.

[*]In 2001, voted against raising fuel-economy standards for cars and light trucks to a combined average of 27.5 mpg for model years 2005 and 2006.
 
To the people discussing education:

1. do you really want parents to comntrol the curriculum with the state of our nations intelligence level?

2. We should try to imitate education systems in countries like Finland, not make education for-profit. i can't believe people think this way
 
After watching that I really don't see why people decide to ignore him? I'm also pretty sure that Judge Napolitano's show got cancelled? No one else smells something a little bit fishy here?
 
1. Education is obviously not "one size fits all" and what is happening now in public schools isn't working... hence your "state of our nations intelligence level" comment.

It isn't as simple as each individual parent decides on the curriculum for their child. But we should focus on larger presence of parent involvement. Harvard did a study on this topic a while back with over 120 high poverty schools over the course of 2 years.

http://www.hfrp.org/family-involvement/publications-resources?topic=12

2. I also agree education should be non profit.
 
Most of the US's militaristic presence outside of the US is solely for economic purposes. It's a big mess of protecting certain resources and trading interests based on alliances from as early as the late 1800's. It's been nearly a century since the US has invaded and Americanized a nation because we felt it was our duty to spread the christian faith and western ideas, its strictly economic. Granted these regions are often greatly influenced by American culture, but that's an inevitable matter of diffusion.
 
Fuck. You are stupid. He quite clearly said private education that you can write off. That means private education where the government gives you the money to pay for it.
 
sure parental involvement is important but how do we help with that? is this what successful countries do? (finland) I think we need to stop being murica and looking for our own way to do things and maybe take a good example for once.

a parent should not decide their child's future
 
My biggest issue with Paul is his view on social issues. One of the cornerstones of American government and society is the separation of church and state. If the president's policies are influenced heavily by religion, it jeopardizes the separation.
 
Above and beyond all the other nutzy crap, Ron Paul actually believes that you can run a country on Austrian School economic policies. Thats like having a president who believes in creationism.
 
Ron Paul is not racist he has been in politics for so long the media is going to be able to dig up something that ties him to racists comments whether he actually said them or not. The main quotation that people against him use is from a Ron Paul newsletter published in 1985 that wasn't even written by him. I find this funny because Obama is one of the most racists presidents we have had for a long time. Oh here's a quote from Obama: "Their was something about him that made me wary, a little to sure of himself maybe, and white" Replace that last part about white people and replace it with black and you've got yourself a white candidate that would never have been elected or even nominated.
 
They may or may not been written by him, but they were written either by him or by someone pretending to be him, and under his name, and sometimes with his signature at the end. To think that he never knew that newsletters which included things like how to shoot a black youth and not get caught, saying that MLK day is hate whitey day, 95% of black males in DC are criminals, the LA riots only stopped when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks, and various other racist, homophobic, anti-semetic, and conspiratorial ideas too numerous to list were being sent out with his name on them seems absurd to me. The possibilities in my mind are this;

1) He wrote them and believes all those absurd and terrible things (this seems unlikely to me)

2) He didn't write them, but knew what was in them and did nothing because he agrees with those things (seems still unlikely)

3) He didn't write them, but knew about them and decided to do nothing because he thought it was good business to say these things

4) He didn't write them and had no idea what was in them

If 1 is true, he obviously is insane. If 2 is true, he is also insane. If 3 is true, he was willing to undermine his values to make money or gain popularity with racists, which is terrible. If 4 is true, he is not a very good leader and is probably not competent enough to be president. His claim now when asked about these is that he didn't write them, didn't know what was in them, and doesn't even know who did write them. In the past when asked about them, he didn't claim that he didn't write them, and defended their content to a certain degree. Personally my guess is somewhere around option 3.

Here's some scans of the newsletters in question for anyone who is curious

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

Anyway, there are other reasons I wouldn't personally vote for him.
 
Ron Pauls personal views have nothing to do with his policies. His policies are based off the constitution. Please do some research... he wants to limit the power of the Federal government.
 
Who cares if he doesn't believe in evolution? He isn't trying to put God into every household. He is trying to take the federal government out of every household. He believes in the sovereignty of each individual state and that the Federal government should not be able to superseed state laws.
 
But in some cases, his limitations on federal power would simply spell an increase in state power. For example, he wants to overturn Roe v Wade and allow the states to decide if they want abortion legal or illegal. That means that many women who live in conservative states would lose a right they currently have. The way he proposes to do this would also effectively allow states to outlaw homosexuality, or establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion.
 
Who the fuck cares if the federal government has SOME influence/control about something that doesn't effect your daily life? or helps you for the better like some programs do? and why would giving the states these rights and not a federal regulator be better? Why are states SOOOOOOOO much better off than a federal, consistant government?
 
It says on his website under the "on the issues" section for abortion that he would fight to

"effectively repeal Roe v. Wade[/i] and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”"

The "we the people act" removes from federal jurisdiction any rulings dealing with local or state laws on freedom of religion or the right to privacy, so what I said was exactly accurate. How he plans to do it is not 100% clear, but that is his self professed goal.
 
You're avoiding the principle part of the issue. He would push to have Roe V Wade repealed, and the "we the people" act passed, which would effectively remove federal "power" (which in this case, isn't actually power but a limitation on state power) and supplant it with state power (actual power to tell you how to live). The point isn't if he would use an executive order or push congress, the point is that this would make states more powerful over citizens. That's not fighting government power, that's removing government protection to allow for MORE government power.
 
nope

can he get elected either? nope!

give it up woozy, your preaching to the choir about a god who is batshit crazy with ideas that make no sense.
 
You are confused. There is a difference in imposing laws and regulation. Also there are some good government programs but in the end they all steal money from us. These programs would be better regulated at the state level.

Benefit of States Rights - Use the medicinal marijuana bill for example. Each state makes their own decision based upon the vote of the people and the law is passed or turned down. It would take forever to get that bill to the federal level because the states voting to pass/turn down cancel each other out. Stuff gets done at a state level.. it doesn't get done on a federal level.

As it is right now... the feds can come into your house in over 15 states and arrest you for possesion even though it is legal in your state.

States rights are important because no one group should hold that much power over everyone. That is federal tyranny. The constitution gave us a real checks and balances system (not the judicial, executive and legislative) but a system called "states rights". This keeps the government from having ultimate control.

This is exactly why the United States of America was created in the first place... to escape tyranny.

Please read the 10th amendment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
 
Possibly. He says on his website he would "fight to effectively repeal" it, so I think we should take him at his word. Congress does some crazy things, and I'd feel more comfortable with a president who said he would veto something like that than push for it. The "we the people act" would make it legal for texas to prevent atheists from attaining public office. The fact that he says he'd push for something like that bothers me on a few levels.
 
That's an example of where the states are ahead of the feds, but there are also counterexamples. States' rights was also the rally cry of the segregationists. Neither system is perfect 100% of the time.
 
I like how you use the "he could never actually do that" argument to brush off things about him that you disagree with but never apply the same argument to things that you do agree with that you want him to get done. Could he unilaterally abolish the Fed? No. Could he unilaterally put us back on the gold standard? No. So why are the bad things about him negligible, when the good things aren't?
 
I understand nothing is perfect. We as humans aren't perfect... but we do have the right to be free.

Give me an example of where you can't move from one state to another if you are not happy with the laws. I know it's drastic but it is a far better option than having to move entirely out of the country.
 
The "we the people act" is a bill introduced by Paul which would prevent the supreme court or any federal court from making decisions regarding state and local laws concerning the free exercise of religion or an establishment of religion, the right to privacy including sexual practices, orientation or reproduction, or the role of the equal protection clause on the right to marry.

Example: State X decides they want to make homosexuality illegal so they pass a bill which does this. You say "hey that's not constitutional, I'm going to challenge that in federal court." You can't. The state court would be as high as it could go, so if the state supreme court upheld it, you'd be out of luck (if you were gay).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top