Move
01-31-2008, 04:59 PM
Alright, here's the case. I've got a friend who recently opened a WoW forum. He's pretty popular in the online mmorpg world, so I figured it would be pretty good to have him on our side to push this effort ahead on that popular front. Recently, we've been talking more and more about politics and he's come to like the views of Ron Paul.
A couple days ago, he decided to create a thread on his forum titled Ron Paul 2008 showing his appreciation for our candidate. His girlfriend, however, has a differing opinion, and as an intelligent young woman, she has no problem voicing them. Since he's fairly new to politics, I wanted to come here and ask for some help from you guys to help spread the message more clearly on the board.
Here are some of the arguments against a Ron Paul presidency:
Now, in political campaigns, these "never voted" are simply "half-promises" which put no pressure on the politician to stick to their previous resolutions to never vote against, persay, taxes. Saying that they "never voted", my love, is not saying anything at all except that they have never voted on it before. This is no future promise. It probably means entirely the opposite, as if they are unwilling to promise not to raise taxes (which they will, they will have to) and instead say they have "never voted" it means they are unsure/know they will need to. Do NOT base any voting decisions on "never voted."
Teehee, and aren't we all utopian socialists on crack. First of all, the rest of the world does not terrorize the US and the US is not a victim - it is simply a couple few middle eastern states. Secondly, using the word "policing" is incredibly ironic for a campaign to say if you took it from Ron Paul's official site because people need police and the law to prevent, at least, rampant chaos. That leads into my next point. The US is forcing their will upon the rest of the world, but reflect on what would happen if they didn't. Are people content to allow the Rwanda concentration camps to continue? Are people happy to do nothing about the mistreatment and abuse of women in the Middle East? (this is a hot topic, I won't really go there much) Should dictators, like Hitler, be allowed to come into power (as they have in the past recently in Uganda) or should the US intervene? In a world where smiling flowers grow and pigs fly, humans won't be self-serving and ambitious and can live together in perfect harmony. But in the real world, "friendly negotiation" just doesn't work when convincing conniving corrupt leaders to give up all their power in favor of their people.
Although he may have voted against the war, what many people are not seeing/realizing is that the US cannot leave Iraq now. What people do realize is that the US has taken vast amounts of oil from Iraq and made a military base of the area. What they aren't factoring into account is that the US is in a major recession right now. Inflation is killing house prices and the stock market is plunging downwards. Do we really need to give up oil resources when our market is failing? Uh, no. Not unless we want another depression and end up in World War III...
On that rather interesting note, China is also heading towards a stock market recession as inflation is going through the roof. China's industrial boom is fueling the rest of the world right now (cheap labor, etc) so prepare for a whole lot of shit when it does go down.
My message in general is not that Ron Paul is the wrong candidate, but there are many more issues that people don't realize. We cannot withdraw troops, as nice as it would be, without facing serious economic disaster in the near future. The Iraq war, unfortunately, was well thought out by the leaders: both a military base in the unstable/potentially dangerous middle east, and a source of resources. Please don't vote someone in that will kill the stock market, please?
I don't wanna sound like I'm putting him down BUT...he's never gonna win. he's too far too liberal and radical for the country as a whole.... :/
EDIT: if we abolish taxes how will the gov. have money? It'll be like the articles of confederation all over again.......
• The Rich Pay for Federal Government
• Concluded from released information:
Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, income taxes, and some minor categories constitute of about one half of congress's budget as the congress is forced to put a high percentage of their earnings from taxes into the National Treasury. Since congress is unable to account for the other half of its budget that they use, they take from the National Treasury and thus create National Debt which is some very high number like $ 12 trillion.
^ What does that mean? That means that, with all the transfers of payments required through the usage of banks and because of the interest rate Congress has gathered up over the years, there is $ 1 trillion of debt merely in INTEREST to American banks per year. Since 1 trillion accounts for two thirds of the American taxes in 1988, there is only one-third left to spend on: a. transfer payments between banks, and b. finally use it on the tax payers.
• The official corrupt law for Congress itself [and their abilities borrowing] made short:
Congress's role is to...Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States...
So. Uh, anyway, how exactly does Mr. Ron Paul plan to account for $1 trillion of interest (higher, by now, as banks demand 9.4 %) without taxing income taxes which account for a high portion of the taxes vs a very low amount through sales tax? Check my first table, sales tax in Canada are about 5 % and in the US I don't know what they are. BUT, what I do know is: my parents, with their high income, are getting about 40 % tax on their income. 5 % vs 40 %... hmm... that doesn't translate.
These laws hit the richest hard, but unfortunately, due to a useless government, you can't get rid of income tax. It would be considered an assault on the rights of companies if the government tried to cancel out the debt owed at 9.4 % to banks and at the same time cancel income tax. Ron Paul, for all his 'economic' background, seems to be a little loopy if hes considering doing that.
He's allowed guest posts through my request so that you guys can post more easily and get straight to the point without having to register. The thread is here:
http://www.celestialcarnage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80
So what do you guys say? Each and every newcomer is one less opponent in the Ron Paul revolution.
A couple days ago, he decided to create a thread on his forum titled Ron Paul 2008 showing his appreciation for our candidate. His girlfriend, however, has a differing opinion, and as an intelligent young woman, she has no problem voicing them. Since he's fairly new to politics, I wanted to come here and ask for some help from you guys to help spread the message more clearly on the board.
Here are some of the arguments against a Ron Paul presidency:
Now, in political campaigns, these "never voted" are simply "half-promises" which put no pressure on the politician to stick to their previous resolutions to never vote against, persay, taxes. Saying that they "never voted", my love, is not saying anything at all except that they have never voted on it before. This is no future promise. It probably means entirely the opposite, as if they are unwilling to promise not to raise taxes (which they will, they will have to) and instead say they have "never voted" it means they are unsure/know they will need to. Do NOT base any voting decisions on "never voted."
Teehee, and aren't we all utopian socialists on crack. First of all, the rest of the world does not terrorize the US and the US is not a victim - it is simply a couple few middle eastern states. Secondly, using the word "policing" is incredibly ironic for a campaign to say if you took it from Ron Paul's official site because people need police and the law to prevent, at least, rampant chaos. That leads into my next point. The US is forcing their will upon the rest of the world, but reflect on what would happen if they didn't. Are people content to allow the Rwanda concentration camps to continue? Are people happy to do nothing about the mistreatment and abuse of women in the Middle East? (this is a hot topic, I won't really go there much) Should dictators, like Hitler, be allowed to come into power (as they have in the past recently in Uganda) or should the US intervene? In a world where smiling flowers grow and pigs fly, humans won't be self-serving and ambitious and can live together in perfect harmony. But in the real world, "friendly negotiation" just doesn't work when convincing conniving corrupt leaders to give up all their power in favor of their people.
Although he may have voted against the war, what many people are not seeing/realizing is that the US cannot leave Iraq now. What people do realize is that the US has taken vast amounts of oil from Iraq and made a military base of the area. What they aren't factoring into account is that the US is in a major recession right now. Inflation is killing house prices and the stock market is plunging downwards. Do we really need to give up oil resources when our market is failing? Uh, no. Not unless we want another depression and end up in World War III...
On that rather interesting note, China is also heading towards a stock market recession as inflation is going through the roof. China's industrial boom is fueling the rest of the world right now (cheap labor, etc) so prepare for a whole lot of shit when it does go down.
My message in general is not that Ron Paul is the wrong candidate, but there are many more issues that people don't realize. We cannot withdraw troops, as nice as it would be, without facing serious economic disaster in the near future. The Iraq war, unfortunately, was well thought out by the leaders: both a military base in the unstable/potentially dangerous middle east, and a source of resources. Please don't vote someone in that will kill the stock market, please?
I don't wanna sound like I'm putting him down BUT...he's never gonna win. he's too far too liberal and radical for the country as a whole.... :/
EDIT: if we abolish taxes how will the gov. have money? It'll be like the articles of confederation all over again.......
• The Rich Pay for Federal Government
• Concluded from released information:
Corporate taxes, social security taxes, constitutional revenues such as excise taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, tires, etc., tariffs on trade, military hardware sales, income taxes, and some minor categories constitute of about one half of congress's budget as the congress is forced to put a high percentage of their earnings from taxes into the National Treasury. Since congress is unable to account for the other half of its budget that they use, they take from the National Treasury and thus create National Debt which is some very high number like $ 12 trillion.
^ What does that mean? That means that, with all the transfers of payments required through the usage of banks and because of the interest rate Congress has gathered up over the years, there is $ 1 trillion of debt merely in INTEREST to American banks per year. Since 1 trillion accounts for two thirds of the American taxes in 1988, there is only one-third left to spend on: a. transfer payments between banks, and b. finally use it on the tax payers.
• The official corrupt law for Congress itself [and their abilities borrowing] made short:
Congress's role is to...Lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States, but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, borrow Money on the credit of the United States...
So. Uh, anyway, how exactly does Mr. Ron Paul plan to account for $1 trillion of interest (higher, by now, as banks demand 9.4 %) without taxing income taxes which account for a high portion of the taxes vs a very low amount through sales tax? Check my first table, sales tax in Canada are about 5 % and in the US I don't know what they are. BUT, what I do know is: my parents, with their high income, are getting about 40 % tax on their income. 5 % vs 40 %... hmm... that doesn't translate.
These laws hit the richest hard, but unfortunately, due to a useless government, you can't get rid of income tax. It would be considered an assault on the rights of companies if the government tried to cancel out the debt owed at 9.4 % to banks and at the same time cancel income tax. Ron Paul, for all his 'economic' background, seems to be a little loopy if hes considering doing that.
He's allowed guest posts through my request so that you guys can post more easily and get straight to the point without having to register. The thread is here:
http://www.celestialcarnage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=80
So what do you guys say? Each and every newcomer is one less opponent in the Ron Paul revolution.