PDA

View Full Version : Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?




Pages : [1] 2

vidiots
03-30-2012, 10:49 PM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

sailingaway
03-30-2012, 10:51 PM
You might want to research your assumptions.

Ron Paul's views are nuanced. He isn't a bumper sticker.

He is religious but says his views don't preclude evolution, however, he resents questions about religious beliefs being raised as if they were a religious test for office. He also believes the earth does what it does in temperature. His belief in the limits on the federal government govern his views of law, so it doesn't matter whether he thinks humans are involved or not.

eleganz
03-30-2012, 10:51 PM
Global warming differs from global climate change.


You knew that right?

specsaregood
03-30-2012, 10:53 PM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

Interesting how both of your issues are religion based. At least you acknowledge to yourself that global warming isn't factual.

Brett85
03-30-2012, 10:53 PM
I take a stronger stance than Ron on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. I support the death penalty as well. Those are probably the main issues I disagree with him on.

specsaregood
03-30-2012, 10:55 PM
I take a stronger stance than Ron on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. I support the death penalty as well. Those are probably the main issues I disagree with him on.

Dr. Paul used to be pro-death penalty. But he changed his position after seeing all the cases overturned later on and decided it wasn't worth the risk of executing one innocent person. It is tough to argue against that logic, no?

vidiots
03-30-2012, 10:56 PM
Interesting how both of your issues are religion based. At least you acknowledge to yourself that global warming isn't factual.
How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

NewRightLibertarian
03-30-2012, 10:56 PM
I don't support what he says on the campaign trail about who committed the 9/11 attacks. Other than that, I'm pretty much lock step with him on everything.

TIMB0B
03-30-2012, 10:58 PM
I disagreed with him during his 2011 CPAC speech when he mentioned a 10% flat tax with the option to 'opt out' of government programs. I don't want to pay any income tax to government. If I'm opting out of government programs, I don't want to pay for someone else's benefit.

vidiots
03-30-2012, 10:58 PM
Global warming differs from global climate change.


You knew that right?No honestly lol whats the difference

specsaregood
03-30-2012, 10:59 PM
How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

You know it is a religion, subconsciously if anything. Other wise you wouldn't have said "believe in". Which requires acceptance without absolute proof, belief. Just like every other religion.

vidiots
03-30-2012, 11:02 PM
You know it is a religion, subconsciously if anything. Other wise you wouldn't have said "believe in". Which requires acceptance without absolute proof, belief. Just like every other religion.
Yes i said it that way because you dont have to believe it. You technically dont have to believe any thing in life do you? Like gravity does that make it wrong? or that the earth is moving or that it has an orbit.

sailingaway
03-30-2012, 11:03 PM
How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

despite what they teach you in school, it is highly debatable. Not that the earth changes temperature, or how did we have ice ages and vinyards in England, tropics in Antartica, as scientists say we did, but that is is causual or without glaring inconsistencies like the middle age warming period with no manmade emissions.

But man changes the world so much, it seems to me we must do some things. But this world wide cap and trade scheme for marketable securities is the OPPOSITE of what you would do if emissions were the driver. It would push all manufacturing to third world areas where there are few pollution controls so that worldwide emissions would go up. It would also shift jobs and money there. Which seems to be the actual purpose of the law, since it would make emissions worse, not better.

Constitutional Paulicy
03-30-2012, 11:06 PM
99.99% of RP supporters favor Dr. Paul's primary objectives which are to restore America by bring us sound money and slashing the national debt. Bringing our troops home. Ending the degradation of our civil liberties by eliminating the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc.

Who cares about the secondary issues that some of us may differ over. They seem extremely petty in comparison.

specsaregood
03-30-2012, 11:08 PM
Yes i said it that way because you dont have to believe it. You technically dont have to believe any thing in life do you? Like gravity does that make it wrong? or that the earth is moving or that it has an orbit.

That is all well in good. If you don't thnk that global warming has become a religion, you should step back and evaluate it a bit more. As far as evolution, you don't understand the nuances of Dr. Paul's position, it isn't that he doesn't accept evolution. But I'm not gonna speak for him, he devotes an entire chapter to the subject in his book "Liberty Defined". Its a good read, I recommend it.

Edit: FWIW, here is one of the current high priestesses of the global warming cult.
http://envs.uoregon.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Kari-Norgaard.jpg

vidiots
03-30-2012, 11:09 PM
despite what they teach you in school, it is highly debatable. Not that the earth changes temperature, or how did we have ice ages and vinyards in England, tropics in Antartica, as scientists say we did, but that is is causual or without glaring inconsistencies like the middle age warming period with no manmade emissions.

But man changes the world so much, it seems to me we must do some things. But this world wide cap and trade scheme for marketable securities is the OPPOSITE of what you would do if emissions were the driver. It would push all manufacturing to third world areas where there are few pollution controls so that worldwide emissions would go up. It would also shift jobs and money there. Which seems to be the actual purpose of the law, since it would make emissions worse, not better.
Good points actually. Not sure what to believe now :( I think i went along with that because i was teached in way for it to be fact pretty sure it was science or just in general.

jdmyprez_deo_vindice
03-30-2012, 11:12 PM
I disagree on certain envrionmental issues.

Working Poor
03-30-2012, 11:13 PM
I love this part of his book "Liberty Defined" on creationism -vs-evolution at the end he mentions he would like to see some proof of evolution in wars and how much mankind kills one another.

http://youtu.be/2eiR_U8vhIo

Kregisen
03-30-2012, 11:14 PM
There aren't any issues I outright disagree on. I'm still neutral on ending the fed because I'm not yet convinced another solution works better (I do want it fully audited though) and I'm also sort of neutral on the death penalty, but definitely see his point.

I think I agree on everything else.

vidiots
03-30-2012, 11:14 PM
I love this part of his book "Liberty Defined" on creationism -vs-evolution at the end he mentions he would like to see some proof of evolution in wars and how much mankind kills one another.



<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2eiR_U8vhIo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Link is not working.

BamaAla
03-30-2012, 11:17 PM
Death penalty and little foreign policy. Certainly not much.

sailingaway
03-30-2012, 11:21 PM
I disagreed with him during his 2011 CPAC speech when he mentioned a 10% flat tax with the option to 'opt out' of government programs. I don't want to pay any income tax to government. If I'm opting out of government programs, I don't want to pay for someone else's benefit.

He was trying to come up with a way to balance the budget and pay off obligations already incurred, defense, courts, etc. but he ended up with a better plan, the Plan to Restore America. He was looking for feedback and clearly got some.

kuckfeynes
03-30-2012, 11:24 PM
Just the usual an-cap objections. But... Ron Paul's greatest influences were an-cap, including the man who coined the phrase. So, I'm happy to get most of the way there.

Also (and this is coming from an ignostic) anyone who purports to know for certain to what degree man has influenced global climate change, or exactly how an amoeba becomes a pterodactyl, is frankly blowing smoke up your... ahem, jumping to conclusions.

AlexanderY
03-30-2012, 11:31 PM
Immigration and free trade.

My views have evolved into a form of economic nationalism, so I'm not thrilled about free trade. I do appreciate the fact that his is anti-WTO and has voted against most free trade agreements.

Even though I think his stance on birthright citizenship should be lauded, I'm definitely much tougher on immigration, both legal and illegal.

John F Kennedy III
03-30-2012, 11:35 PM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

What an odd way to start your RPF career...

John F Kennedy III
03-30-2012, 11:36 PM
I don't support what he says on the campaign trail about who committed the 9/11 attacks. Other than that, I'm pretty much lock step with him on everything.

Same here.

Fredom101
03-30-2012, 11:47 PM
1. Evolution
2. The border (free markets mean open borders to me, using state violence to solve any problem goes against Paul's libertarian/free market principles)

vidiots
03-30-2012, 11:53 PM
What an odd way to start your RPF career...How so?

RickyJ
03-30-2012, 11:56 PM
I don't agree with his position on 9/11. The first time he ran I almost stopped supporting him over his views on 9/11 truthers. I continued supporting him because he wants to end the Fed which would end the power behind the 9/11 attacks and their power over America.

Justinfrom1776
03-30-2012, 11:58 PM
Evolution isn't a policy...

..And to answer the OP's question, no.. I agree with the doc on absolutely everything.

Fredom101
03-31-2012, 12:01 AM
Evolution isn't a policy...

..And to answer the OP's question, no.. I agree with the doc on absolutely everything.

True, good point. Ok, then I'm down to just one issue I disagree on. :)

NewRightLibertarian
03-31-2012, 12:17 AM
I don't agree with his position on 9/11. The first time he ran I almost stopped supporting him over his views on 9/11 truthers. I continued supporting him because he wants to end the Fed which would end the power behind the 9/11 attacks and their power over America.

I understand that even if he was a truther (which there is no proof that he is), he couldn't say so on the campaign trail because it would ruin him. So I don't hold it against him in any way shape or form. You don't have to be a truther to be pro-peace :)

Karsten
03-31-2012, 12:24 AM
I disagree with Ron Paul on Immigration. I support an open border policy, which I believe to be more libertarian.

I'm also pro-choice on abortion, and pro-gay marriage.

Most other things I agree with RP on. I believe strongly in evolution, but I don't see how that's a policy issue.

Havax
03-31-2012, 12:25 AM
Ron is pro-gay marriage.

Karsten
03-31-2012, 12:27 AM
Ron is pro-gay marriage.

It's my understanding that he's anti-gay marriage, but just doesn't think the federal government should be involved.

Carlybee
03-31-2012, 12:40 AM
I understand that even if he was a truther (which there is no proof that he is), he couldn't say so on the campaign trail because it would ruin him. So I don't hold it against him in any way shape or form. You don't have to be a truther to be pro-peace :)


Yes we saw what happened with Debra Medina on the Glen Beck show when she talked about 9/11. They went after her and we got stuck with Rick Perry for another term as governor of Texas. I'm still mad about that.

Paul or not at all
03-31-2012, 12:57 AM
Why is it that all the people who joined in March 2012 post negative things?

NewRightLibertarian
03-31-2012, 01:01 AM
Why is it that all the people who joined in March 2012 post negative things?

Probably because a lot of them are trolls who came here specifically to spread disinformation and cause disharmony

Keith and stuff
03-31-2012, 01:05 AM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:
1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.

Global warming is real. Just ask ManBearPig! If Ron Paul doesn't believe in Global warning, that is a problem, I'm serial!

Actually, I likely disagree with Ron Paul on hundreds of issues. For example, I really enjoy wearing gray shirts. I rarely see Paul in a gray shirt! I like playing Street Fighter II. I've never once heard Paul mentioned Street Fighter II! I get the impression that Paul is a biker. Not me, I'm a hiker.

Phil
03-31-2012, 01:07 AM
I think NASA's funding should be increased.

pen_thief
03-31-2012, 01:14 AM
I'll put it this way, as I was listening to Liberty Defined (yep, I got the audiobook and listened as I drove around - I highly recommend the practice) I found myself going "Yes! Yes!" in the background :D

I used to be pro-choice, thinking it made me a bad feminist to be otherwise...not anymore.
I used to think global warming was backed up with unequivocal evidence...not anymore.
I used to think healthcare and education should be free...you get the idea :p

Some might call me a "sheeple," but I honestly feel like that's what I was before. Learning about Ron Paul and the Liberty movement has taught me to think for myself for the first time in my life - after five years in college where I saw red marks contradicting my every attempt at free thought in the margins.

TL;DR - not really, but knowing his political views would put me at ease even if there was something huge :)

BudhaStalin
03-31-2012, 01:36 AM
Global Warming, climate change whatever you want to call it. My "belief" in it doesn't mean that I'm all for government intervention, however. Immigration. Abortion (i know he would leave it up to the states). Evolution. I dont agree with Paul on 100% of the things but its damn close.

papitosabe
03-31-2012, 04:28 AM
I don't agree with his position on 9/11. The first time he ran I almost stopped supporting him over his views on 9/11 truthers. I continued supporting him because he wants to end the Fed which would end the power behind the 9/11 attacks and their power over America.

I believe he feels as many of us do, but it would destroy him to claim what he really believes in this instance. He's stated that he would approve an independent investigation on the matter. That says alot. When you're at the top like he is, there are some things you just have to turn cheek a little on sometimes. He knows what the hell the gov't is up to and whats going on more so than any of us IMO. Thats why we needed him so much.

IDefendThePlatform
03-31-2012, 04:36 AM
When I first found out he was running for president in 2007 I wasn't sure I could vote for him because he talked about government regulation of immigration. I got over that pretty quickly cuz he was so effing incredible on everything else. A national politician who actually talks about ending the IRS and replacing it with nothing? honestly is there anyone else who does that? I don't think I've ever heard Rand say it.

And the more I've watched him the more convinced I've become that his immigration stances are mostly just an olive branch to the rest of the GOP. Based on what I've seen Ron is pretty much a voluntaryist, which means he and I agree on basically everything, it's just a question of how to get there.

papitosabe
03-31-2012, 04:46 AM
I understand that even if he was a truther (which there is no proof that he is), he couldn't say so on the campaign trail because it would ruin him. So I don't hold it against him in any way shape or form. You don't have to be a truther to be pro-peace :)

guess I should of read ahead before my initial response, but you are absolutely right imo...


I think NASA's funding should be increased.

funding by whom? hard working people or the private sector?


Some might call me a "sheeple," but I honestly feel like that's what I was before. Learning about Ron Paul and the Liberty movement has taught me to think for myself for the first time in my life - after five years in college where I saw red marks contradicting my every attempt at free thought in the margins.

I feel the same..its just that the guy makes perfect sense...we're so bombarded by propaganda in schools, thru tv, etc.. hell, even we're even dumbed down by the additives from foods we eat....then you hear RP, and he's like the guy that snaps his fingers and gets you out of that trance...

No Free Beer
03-31-2012, 06:20 AM
I take a stronger stance on immigration.

I have some minor disagreements with him on foreign policy.

I believe that the banks should be regulated (to an extent).

otherone
03-31-2012, 07:12 AM
The fundamental issues are, "What authority does the FEDERAL government have over YOUR life, and, "What authority SHOULD the Federal government have over your neighbor's life?

IDefendThePlatform
03-31-2012, 07:14 AM
I take a stronger stance on immigration.

I think you mean a "more authoritarian" stance. Strength to stand up for immigrants and freedom of travel is the kind of strength I'm looking for in a politician. Ron Paul, while not perfect in this regard, does usually make it a point to say that without the welfare state immigrants couldn't be scapegoated the way they are now.

Working Poor
03-31-2012, 07:26 AM
Link is not working.

Please try it again.

http://youtu.be/2eiR_U8vhIo

cajuncocoa
03-31-2012, 07:27 AM
I'm pretty much in agreement with him on everything.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 07:33 AM
I disagree with him on DADT, would be stricter on immigration and I support the death penalty.

Oh and I think $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough :p

rpwi
03-31-2012, 07:36 AM
Really like Paul...but there are a couple of issues...

* Don't believe we should be cutting taxes while we have a massive deficit and debt. Believe we should repay the debt as fast as possible to reduce future interest payments.

* Believe government (and in many cases the Feds) have a proper role in regulating environmental externalities and promoting conservation. Lawsuits will not protect us from pollution of ground water, surface water, clean air and nuclear pollution. We don't want to be like China...

* Believe the government should scrap it's sub fleet (expensive holdover from the coldwar), while Paul is very pro sub-warfare

* Believe taxation should be progressive. There are quirks in the economy that make it easier for the rich to get money so all things being equal I think they should pay taxes at a higher percentage than then the rest of us

* Oppose the precious metal standard. Like the idea of ending the Fed and to stop dealing with and bailing out banks...but a precious metal standard would be too expensive and would represent government waste on an epic proportion.

All in all, Paul is still light years ahead of other politicians. Even on the issues I disagree with him on, he seems very respectful..and one must remember...he's just running for President of the United States. He's not running to change state laws nor would he control congress which would probably be fighting him quite a bit, so probably that much wouldn't change...but he would help a lot in reducing the power and abuse of the Federal Government.

vechorik
03-31-2012, 08:02 AM
If you support open borders, view this video how global government = global poverty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE

If you support the green agenda, learn about United Nations Agenda 21:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

Then let us hear what you think. Education is the key to everything.

newbitech
03-31-2012, 08:13 AM
I disagree with him on targeting davis-bacon in his Restore America proposal. I understand the need to detach Unions from government. I also understand the need to detach the financial markets from government. Financial markets have a far greater impact on the economy than Unions. Why not add a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass-Steagall in the Restore America plan? Ron Paul opposed this legislation in the late 90's when it was being debated. He was right on about the impact of layered and cascading regulation. This bill was supposed to deregulate and what it ended up doing was piling on more regulation loopholes.

So, yeah, I disagree with Ron Paul including a Union busting repeal, but not including a crony capitalism repeal.

No Free Beer
03-31-2012, 08:33 AM
I think you mean a "more authoritarian" stance. Strength to stand up for immigrants and freedom of travel is the kind of strength I'm looking for in a politician. Ron Paul, while not perfect in this regard, does usually make it a point to say that without the welfare state immigrants couldn't be scapegoated the way they are now.

I'm not an OBA (Open Border Agent) so that's why. Neither is Ron, despite what you may think. Anyway, I have had enough of debating people on this subject. I had a huge debate with numerous people on this subject in another thread. I am not about to revisit that.

Furthermore, enough with the labeling, "more authoritarian." I am so tired of people putting words into other peoples mouths. I have a different opinion than you. End it.

Jingles
03-31-2012, 08:48 AM
Probably the usual ancap musings.

His position on abortion is really like mine. I find abortion abhorrent, but I don't really want to government involved in the issue (although he would leave it to the states which is where the issue should be).

If anything I have more disagreement with some Ron Paul supporters, but not Ron himself.

I'm sure personal differences exist between me and him (i.e. he is a Christian and I am an agnostic atheist), but what we do agree on is the role of the state and reducing it as much as possible/eliminating it.

IDefendThePlatform
03-31-2012, 08:51 AM
I'm not an OBA (Open Border Agent) so that's why. Neither is Ron, despite what you may think. Anyway, I have had enough of debating people on this subject. I had a huge debate with numerous people on this subject in another thread. I am not about to revisit that.

Furthermore, enough with the labeling, "more authoritarian." I am so tired of people putting words into other peoples mouths. I have a different opinion than you. End it.

My issue is the labeling of your position as default "strong", implying Ron's is therefore weak. Authoritarian is a more accurate label for people who wish to restrict others movements through violence(government). Eduardo used "stricter", which I would also consider accurate.

No Free Beer
03-31-2012, 09:25 AM
My issue is the labeling of your position as default "strong", implying Ron's is therefore weak. Authoritarian is a more accurate label for people who wish to restrict others movements through violence(government). Eduardo used "stricter", which I would also consider accurate.

government doesn't always equate to violence.

Nirvikalpa
03-31-2012, 09:32 AM
Physician-assisted suicide.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 09:38 AM
Physician-assisted suicide.

Ron doesn't support that, does he? I'd be very disgusted if he does.

TIMB0B
03-31-2012, 09:44 AM
He was trying to come up with a way to balance the budget and pay off obligations already incurred, defense, courts, etc. but he ended up with a better plan, the Plan to Restore America. He was looking for feedback and clearly got some.

Which means to me currently, that I can't think of any of his positions I oppose. :)

Jamesiv1
03-31-2012, 09:54 AM
As it pertains to political office, I vote for views on policy, and don't care much about their personal beliefs - as long as they don't try to impose their personal beliefs on me (through legislation and public policy.)

I can't think of any of his policy views I disagree with. There probably are a few, but I can't think of any.

Like many have said, I'm lock-step in line on the big issues: 1. End the Fed 2. Sound money 3. Strict adherence to the Constitution 4. Slash big government 5. Slash the global empire

I don't mind at all if we disagree on things I consider "2nd tier" issues.

Nirvikalpa
03-31-2012, 09:55 AM
Ron doesn't support that, does he? I'd be very disgusted if he does.

He does not. I feel that if someone has the right to defend their life, there's no way you can say they have no right to control their death, especially if they have degenerative disease, or there's a disease with no hope of recovery and they feel they are instead a burden to not only their family but to society.

Spending months on end on a ventilator, IMHO, is not a way to die. Getting pumped with morphine after 6 back-to-back heart attacks, a brain aneurysm, and developing a systemic infection, IMHO, is not the way to die.

Therefor I do support it. I do not have the amount of clinical experience Dr. Paul does, but after spending a good amount of time in the back of am ambulance and doing many rounds in the ED department of a major hospital... I definitely think it's something many don't understand until they see a patient begging for "mercy."

pacelli
03-31-2012, 10:04 AM
The only thing I personally disagree with Paul on is using ghostwriters.

I understand his reasons for using them, but I personally wouldn't make that choice.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 10:09 AM
He does not. I feel that if someone has the right to defend their life, there's no way you can say they have no right to control their death

You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

NIU Students for Liberty
03-31-2012, 10:10 AM
I wish he stuck more to Rothbard (seeing state governments as just as destructive as the federal government) but I understand that it would be political suicide to do so (see '88 campaign).

NIU Students for Liberty
03-31-2012, 10:12 AM
You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

So no one could defend themselves from an attacker?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 10:14 AM
So no one could defend themselves from an attacker?

Of course you can, and you should. You are defending the gift God gave you. The person attacking you has no right to take your life, just like you have no right to take your own life.

LibertyEagle
03-31-2012, 10:16 AM
Ron is pro-gay marriage.

No, he is not. He is anti the government being involved in marriage.

Simple
03-31-2012, 10:24 AM
I for one agree that all of Dr. Paul's policy proposals would be beneficial, but he has taken a moderate position in many places where I'd like to see him go farther. I know it might be hard to propose more than incremental change without scaring the electorate, but I'd like to see military modernization, using marques and reprisals to reign in Blackwater, the procecution of the criminals in this and past administrations, shuttering even more agencies, legalizing private mail delivery,.....

Shane Harris
03-31-2012, 10:26 AM
LOL at global warming. Al Gore? Is that you? No I agree with Ron Paul on everything I can think of. Weird? Not really. He has a consistent philosophy and I share it.

qh4dotcom
03-31-2012, 10:29 AM
:)

John F Kennedy III
03-31-2012, 10:34 AM
I think NASA's funding should be increased.

Why NASA specifically?

nobody
03-31-2012, 10:35 AM
How many deaths have occured in the name of freedom and America? We go to war all the time and people die. It's accepted practice. The death penalty is of value to a society if used properly. As in ANY crime/penalty process, the penalty must fit the crime. How many people get locked up for peroiods of time that way over scale the crime done? The whole justice system is slanted against the poor citizens like their lives are less valuable than the people with means to defend themselves. The Courts act like its game time towards the poor. Not so funny when it's their lifetime on the hook. I also believe a society has a responsibility to control itself socially and moraly. Self control is the essence of Liberty and Freedom shared. It is the American principle. Your Freedom stops where mine begins. It's a shared responsibility. The arguement is over the balance. Non-preemptive war is a no brainer. A genius is not required to know, not to make war before it is neccessary; as time is the friend of negotiation and hope. I think sane persons all hope against war.

otherone
03-31-2012, 10:39 AM
You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

To Christians, suicide is the biggest no-no of them all. Atheists....no problem.

John F Kennedy III
03-31-2012, 10:44 AM
He does not. I feel that if someone has the right to defend their life, there's no way you can say they have no right to control their death, especially if they have degenerative disease, or there's a disease with no hope of recovery and they feel they are instead a burden to not only their family but to society.

Spending months on end on a ventilator, IMHO, is not a way to die. Getting pumped with morphine after 6 back-to-back heart attacks, a brain aneurysm, and developing a systemic infection, IMHO, is not the way to die.

Therefor I do support it. I do not have the amount of clinical experience Dr. Paul does, but after spending a good amount of time in the back of am ambulance and doing many rounds in the ED department of a major hospital... I definitely think it's something many don't understand until they see a patient begging for "mercy."

I agree. Physician assisted suicide should be legal. It's YOUR DECISION, you just don't have the capability of doing it yourself.

Karsten
03-31-2012, 10:45 AM
The issues I posted were disagreements I had with Ron Paul were I thought he was not libertarian enough (immigration-open borders, pro-choice). I'm shocked that it seems most of the disagreements in here is from those who think he's TOO libertarian (global warming, higher taxes, supporting the death penalty, more immigration restrictionism, more foreign intervention). It just surprises me. Then again, I supported RP pre-2007 when just a handful of libertarians knew about him.

Supporting the Death Penalty is just something that I can't imagine a RP supporter doing in a million years. Do you REALLY trust the government to kill only the bad people? SERIOUSLY??? When we know how corrupt our government is? When they have defined freedom fighters like us as terrorists? When we've got things like the NDAA??? I would NEVER give ANY government the power to kill. That could ONLY be abused.

Karsten
03-31-2012, 10:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBXnUoVFXAI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUpvs-bN60w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBPCvaJATnw

slamhead
03-31-2012, 10:51 AM
I take a stronger stance than Ron on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. I support the death penalty as well. Those are probably the main issues I disagree with him on.

I was happy when I heard the reasons Ron Paul does not support the death penalty anymore. He changed his mind for the same reason I did. After Illinois released so many condemned men from death row with DNA evidence they put a moratorium on the death penalty.

During this time I changed my stance on the death penalty. Poor people are more likely to get the death penalty. The fact that it takes 20 years to put someone to death does not make the threat of death a deterrent to crime. If it is not a deterrent then what is it? It is nothing but revenge carried out by the state for the sake of the victims family and it does not serve the people. I would be all for the death penalty in some cases if they carried it out in a timely fashion, like tomorrow at noon. Then it would have a deterrent affect. I say if the families of victims want someone dead they have to participate and throw the switch themselves.

Nirvikalpa
03-31-2012, 11:05 AM
You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

You need to take a stroll around your ER/ED, a children's hospice, or a general hospice.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:06 AM
I was happy when I heard the reasons Ron Paul does not support the death penalty anymore. He changed his mind for the same reason I did. After Illinois released so many condemned men from death row with DNA evidence they put a moratorium on the death penalty.

Since the reintroduction of the death penalty in 1976, less than 50 people have been exonerated from death row. Only 17 due to DNA evidence. (http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/dna-testing-and-death-penalty)Of course, that's 17 too many. An innocent man should never be put to death, but let's get the numbers right.


During this time I changed my stance on the death penalty. Poor people are more likely to get the death penalty. The fact that it takes 20 years to put someone to death does not make the threat of death a deterrent to crime. If it is not a deterrent then what is it? It is nothing but revenge carried out by the state for the sake of the victims family and it does not serve the people. I would be all for the death penalty in some cases if they carried it out in a timely fashion, like tomorrow at noon. Then it would have a deterrent affect. I say if the families of victims want someone dead they have to participate and throw the switch themselves.

I agree to some extent. I'm pro-death penalty. However, the way it's been applied I do not agree with, but I don't believe it's because of what the death penalty is. I think it's because the judicial system is completely broken. That needs to be fixed.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:07 AM
You need to take a stroll around your ER/ED, a children's hospice, or a general hospice.

I volunteered for 6 years at a children's hospice. It didn't change my stance, I'm 100% pro-life and always will be.

vechorik
03-31-2012, 11:20 AM
You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

I'm glad life is so simple for you, so black and white without having to think about gray areas.
I once thought as you. After taking care of a dying woman for 6 months, when she was very near the end and screaming in pain, the family removed her from oxygen and shot enough morphine into her to kill her. I only regret we didn't make that decision earlier. I hope someone is around to be so kind to me if I'm ever in that situation (and I hope you and YOUR version of a loving and merciful God are not around).

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:24 AM
I'm glad life is so simple for you, so black and white without having to think about gray areas.
I once thought as you. After taking care of a dying woman for 6 months, when she was very near the end and screaming in pain, the family removed her from oxygen and shot enough morphine into her to kill her. I only regret we didn't make that decision earlier. I hope someone is around to be so kind to me if I'm ever in that situation (and I hope you are not around).

You see compassion there, I see manslaughter at the very least.

vechorik
03-31-2012, 11:25 AM
I was happy when I heard the reasons Ron Paul does not support the death penalty anymore. He changed his mind for the same reason I did. After Illinois released so many condemned men from death row with DNA evidence they put a moratorium on the death penalty.

During this time I changed my stance on the death penalty. Poor people are more likely to get the death penalty. The fact that it takes 20 years to put someone to death does not make the threat of death a deterrent to crime. If it is not a deterrent then what is it? It is nothing but revenge carried out by the state for the sake of the victims family and it does not serve the people. I would be all for the death penalty in some cases if they carried it out in a timely fashion, like tomorrow at noon. Then it would have a deterrent affect. I say if the families of victims want someone dead they have to participate and throw the switch themselves.

I feel the same. MS state has the "good ole boy system" in the courts just as they do in politics.
It's always a matter of who you know and how much money you have.
People lie in court, just as they lie everywhere else.
Kill someone on death row and then find they are innocent? Who then is responsible for murder?

vechorik
03-31-2012, 11:30 AM
You see compassion there, I see manslaughter at the very least.

I see it as treating someone the same as I would want to be treated (you know, Golden Rule)
I would also do the same for a dying animal.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:36 AM
I see it as treating someone the same as I would want to be treated (you know, Golden Rule)
I would also do the same for a dying animal.

You shall not murder. That trumps pretty much everything to me.

otherone
03-31-2012, 11:47 AM
You shall not murder. That trumps pretty much everything to me.

Since when does Man's law trump God's Law?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:49 AM
Since when does Man's law trump God's Law?

That's not man's law. It is one of the 10 commandments He gave us.

Anyway, let's not derail this thread. If people want to discuss suicide they can start another thread

GeorgiaAvenger
03-31-2012, 11:50 AM
I disagree with him on targeting davis-bacon in his Restore America proposal. I understand the need to detach Unions from government. I also understand the need to detach the financial markets from government. Financial markets have a far greater impact on the economy than Unions. Why not add a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Glass-Steagall in the Restore America plan? Ron Paul opposed this legislation in the late 90's when it was being debated. He was right on about the impact of layered and cascading regulation. This bill was supposed to deregulate and what it ended up doing was piling on more regulation loopholes.

So, yeah, I disagree with Ron Paul including a Union busting repeal, but not including a crony capitalism repeal.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5waq6KvKrI

Also, what do you mean by repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley AND Glass-Steagall? We should end the first one but restrore Glass-Steagal.

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 11:51 AM
I volunteered for 6 years at a children's hospice. It didn't change my stance, I'm 100% pro-life and always will be.

Which years were those?

GeorgiaAvenger
03-31-2012, 11:51 AM
I think NASA's funding should be increased.

What I would do is remove the adventurism and attach it to the military.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:53 AM
Which years were those?

From when I was 12 till 18.

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 11:54 AM
From when I was 12 till 18.

so when youwere in boarding school in germany? or was that when you were getting drunk in russia? i forget. And werent those the years you were non-christian and cavorting around with easy women?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:56 AM
so when youwere in boarding school in germany? or was that when you were getting drunk in russia? i forget. And werent those the years you were non-christian and cavorting around with easy women?

I was a lapsed, non-practicing, apathetic Catholic during those years, but don't see how that has anything to do with it...

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 11:57 AM
I was a lapsed, non-practicing, apathetic Catholic during those years, but don't see how that has anything to do with it...

I was just wondering how you found the time to volunteer for 6 full years when you were travelling all around the world.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:58 AM
I was just wondering how you found the time to volunteer for 6 full years when you were travelling all around the world.

Because the hospice was about 5 miles away from where I lived. And why would I have time to volunteer? It wasn't a full-time job. And I wasn't traveling all around the world.

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 11:59 AM
Because the hospice was about 5 miles away from where I lived. And why would I have time to volunteer? It wasn't a full-time job.

you are just a tough nut to peg. i thought you were in germany and also in russia during those years. man, you really are a nomad of the world.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:00 PM
you are just a tough nut to peg. i thought you were in germany and also in russia during those years. man, you really are a nomad of the world.

I was in Russia after high school.

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 12:02 PM
I was in Russia after high school.

so it was a german hospice then?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:05 PM
so it was a german hospice then?

I've volunteered at two. One in Vancouver, Canada where I lived until I was 15, and then one in Germany where I went to boarding school for my final two years of high school.

We're derailing the thread though. If you have more questions feel free to PM me or start a thread where I can answer them all.

Wooden Indian
03-31-2012, 12:06 PM
I disagree on the gay marriage issue.

I have always felt that the 14th Amendment (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.) made same sex marriage a Federal matter and removes the state's right to deny to any U.S. citizen this basic right and exercise of freedom.

Can someone show me where I'm seeing this wrong?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:11 PM
I disagree on the gay marriage issue.

I have always felt that the 14th Amendment (All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.) made same sex marriage a Federal matter and removes the state's right to deny to any U.S. citizen this basic right and exercise of freedom.

Can someone show me where I'm seeing this wrong?

Marriage is not a right, especially if you look at government sponsored marriage. It is a privilege because you have to ask the state for permission. If you need permission or a license, then it is not a right.

specsaregood
03-31-2012, 12:13 PM
I've volunteered at two.

See, that would explain it. Hence, why I was confused when you said "A children's hospice". Not 2 different children's hospices in 2 completely different countries. And "the hospice was about 5 miles away from where I lived."

all cleared up now.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:17 PM
See, that would explain it. Hence, why I was confused when you said "A children's hospice". Not 2 different children's hospices in 2 completely different countries. And "the hospice was about 5 miles away from where I lived."

all cleared up now.

Ohhh ok. The hospice that I volunteered at in Vancouver was literally a stone's throw from my house. It's called Canuck Place, it's affiliated with the NHL team in Vancouver. The one that I volunteered at in Germany was about 5 miles from the boarding school campus and our school had a program where you could volunteer at various organizations in the area. I chose to volunteer at the hospice and at a kindergarten to teach English (cause I love kids). There were many other options, such as volunteering for the Red Cross, seniors homes, with children who have disabilities, at the local hospital, fire department, etc.

cubical
03-31-2012, 12:25 PM
1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.

2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

You believe in global warming?

He doesn't denounce facts. Evolution is far more complex than saying "It's a fact" and by you saying that you clearly lack understanding of it.

I disagreed with him wanting to abolish the US debt held by the fed and wanting to sell our gold, but I believe he had other motives. As said, the core issues are what are important. I could believe in evolution and he might not, but that has no affect on me as a citizen. If he was a central planner, then that would affect me as a citizen.

Wooden Indian
03-31-2012, 12:29 PM
Marriage is not a right, especially if you look at government sponsored marriage. It is a privilege because you have to ask the state for permission. If you need permission or a license, then it is not a right.

Okay. If the argument is that we do not have a right to marriage; we have a privilege... the 14th would still apply as it plainly states that no state may abridge the "privileges" of any U.S citizen. Would it not?

I've been wanting for someone to explain this to me for a while now. I appreciate the discussion.

cubical
03-31-2012, 12:29 PM
To Christians, suicide is the biggest no-no of them all. Atheists....no problem.

Biblical evidence to support this?

vechorik
03-31-2012, 12:31 PM
Marriage is not a right, especially if you look at government sponsored marriage. It is a privilege because you have to ask the state for permission. If you need permission or a license, then it is not a right.

Yeah, like gun permits

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:31 PM
Okay. If the argument is that we do not have a right to marriage; we have a privilege... the 14th would still apply as it plainly states that no state may abridge the "privileges" of any U.S citizen. Would it not?

I've been wanting for someone to explain this to me for a while now. I appreciate the discussion.

I believe it is talking about the privileges of citizenship such as to live and work in the US, to travel between states unhindered, etc.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:32 PM
Yeah, like gun permits

Exactly. There is no right to bear arms if you have to ask the government for permission.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 12:34 PM
Biblical evidence to support this?

1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

And the Sixth Commandment not to murder. That includes yourself.

Wooden Indian
03-31-2012, 12:39 PM
I believe it is talking about the privileges of citizenship such as to live and work in the US, to travel between states unhindered, etc.

Which I believe marriage would fall under, be it a God given right, the pusuit of happiness, or even a privilege as you said above.

Wooden Indian
03-31-2012, 12:41 PM
1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.

And the Sixth Commandment not to murder. That includes yourself.

Quoted for thruthiness.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:05 PM
As someone else mentioned, I don't agree with Ron Paul wanting to sell off the country's gold reserves. I do believe in competing currencies, but I also do believe the federal government has a role to provide a legal tender for people to settle their debts when no measure can be mutually agreed upon. I think a gold-backed dollar is the best currency to have as that legal tender (just like the constitution says).

Does Ron Paul support selling off (or transferring to the states) the millions of acres of federal land?

heavenlyboy34
03-31-2012, 01:12 PM
As someone else mentioned, I don't agree with Ron Paul wanting to sell off the country's gold reserves. I do believe in competing currencies, but I also do believe the federal government has a role to provide a legal tender for people to settle their debts when no measure can be mutually agreed upon. I think a gold-backed dollar is the best currency to have as that legal tender (just like the constitution says). disagree. If the Feds need more than they can constitutionally get (via indirect taxes, tariffs, etc) They can ask citizens to buy bonds with gold (or simply make "patriotic donations" to the treasury-this program already exists). Although if competing currencies were legalized, I wouldn't mind your plan so much. Allowing government a monopoly on money/legal tender is a very bad idea.

kuckfeynes
03-31-2012, 01:12 PM
If God's law trumps man's law, then I should really be locked up for a long time because I've been blatantly ignoring Commandments 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10.

There's nothing remotely liberty-oriented about wanting to use the state to enforce "God's law." I believe that is called a theocracy.

And I don't think the point was "Have you ever volunteered in a hospice," the point was "have you ever witnessed first-hand someone in so much pain, with no hope of recovery, that they are pleading to end it, which in any other situation would look like cruel and unusual torture, and if so were you able to stand by your convictions unaffected?"

Personally I don't believe in an interactive God, and my entire adherence to the principles of liberty stems from the premise that I own myself. If I am violating "God's law" by choosing when to die, then let me be judged at the gates. But don't try to use the arm of the state to go after the people who voluntarily entered into an agreement with me.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:16 PM
disagree. If the Feds need more than they can constitutionally get (via indirect taxes, tariffs, etc) They can ask citizens to buy bonds with gold (or simply make "patriotic donations" to the treasury-this program already exists). Although if competing currencies were legalized, I wouldn't mind your plan so much. Allowing government a monopoly on money/legal tender is a very bad idea.

Oh I completely agree with you. I wasnt talking about revenue though. What I was saying is I don't believe the gold the US federal government supposedly (Fort Knox needs an audit) has should not be sold, but instead should be used to back the dollar to something tangible. The Constitution authorizes gold and silver as legal tender, and the federal government should offer gold and silver backed dollars for those wishing to use them, for people to pay taxes with and for debts to be settled when no other currency or medium can be mutually agreed upon.

People should, however, have the option of using whatever they want as currency in all private transactions. They should be able to use gold, silver, tennis balls, monkeys, laser tag equipment, bowties, whatever they want as long as its mutually agreed upon.

otherone
03-31-2012, 01:19 PM
Biblical evidence to support this?

If you're a Christian it's common sense. Think about it. There is a reason suicide is called the one unforgivable sin.

otherone
03-31-2012, 01:22 PM
1 Corinthians 3:17

And the Sixth Commandment not to murder. That includes yourself.

Actually, you are the one derailing the thread. "Murder" is a legal term. Man makes laws.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:23 PM
If you're a Christian it's common sense. Think about it. There is a reason suicide is called the one unforgivable sin.

Actually even suicide is forgiven, its essentially murder which can be forgiven. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

otherone
03-31-2012, 01:30 PM
Actually even suicide is forgiven, its essentially murder which can be forgiven. The one unforgivable sin is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Sin can be forgiven without repentance? Mea Culpa....I've been misinformed!

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:37 PM
Sin can be forgiven without repentance? Mea Culpa....I've been misinformed!

I never said that and no, it cannot.

However, salvation is not based on repentance. If it were then it would be salvation by works and not faith.

Jesus bore all that person's sins, including suicide. If Jesus bore that person's sins on the cross 2000 years ago, and if suicide was not covered, then the Christian was never saved in the first place and the one sin of suicide is able to undo the entire work of the cross of Christ. This cannot be. Jesus either saves completely or he does not.

otherone
03-31-2012, 01:40 PM
I never said that and no, it cannot.

So when does a suicide ask for forgiveness? 5 "Hail Marys" on the way to the pavement?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:42 PM
So when does a suicide ask for forgiveness? 5 "Hail Marys" on the way to the pavement?

I edited the post above.

Forgiveness of sins does not come from simply reciting a prayer over and over. Repentance comes from a change in the heart and a yearning to be reunited with God.



However, salvation is not based on repentance. If it were then it would be salvation by works and not faith.

Jesus bore all that person's sins, including suicide. If Jesus bore that person's sins on the cross 2000 years ago, and if suicide was not covered, then the Christian was never saved in the first place and the one sin of suicide is able to undo the entire work of the cross of Christ. This cannot be. Jesus either saves completely or he does not.


The only unforgivable sin is to reject the pardon the Lord’s death made available to us, because that’s the only remedy for our sins that God has provided. If we reject that, then we’ve put ourselves outside of God’s forgiveness.

otherone
03-31-2012, 01:46 PM
However, salvation is not based on repentance. .

So the unrepentant are saved?

apologies, all...eduardo...pm me.

rpwi
03-31-2012, 01:52 PM
The debts need to be defaulted on...it's not fair that you have to pay for debts incurred by corrupt politicians...especially debts incurred as a result of unconstitutional legislation.Intriguing idea... The financial elite will throw mega-temper-tantrums...but I do like the logic that individuals shouldn't be fully accountable for the debts assigned to them by idiotic politicians. If we don't default...then I do think debt repayment needs to take place to save on interest payments (and therefore taxes) and to counteract inflation. Some foreign countries would be VERY upset if we defaulted...and I wouldn't be surprised if they nationalized US assets abroad as punishment. It should be noted that the constitution prohibits defaulting on debts (a civil war area amendment)...should be a way around this though...


If you don't want a precious metal standard then the Constitution needs to be amended to repeal this

"To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures"

"No State shall make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts"This is a Grey area... I do personally support maintaining our fiat money supply but not its use an economic tool. One can perhaps argue that coinage is a more broad term for creating money, be it as a round piece of metal, piece of paper, or as an electronic entry. And that the ability to regulate the value means we don't have to have 100% backed currency...but can have fractional or fiat currency.

It's not ideal to have a fiat currency...but to transition out would be VERY tricky (you're basically saying almost all money American's have would be worthless based on the Constitution). IMO...the best place to start monetary reform is to get move the assets and liabilities from the Fed to the Treasury, end the Fed and prohibit the Treasury from dealing directly with financial institutions (outside of collecting taxes).

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 01:55 PM
So the unrepentant are saved?

apologies, all...eduardo...pm me.

Sent you a PM

Lishy
03-31-2012, 02:01 PM
I disagree with Paul on pulling out all bases, because bases allow us to set up a deterrence to those who would attack us. If we remove all bases, a country can set up around us, and we might be trapped.

Let's look at the Cuban missile crisis for example. In a world of Nuclear Deterrence, they can shoot down our nukes because we're too far away.

I'm all for ending wars and eliminating MOST bases. But once we have the finances to maintain it (Which we do not at the moment), I simply feel there is nothing wrong with having allies who simply lend us land to borrow. I believe such can exist in a non-interventionist ideology, because such is trade, and NOT intervention in conflict!

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 02:08 PM
I disagree with Paul on pulling out all bases, because bases allow us to set up a deterrence to those who would attack us. If we remove all bases, a country can set up around us, and we might be trapped.

How exactly did bases in Saudis Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain stop a terrorist attack from people in that region? Oh wait, it caused it.

And how would a country surround the US with bases? Canada will never allow a Chinese or Russian military base because they depend economically in the US. Same with Mexico.


Let's look at the Cuban missile crisis for example. In a world of Nuclear Deterrence, they can shoot down our nukes because we're too far away.

The Cuban Missioe Crisis was a natural response on the Soviets' part to American nuclear weapons in Germany, the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, etc. The US has the best anti-ballistic missile system of any country, so it really would be the case that other countries are too far from having effective nuclear capabilities (except maybe Russia if they launch the thousands of missiles they have all at once). The US has nuclear submarines and bombers which can get close enough to any target.


I'm all for ending wars and eliminating MOST bases. But once we have the finances to maintain it (Which we do not at the moment), I simply feel there is nothing wrong with having allies who simply lend us land to borrow. I believe such can exist in a non-interventionist ideology, because such is trade, and NOT intervention in conflict!

What is trade-related about military bases? Trade is voluntary exchanges between two or more parties, not intimidation by threat of violence.

otherone
03-31-2012, 02:08 PM
If we remove all bases, a country can set up around us, and we might be trapped.


Trapped? Where do you want to escape to?

Article 1, section 8
Powers of Congress
....To provide and maintain a Navy;

No Free Beer
03-31-2012, 02:13 PM
How exactly did bases in Saudis Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain stop a terrorist attack from people in that region? Oh wait, it caused it.

Sort of. At the end of the day, Al Qaeda members are irrational and make up their own rules. A lot of their actions go against the Quran, so it wasn't JUST our bases in Saudi Arabia.

qh4dotcom
03-31-2012, 02:16 PM
I think he should start taking his own advice and it's about time he starts doing his job of defending the Constitution's natural born citizen requirements instead of suggesting they are irrelevant

"We should know the truth and we should follow the rule, we should follow the law, we should follow what the Constitution says about who is qualified to be President. So, I am very open-minded about looking at all of that."
- Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoQ3kO9xzcs#t=1m30s

---------------------
Ron Paul: Obama's Constitutional Eligibility To Be President Is Irrelevant - 4/20/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Porel0FMEHU

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 02:17 PM
Sort of. At the end of the day, Al Qaeda members are irrational and make up their own rules. A lot of their actions go against the Quran, so it wasn't JUST our bases in Saudi Arabia.

They are not irrational actors though. Read Michael Scheuer's book. They have reasons for hating and attacking the US. Bin Laden understood that he wouldn't be able to defeat the US by violence, but instead by coaxing them into unwinable wars he'd send them down a path of self destruction financially.

But you're right, it wasn't just about bases in Saudi Arabia. It also has a lot to do with American support for the Zionist regime occupying the Holy Land.

otherone
03-31-2012, 02:19 PM
Bin Laden understood that he wouldn't be able to defeat the US by violence, but instead by coaxing them into unwinable wars he'd send them down a path of self destruction financially.


OBL won the war with the passage of the Patriot Act.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 02:20 PM
OBL won the war with the passage of the Patriot Act.

And the $4 trillion (and counting) in extra debt that the war on terror has added.

IDefendThePlatform
03-31-2012, 02:22 PM
government doesn't always equate to violence.

Yes it does. That's the point: government, by definition, is violence. Do what the state says or get dragged to jail.

Immigration restrictions are unjust because the state is injecting itself into peaceful trade between 2 parties. I want to sell my land to an "illegal" immigrant then they come and drag us both to jail through violence.

If more Americans recognized the violent basis of government we'd have a lot less of it.


Edit: This is also what Ron Paul means when he says "Eveything the government does is a mandate."

rpwi
03-31-2012, 02:40 PM
Sort of. At the end of the day, Al Qaeda members are irrational and make up their own rules. A lot of their actions go against the Quran, so it wasn't JUST our bases in Saudi Arabia.It was mostly foreign policy...

Here is Osama's 1998 Fatwa:


First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples. (1)

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. (2)

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula. (3)

Basically, Osama declared the Fatwa because:

1) US troops in Saudia Arabia
2) US attacks on Iraq between Iraq War 1 and Iraq War 2
3) US supports Israel

cstarace
03-31-2012, 02:54 PM
His position on abortion is really like mine. I find abortion abhorrent, but I don't really want to government involved in the issue (although he would leave it to the states which is where the issue should be).
Okay, I keep seeing this and want to set the record straight. He would not leave the legality of abortion to the states. He would repeal Roe v. Wade, and enact a Federal law defining life as beginning at conception. Paul would then leave it up to the states as to how they want to prosecute people who have abortions, much like murder.

JJ2
03-31-2012, 03:09 PM
You need to take a stroll around your ER/ED, a children's hospice, or a general hospice.

You have a right to life. You do not have a right to death.

JJ2
03-31-2012, 03:10 PM
I don't agree with his position on 9/11. The first time he ran I almost stopped supporting him over his views on 9/11 truthers. I continued supporting him because he wants to end the Fed which would end the power behind the 9/11 attacks and their power over America.

He is good friends with Alex Jones. That's good enough for me. ;)

cstarace
03-31-2012, 03:14 PM
You have a right to life. You do not have a right to death.
You also have a right to liberty.

otherone
03-31-2012, 03:37 PM
You also have a right to liberty.

Patrick Henry gives you a choice....

smhbbag
03-31-2012, 06:15 PM
I think the Koran is the primary cause of terrorism, with our meddling imperialism as a very distant secondary cause.

I don't believe in free trade.

I don't accept the harm principle as the proper basis for deciding whether something ought to be legal or illegal.

I know that our Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

I don't believe in individualism.

I don't believe that conscription is slavery, nor that taxation is theft.

I am perfectly fine with a draft.

I object to illegal immigration, AND a great portion of legal immigration. We need to be far more discriminating regarding who comes into our house.

I believe many of the older laws regulating sexual activity in the United States were just and proper. Adultery, homosexual sex, polygamy, and other acts should be criminal offenses.

I do not believe hyper-inflation is a short-term or long-term threat to the United States, though I would LOVE to end the Fed and be on a gold standard.

I believe divorces should be much harder to get.

I can go on, and on, and on, and on. This doesn't even scratch the surface. But rarely does a sentence come out of Paul's mouth that I actually agree with, in entirety.

I live in Glen Bradley's district in NC, and there is a reason I can (barely) support Paul, but won't touch Bradley with a ten-foot pole. That's nothing about Glen particularly - I wouldn't support Ron Paul for NC legislature either.

You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.

A few basic things have me on board for Paul, and have since 2007 (and before that):

1) He's honest, genuine, morally upright, loves his wife and family, and has done right by them.
2) He isn't afraid of addressing our overwhelming financial issues head-on, and with plenty of backbone for the hard cuts (which are the only ones that matter).

and to a much lesser degree:
3) He wants to bring all our troops home (and actually would), though most of his reasoning is different from mine.

That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.

otherone
03-31-2012, 06:24 PM
That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.

What 'different' cliff?

Drex
03-31-2012, 06:39 PM
I think one time he want's English to be the official language. I believe there should be none.

Nirvikalpa
03-31-2012, 06:47 PM
You have a right to life. You do not have a right to death.

That makes perfect sense, thanks for enlightening me.











/sarcasm.

PierzStyx
03-31-2012, 06:55 PM
You know at one point I would have said federal drug laws, but not any longer. If there are going to be drug laws, then they should be at the state level only. But really I've come to the conclusion it might be wiser to have drug regulation than simple flat bans.

Other than that.....No. Not really.

PierzStyx
03-31-2012, 06:58 PM
You also have a right to liberty.

Any right to abortion a woman may have based on her right to privacy is nullified by the unborn child's inherent right to life. When your rights threaten the life of another person, you lose those "rights". It is the same with abortion. The only real exception to this is when the pregnancy could cause the death of the mother. Then, philosophically you could see it as "killing in self-defense."

Jtorsella
03-31-2012, 07:04 PM
I'm more moderate on foreign policy, but am certainly a noninterventionist. He convinced me on abortion.

PierzStyx
03-31-2012, 07:04 PM
I disagree with Paul on pulling out all bases, because bases allow us to set up a deterrence to those who would attack us. If we remove all bases, a country can set up around us, and we might be trapped.

Let's look at the Cuban missile crisis for example. In a world of Nuclear Deterrence, they can shoot down our nukes because we're too far away.

I'm all for ending wars and eliminating MOST bases. But once we have the finances to maintain it (Which we do not at the moment), I simply feel there is nothing wrong with having allies who simply lend us land to borrow. I believe such can exist in a non-interventionist ideology, because such is trade, and NOT intervention in conflict!

Really? Trapped? You mean the largest, most powerful Air Force on the planet could be grounded? Or the largest, most powerful Navy could be blockaded in all ports? That seems unlikely to the point of being impossible. I'm not even sure any nation on teh planet has the military resources to do so.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was stooped by military forces here at home (well was deterred by them) not by military forces in Europe. In fact we agreed to get rid of some of our missile bases in order to get the Russians to agree to not send nukes. That is the power of diplomacy. But the Crisis wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been over seas in Italy and Turkey.

Go read "Dying To Win" by Dr. Robert Pape. He conducted the most indepth study of modern terrorism to date and concluded it was American interventionism that inspired the most terrorism against the nation, including 9/11.

Jtorsella
03-31-2012, 07:06 PM
I think the Koran is the primary cause of terrorism, with our meddling imperialism as a very distant secondary cause.

I don't believe in free trade.

I don't accept the harm principle as the proper basis for deciding whether something ought to be legal or illegal.

I know that our Founding Fathers were not libertarians.

I don't believe in individualism.

I don't believe that conscription is slavery, nor that taxation is theft.

I am perfectly fine with a draft.

I object to illegal immigration, AND a great portion of legal immigration. We need to be far more discriminating regarding who comes into our house.

I believe many of the older laws regulating sexual activity in the United States were just and proper. Adultery, homosexual sex, polygamy, and other acts should be criminal offenses.

I do not believe hyper-inflation is a short-term or long-term threat to the United States, though I would LOVE to end the Fed and be on a gold standard.

I believe divorces should be much harder to get.

I can go on, and on, and on, and on. This doesn't even scratch the surface. But rarely does a sentence come out of Paul's mouth that I actually agree with, in entirety.

I live in Glen Bradley's district in NC, and there is a reason I can (barely) support Paul, but won't touch Bradley with a ten-foot pole. That's nothing about Glen particularly - I wouldn't support Ron Paul for NC legislature either.

You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.

A few basic things have me on board for Paul, and have since 2007 (and before that):

1) He's honest, genuine, morally upright, loves his wife and family, and has done right by them.
2) He isn't afraid of addressing our overwhelming financial issues head-on, and with plenty of backbone for the hard cuts (which are the only ones that matter).

and to a much lesser degree:
3) He wants to bring all our troops home (and actually would), though most of his reasoning is different from mine.

That's why I'm on board. I think, if fully enacted, Paul's libertarianism would drive us off a different cliff, but in the meantime, he wants to pull back from the one we're going over.
Please explain why you are not an individualist.

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 07:07 PM
Really? Trapped? You mean the largest, most powerful Air Force on the planet could be grounded? Or the largest, most powerful Navy could be blockaded in all ports? That seems unlikely to the point of being impossible. I'm not even sure any nation on teh planet has the military resources to do so.

Not to mention the only two countries that border the US completely rely on trade with the US to survive...They would never allow Chinese or Russian or (insert Muslim country here) to set up bases that would "threaten" the US

CaptainAmerica
03-31-2012, 07:11 PM
I disagreed with Ron Paul being overly polite while campaigning against opponents.

Brian Coulter
03-31-2012, 07:12 PM
Edit: FWIW, here is one of the current high priestesses of the global warming cult.
http://envs.uoregon.edu/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Kari-Norgaard.jpg

YIKES...fell out the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Evangelical_Protestant
03-31-2012, 07:14 PM
I guess I would disagree with states rights as he describes it. Meaning, I don't agree that Indiana should be allowed to have a forced medicare program, or be allowed to restrict drugs or firearms. Paul seems to want to get the federal government off the backs of the states, which is very good, but if I'm not mistaken he believes each state should be able to create its own regulations in the kind that the federal government has nationwide now. Indiana shouldn't be able to implement its own EPA that is not answerable to the people for example.

I'm different in that I'd be willing to support a centralized national model, only it would be libertarian and would not stretch the chains of the constitution. No more wars on the people via boogeyman tactics such as terrorism or drugs that make it possible for them to terrorize you or your family just b/c you look like some kind of weirdo.

PierzStyx
03-31-2012, 07:21 PM
I guess I would disagree with states rights as he describes it. Meaning, I don't agree that Indiana should be allowed to have a forced medicare program, or be allowed to restrict drugs or firearms. Paul seems to want to get the federal government off the backs of the states, which is very good, but if I'm not mistaken he believes each state should be able to create its own regulations in the kind that the federal government has nationwide now. Indiana shouldn't be able to implement its own EPA that is not answerable to the people for example.

I'm different in that I'd be willing to support a centralized national model, only it would be libertarian and would not stretch the chains of the constitution. No more wars on the people via boogeyman tactics such as terrorism or drugs that make it possible for them to terrorize you or your family just b/c you look like some kind of weirdo.

To your first point, I think the idea is that the state of Indiana wouldn't be able to set up its own EPA. The people wouldn't allow it. And state legislators have to worry about what the people think as they are directly elected by them. Also it would be easier to get rid of such a thing if it dd come into existence. And worse comes to pass, you could move to a state where there was no EPA.

To your second paragraph, I'm not a libertarian. So I wonder, could there be an actual nationwide libertarian central government?

opinionatedfool
03-31-2012, 07:24 PM
I probably agree with about 85% of Ron Paul's views. But I'm probably wrong on the 15% because I'm an opinionated fool and Ron Paul is a genius.

cstarace
03-31-2012, 07:29 PM
Any right to abortion a woman may have based on her right to privacy is nullified by the unborn child's inherent right to life. When your rights threaten the life of another person, you lose those "rights". It is the same with abortion. The only real exception to this is when the pregnancy could cause the death of the mother. Then, philosophically you could see it as "killing in self-defense."
I was under the assumption that the conversation was about assisted suicide...probably should've read more carefully before I posted.

cstarace
03-31-2012, 07:45 PM
You all could choose to flame me, or you could learn a valuable lesson - how to appeal to someone who opposes Paul on nearly every side. I will be voting for Paul, though with plenty of reluctance.
Accepting people like you into the movement is not a valuable lesson, it's a self-inhibiting one. This movement has never been and will never be about Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is an incredible individual and an amazing messenger, but the individual himself is not the reason why so many liberty-loving people (anarchists, minarchists, objectivists, Constitutionalists, anarcho-capitalists, and libertarians) have come together in support of this movement. He may have been the catalyst, but something much larger is on the horizon. When Dr. Paul retires at the end of his term, he'll quietly move back to his home in Lake Jackson. Then what? Does RPF and the liberty movement cease to exist? Of course not.

You're a moralist and contradict so much of what we're trying to do. Vote for Dr. Paul if you wish, but don't pretend you're "on board" with the rest of us. You're not.

smhbbag
03-31-2012, 07:56 PM
You're a moralist and contradict so much of what we're trying to do. Vote for Dr. Paul if you wish, but don't pretend you're "on board" with the rest of us. You're not.

You're right - I'm not on board with the rest of you. But I'm on board with Paul's candidacy.

While we're ceasing all the pretense, most here should stop any flattery of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Most of you would either cringe or scream in outrage at their 'moralism.'

otherone
03-31-2012, 08:00 PM
While we're ceasing all the pretense, most here should stop any flattery of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Most of you would either cringe or scream in outrage at their 'moralism.'

ahhh...a "Constitution Party" guy....how's Dr. James Dobson doin'?

Feeding the Abscess
03-31-2012, 08:04 PM
Okay, I keep seeing this and want to set the record straight. He would not leave the legality of abortion to the states. He would repeal Roe v. Wade, and enact a Federal law defining life as beginning at conception. Paul would then leave it up to the states as to how they want to prosecute people who have abortions, much like murder.

He says that to extremist pro-life groups to mollify them. The types who want a federal or nothing approach, and who villify anyone unwilling to shoot in the face anyone who has ever had anything to do with an abortion. Here's what he says to sane people, @36:53:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg

smhbbag
03-31-2012, 08:06 PM
ahhh...a "Constitution Party" guy....how's Dr. James Dobson doin'?

I take that as an admission that I'm right about the founders. Thanks.

Never voted for the CP, by the way.

cstarace
03-31-2012, 08:07 PM
He says that to extremist pro-life groups to mollify them. The types who want a federal or nothing approach, and who villify anyone unwilling to shoot in the face anyone who has ever had anything to do with an abortion. Here's what he says to sane people, @36:53:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APJeikpqfbg
Sanctity of Life Act seems to contradict that video:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01094:@@@L&summ2=m&

MJU1983
03-31-2012, 08:07 PM
No.

otherone
03-31-2012, 08:09 PM
I take that as an admission that I'm right about the founders. Thanks.

Never voted for the CP, by the way.

You're Welcome! lol!

cstarace
03-31-2012, 08:11 PM
You're right - I'm not on board with the rest of you. But I'm on board with Paul's candidacy.

While we're ceasing all the pretense, most here should stop any flattery of the Founding Fathers or the Constitution. Most of you would either cringe or scream in outrage at their 'moralism.'
I'm not a historian so I'd be getting myself in too deep if I said you were lying, but truthfully, I don't care. All I care about is what's written in the Constitution as well as the Declaration. I've read both numerous times and they invalidate many of your philosophies almost entirely, at least at a federal level.

Feeding the Abscess
03-31-2012, 08:16 PM
Sanctity of Life Act seems to contradict that video:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR01094:@@@L&summ2=m&

It does. So does his answer on abortion during the DeMint forum, as does almost every answer he ever gives on the subject. Based on the timing of his introductions of the bill, it's possible he does it as a declaration of his position before running for president.

Although, he doesn't really believe in that position himself, otherwise by his own standards he is a murderer. He endorses and prescribed hormonal birth control and morning after pills, and even said he'd give a woman a shot of estrogen to prevent implantation after a rape. By the conception definition, these are all acts of murder.

Ron is a far better politician than most give him credit for. This subject is proof.

Noble Savage
03-31-2012, 08:18 PM
only that he decided to run with a pack of dogs instead of venturing on his own

smhbbag
03-31-2012, 08:39 PM
I'm not a historian so I'd be getting myself in too deep if I said you were lying, but truthfully, I don't care. All I care about is what's written in the Constitution as well as the Declaration. I've read both numerous times and they invalidate many of your philosophies almost entirely, at least at a federal level.

This is the liberal approach to the constitution - all that matters is the word on the page, not the men who wrote it. The word means what we say it means, not what they say it meant.

You're not reading the Constitution and Declaration through their lens; you're reading it through your lens.

We cannot divorce the Constitution from its writers, from their approach to law, culture, or religion. I have no desire for much of what I wrote to become federal policy, but rather state policy. That's why I can grin and bear it, and vote for Paul on the federal level. My entire political worldview is radically opposed to his, but on specific federal policies, we arrive at similar places. On the state level, our differences widen exponentially.

That's why I can support Paul, but not Bradley. It's why I would never support Paul on a state level.

otherone
03-31-2012, 09:34 PM
This is the liberal approach to the constitution - all that matters is the word on the page, not the men who wrote it.

Actually, the SCOTUS routinely refer to the Federalist Papers when interpreting the Constitution. Many of us here are pretty much Anti-Federalists. I'm somewhat surprised that you would consider a literal reading of the Constitution as "liberal".

smhbbag
03-31-2012, 10:17 PM
Actually, the SCOTUS routinely refer to the Federalist Papers when interpreting the Constitution. Many of us here are pretty much Anti-Federalists. I'm somewhat surprised that you would consider a literal reading of the Constitution as "liberal".

It is liberal to isolate the words on the page from the men who wrote the words - things mean what you want them to mean, not what they meant to the writer. That is standard, liberal, literary criticism that has run amok not just in academic English classes but political science as well.

Nirvikalpa
03-31-2012, 11:13 PM
I'm pro-death penalty.


And the Sixth Commandment not to murder.

So, you're fine with murder, just not at your hands - let someone else do the dirty work for you?

eduardo89
03-31-2012, 11:14 PM
So, you're fine with murder, just not at your hands - let someone else do the dirty work for you?

The death penalty is not murder, it is justice and it is Biblically sanctioned.

Phil
04-01-2012, 02:57 AM
funding by whom? hard working people or the private sector?
Private and public sector. The only way SpaceX can make money is from a multi-billion dollar contract from NASA.

Lishy
04-01-2012, 04:59 AM
Really? Trapped? You mean the largest, most powerful Air Force on the planet could be grounded? Or the largest, most powerful Navy could be blockaded in all ports? That seems unlikely to the point of being impossible. I'm not even sure any nation on teh planet has the military resources to do so.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was stooped by military forces here at home (well was deterred by them) not by military forces in Europe. In fact we agreed to get rid of some of our missile bases in order to get the Russians to agree to not send nukes. That is the power of diplomacy. But the Crisis wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been over seas in Italy and Turkey.

Go read "Dying To Win" by Dr. Robert Pape. He conducted the most indepth study of modern terrorism to date and concluded it was American interventionism that inspired the most terrorism against the nation, including 9/11.

I guess my point I disagree with on Paul isn't a good one since I'm not educated :P

jeremiahj13
04-01-2012, 05:12 AM
1. I'm unsure about letting Heroin/Crack/Cocaine and lethal substances being legal.
2. I think I am for the death penalty.

Phil
04-01-2012, 05:34 AM
1. I'm unsure about letting Heroin/Crack/Cocaine and lethal substances being legal.
2. I think I am for the death penalty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-LMeKlk2HY

Verrater
04-01-2012, 06:18 AM
Not an attack, just some honest observations.


snip
Having found myself, a few years ago, in possession of both books 1 and 2 of the 1906 printing of the federalist papers. I have read them from cover to cover multiple times. That being said, there are people here whom i disagree with. Even so, I'd never go so far as to make such a brash declarative statement that I would know the mindset or the ideals of one of the founding fathers, much less all of them. They all came from different ideologies it's impossible to make such a blanket statement about who/what they are.
I don't believe in individualism.
I really don't think you mean that.
I don't believe in free trade.
I think you mean managed trade.

I think the Qur'an is the primary cause of terrorism.
I have a spare copy should you ever want to read it. Patton read it, I thought I should too.
It corrected a lot of my misconceptions.
That being said, no religion has ever harmed anyone.
Religion, like a gun, is a tool. Blame is not ascribed to the tool of the user, it is ascribed to the person using the tool.
Anyone can manipulate an idea or tool. I mean, look at interstate commerce clause.

vechorik
04-01-2012, 06:20 AM
You see compassion there, I see manslaughter at the very least.
in reply to my post:
I'm glad life is so simple for you, so black and white without having to think about gray areas.
I once thought as you. After taking care of a dying woman for 6 months, when she was very near the end and screaming in pain, the family removed her from oxygen and shot enough morphine into her to kill her. I only regret we didn't make that decision earlier. I hope someone is around to be so kind to me if I'm ever in that situation (and I hope you are not around).

eduardo89, as you grow in your spirituality and love of God, you will begin to understand something (I hope, because many people never see it).
A mature Christian learns to love God rather than fear God. A mature Christian is released from "the law that you so enjoy preaching to others."
"The rules/laws are NOT the way, the truth, and the light."

You said yourself that a person cannot be saved by their works. The same is true of being saved by following rules/laws.
One has to wonder how so many that claim to be born of the Spirit show no spiritual discernment about anything?

Enforcer
04-01-2012, 06:39 AM
I disagree with Ron Paul on Immigration. I support an open border policy, which I believe to be more libertarian.

I'm also pro-choice on abortion, and pro-gay marriage.

Most other things I agree with RP on. I believe strongly in evolution, but I don't see how that's a policy issue.

Okay, I have now witnessed two different views. One is that Ron Paul is too harsh on immigration, the other is that he is too lax.

THIS is the Ron Paul I know (or knew in the day):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc

Note that Ron Paul is against criminalizing immigration. Too many people today think immigration is "illegal." Therefore, while they try and tell us of how much they are "for" Ron Paul, it must be understood that the so - called "Patriot Act," The REAL ID Act, warrant less searches, the creation of the TRILLION DOLLAR agencies like the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, and the repeal of the Bill of Rights were all by - products of anti - immigrant hysteria. The so - called "Patriot Act" is also subtitled Border Security.

At the other end of the spectrum, neither side seems to understand that you simply cannot force every person that passes through America to be required to become a citizen. A simple Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship would resolve this issue once and for all.

otherone
04-01-2012, 07:32 AM
Note that Ron Paul is against criminalizing immigration. Too many people today think immigration is "illegal."

http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/2362/carddownthar.jpg

Jason525
04-01-2012, 07:56 AM
I don't support what he says on the campaign trail about who committed the 9/11 attacks. Other than that, I'm pretty much lock step with him on everything.

He's probably just being smart about not talking about the real issues concerning the 9/11 attacks.

Not everyone is a 9/11 truther.

walt
04-01-2012, 08:01 AM
I disagree with Ron Paul on the issue of campaign manager. :D

Jingles
04-01-2012, 08:06 AM
Lot's of religious view vs. secular view in the thread. I don't really believe religious beliefs should have anything to do with the state and it's actions, personally.

I understand supporting the death penalty. It's more of the fact that one initiated violence against other and killed them. Something truly just would be if we had a machine that could bring other individual back to life and then kill the aggressor, but we don't have that sort of technology. I don't support the death penalty currently because I don't trust the state with the power to kill me just because of something they may charge/convict me with and I also feel it is carried out unjustly.

Abortion isn't a very big issue to me in the sense that I can understand arguments on both sides. Although I am partial to Walter Block's idea of Evictionism because it deals with both self-ownership and the life of a child. I just feel abortion will become less prevalent in the future as we progress in technology and have greater control of our reproductive processes. I do find abortion rather horrific though and I feel that the problem more lies with people not being responsible with their own bodies and it being viewed as acceptable. No law will charge people viewing it as a legitimate thing to do though. Engaging in a reproductive act can cause reproduction, so I feel if people wish to engage in such acts that they should be responsible and use protection/contraception if they do not wish to have a child.

Assisted suicide and the like I support so long as it is done via a voluntary contract. It kind of needs to be treated the same way Sadomasochism is treated in the sense that it is violence, but it is mutually consented upon violence between individuals.

Jason525
04-01-2012, 08:24 AM
There aren't any issues I outright disagree on. I'm still neutral on ending the fed because I'm not yet convinced another solution works better (I do want it fully audited though) and I'm also sort of neutral on the death penalty, but definitely see his point.

I think I agree on everything else.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489

I haven't actually read the whole article yet but it expaines how the Fed isn't a government intitution but a privatley owned one.

It explains how 100% of its shareholders are private banks.

I'm going to read the whole thing later.

IDefendThePlatform
04-01-2012, 09:04 AM
If you support open borders, view this video how global government = global poverty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE


Then let us hear what you think. Education is the key to everything.

That video is incredibly flawed. The guys main points were
1) the US couldn't handle accepting enough immigrants to really make life better for a significant chunk of the rest of the worlds poor, so why bother?
And
2) allowing industrious, hard working people to leave their countries and come to America would make life worse for the poor people of those countries who are left behind so we shouldn't allow it.

So maybe we should build a fence around Michigan to prevent people from moving to Ohio and leaving those others behind.
Better yet, a fence around Detroit to keep the workers there to help rebuild it.

The reality is free trade and open immigration allows people to work and trade where they have maximum comparative advantage and their talents/skills can be put to best use. This makes everyone wealthier overall. The immigrant who leaves his $10,000/yr job in China to come to America and make $20,000/yr not only helps himself and his family out of poverty but also makes goods and services more efficiently (cheaper) for sale to his former countrymen back in China.


One of the core tenets of Austrian economics is that central planning doesn't work and decisions are best left to individuals for maximum effectiveness. The decision of where to live and work is definitely one of those. Restricting immigration is central planning and makes us all poorer by retarding economic growth.

vechorik
04-01-2012, 10:50 AM
That video is incredibly flawed. The guys main points were
1) the US couldn't handle accepting enough immigrants to really make life better for a significant chunk of the rest of the worlds poor, so why bother?
And
2) allowing industrious, hard working people to leave their countries and come to America would make life worse for the poor people of those countries who are left behind so we shouldn't allow it.

So maybe we should build a fence around Michigan to prevent people from moving to Ohio and leaving those others behind.
Better yet, a fence around Detroit to keep the workers there to help rebuild it.

The reality is free trade and open immigration allows people to work and trade where they have maximum comparative advantage and their talents/skills can be put to best use. This makes everyone wealthier overall. The immigrant who leaves his $10,000/yr job in China to come to America and make $20,000/yr not only helps himself and his family out of poverty but also makes goods and services more efficiently (cheaper) for sale to his former countrymen back in China.


One of the core tenets of Austrian economics is that central planning doesn't work and decisions are best left to individuals for maximum effectiveness. The decision of where to live and work is definitely one of those. Restricting immigration is central planning and makes us all poorer by retarding economic growth.

So you're advocating a world without borders. Better move to the next assignment: United Nations Agenda 21 via the Democrats Against Agenda 21:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

IDefendThePlatform
04-01-2012, 11:01 AM
So you're advocating a world without borders. Better move to the next assignment: United Nations Agenda 21 via the Democrats Against Agenda 21:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

I feel like I pretty much wasted my time watching that last one. Can you sum up? I could probably recommend a few for you as well if you're interested.

vechorik
04-01-2012, 03:11 PM
I feel like I pretty much wasted my time watching that last one. Can you sum up? I could probably recommend a few for you as well if you're interested.

You wasted your time typing the long repudiation of the video, why not waste a little more of your time to find out exactly what you advocate?
When you can discuss the following issues (as applied by Agenda 21) we can talk more about your perceived utopia of a world without borders.
It AIN'T as pretty as you imagine.

What exactly does a world without borders under the UN look like?
How are the UN mandates currently being implemented in our communities?
What is the computer model and who is already using it?
What zone do you live in?
What is ICELI?
Do you see any relation Bush/Obama's executive orders?
Why didn't Bush II close the border? Why didn't Obama close the border?
Are humans allowed in the zone you live in?
What do future property rights look like.....I could go on, but my time is valuable too.

All the answers are here (no conspiracy, just facts): http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

jonhowe
04-01-2012, 03:21 PM
I think global warming is debateable and SHOULD BE debated. Both sides have it wrong in that they both seem to try to "silence" the other, rather than having a discussion. If something is happening, we should discuss it.

Also, I agree with the OP when it comes to evolution, it's a fact of science, just like germ theory. Will it be corrected as we learn more? Of course, that's the point of science! But the basics are there.
However, the president has nothing to do with evolution or public school teachings (ESPECIALLY a President Paul), so it really doesn't matter.

IDefendThePlatform
04-01-2012, 03:38 PM
What exactly does a world without borders under the UN look like?

]

Well your answer saved me a bunch of time. I'm not talking about what would happen living under the UN. That needs to be beat back the same way the US government needs to be beat back. I'm talking about freedom and private property rights.

And just tossing in jabs like "perceived utopia" doesn't make you're argument any stronger or mine any weaker. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time but I wrote out a response and you haven't yet replied to my points about Austrian economics and individual decision making rights/efficiencies.

Liberty74
04-01-2012, 04:01 PM
How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

No, there is no evidence to suggest there is "man made" global warming. All the scientific studies and evidence prove we humans are not the cause of global warming nor global cooling cycles, hence there is no such thing as "man made" global warming. We humans could not heat the earth if we tried. CO2 is a natural gas representing not 5% but .054% of the many gases in the air, hence not a pollutant as you have been lied to. Humans only emit maybe 2% of that .054%. Do the math. The sun and the solar system have been completely responsible for cooling and warming cycles and CO2 is not the cause. Rather CO2 is a by product of warming as proven with the scientific data. This have been proven and "conveniently" left out of Gore's charts. The famous "hockey stick" is a proven LIE. Climate Gate a few years ago exposed the lies and threats by the global warming movement.

Global warming is a new elitist religion designed to unite the world (NWO) behind. That has been admitted already.

I suggest you deprogram yourself with this factual video below...

Humans Are Not Causing Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov0WwtPcALE)

Blaming global warming on humans allows greedy, anti-human collectivists like rapist Al Gore to force you into his carbon cap and trade scheme that will become a $16 trillion industry creating mass property, hence more welfare programs.

Sam I am
04-01-2012, 04:05 PM
There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Although I do not want the US to to withdraw from NATO or the UN.

I do not share his dogma that "government is always less efficient than private enterprise".

and on that note, I am not completely opposed to public healthcare.

vechorik
04-01-2012, 04:25 PM
Well your answer saved me a bunch of time. I'm not talking about what would happen living under the UN. That needs to be beat back the same way the US government needs to be beat back. I'm talking about freedom and private property rights.

And just tossing in jabs like "perceived utopia" doesn't make you're argument any stronger or mine any weaker. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time but I wrote out a response and you haven't yet replied to my points about Austrian economics and individual decision making rights/efficiencies.

What does a world without borders (with the UN and the US government "beat back") look like?

I can envision a world with everyone living in peace and prosperity, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
As long as humans are on earth, there will be ownership, fighting and all the same problems we face today.

If you believe the UN and the US government should be "beat back" then isn't closing the borders part of that?
Open borders is part of the UN agenda -- world wide redistribution of wealth, etc.

Feeding the Abscess
04-01-2012, 06:02 PM
I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Ron never even advocated ending public schooling when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. His stance has always been eliminating the mandate to attend public schools.


If you believe the UN and the US government should be "beat back" then isn't closing the borders part of that?
Open borders is part of the UN agenda -- world wide redistribution of wealth, etc.

How else can you create and close borders than with a government? You can't beat back a government when you empower it.

"Open borders" is NOT synonymous with the UN/progressive agenda, anymore than being anti-war or pro-drugs is synonymous with the progressive agenda, or anti-tax exclusive to the conservative agenda.

eduardo89
04-01-2012, 06:05 PM
Ron never even advocated ending public schooling when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. His stance has always been eliminating the mandate to attend public schools.

And returning education to the state and local level.

cstarace
04-01-2012, 06:29 PM
Anyway, the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is incorporation. I do realize this is why he gets so many evangelical Christian votes.

papitosabe
04-01-2012, 11:46 PM
There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Although I do not want the US to to withdraw from NATO or the UN.

I do not share his dogma that "government is always less efficient than private enterprise".

and on that note, I am not completely opposed to public healthcare.

I think you mistyped the website... This Ron Paul Forums.

Enforcer
04-02-2012, 06:46 AM
That video is incredibly flawed. The guys main points were
1) the US couldn't handle accepting enough immigrants to really make life better for a significant chunk of the rest of the worlds poor, so why bother?
And
2) allowing industrious, hard working people to leave their countries and come to America would make life worse for the poor people of those countries who are left behind so we shouldn't allow it.

So maybe we should build a fence around Michigan to prevent people from moving to Ohio and leaving those others behind.
Better yet, a fence around Detroit to keep the workers there to help rebuild it.

The reality is free trade and open immigration allows people to work and trade where they have maximum comparative advantage and their talents/skills can be put to best use. This makes everyone wealthier overall. The immigrant who leaves his $10,000/yr job in China to come to America and make $20,000/yr not only helps himself and his family out of poverty but also makes goods and services more efficiently (cheaper) for sale to his former countrymen back in China.


One of the core tenets of Austrian economics is that central planning doesn't work and decisions are best left to individuals for maximum effectiveness. The decision of where to live and work is definitely one of those. Restricting immigration is central planning and makes us all poorer by retarding economic growth.

That video IS INCREDIBLY FLAWED. It's been dissected before on this board and found not to have any merit. The basic reason it's flawed is due to the mere fact that people travel back and forth across borders without wanting to become permanent residents or citizens.

Our history, as a nation, has dis-proven that guy's theory and all while living within "open borders." Then again, I use YOUR term, but what is the alternative? You want a country guarded by machine gun toting federal mercenaries? Do you want drones spying on YOU under the pretext of border protection? You liking those National Identity Cards that were supposed to protect you from the foreigners? As one American asked: Is life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?

I've seen the gumball argument many times. EVERY time, it's proponents were supporters of National Socialism.

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=383&mforum=outcastsandoutl

DerailingDaTrain
04-02-2012, 07:59 AM
To make this short: I disagree with Ron on two minor things that aren't even worth mentioning. I disagree with eduardo89 more than RP.


I disagree with him on DADT, would be stricter on immigration and I support the death penalty.

Oh and I think $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough :p


You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.


You see compassion there, I see manslaughter at the very least.


Exactly. There is no right to bear arms if you have to ask the government for permission.


1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple

vechorik
04-02-2012, 09:20 AM
That video IS INCREDIBLY FLAWED. It's been dissected before on this board and found not to have any merit. The basic reason it's flawed is due to the mere fact that people travel back and forth across borders without wanting to become permanent residents or citizens.

Our history, as a nation, has dis-proven that guy's theory and all while living within "open borders." Then again, I use YOUR term, but what is the alternative? You want a country guarded by machine gun toting federal mercenaries? Do you want drones spying on YOU under the pretext of border protection? You liking those National Identity Cards that were supposed to protect you from the foreigners? As one American asked: Is life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?

I've seen the gumball argument many times. EVERY time, it's proponents were supporters of National Socialism.

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=383&mforum=outcastsandoutl

I lived with a CLOSED border for about 40 years and none of the extreme measures you mention were necessary.
The extreme border guard measures you mention are because the border was/is OPEN for so long!

What part of world wide redistribution of wealth don't you understand? That's one reason for open borders.
You think you can live off $2 per day? Go for it.
You say the video is flawed? It's just numbers. Come up with your own numbers to repute it then.

If you dislike the idea of socialism, then you better reconsider closing the border -- because an OPEN BORDER IS SOCIALISM.

eduardo89
04-02-2012, 09:24 AM
To make this short: I disagree with Ron on two minor things that aren't even worth mentioning. I disagree with eduardo89 more than RP.

Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start ;)

jmdrake
04-02-2012, 09:38 AM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

The facts on global warming are in. The earth has not warmed over the past 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Now maybe you say "But 2012 has been rather warm". Sure it has. And those who realize this man made global warming is a farce were able to predict this. We went through a cooling cycle, 2012 is warm because of a solar maximum, and we'll be cooling off again.

DerailingDaTrain
04-02-2012, 10:16 AM
Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever. <---- I agree. I misunderstood you the first time.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start ;)

I should have left the 1 trillion part out of that quote because it wasn't something I disagree with you on.

Sam I am
04-02-2012, 10:42 AM
I think you mistyped the website... This Ron Paul Forums.

To put it into perspective, If you agreed with Ron Paul on all the things I've listed, but disagree with him on everything else, You'd be Rick Sanatorium.

cstarace
04-02-2012, 01:07 PM
To put it into perspective, If you agreed with Ron Paul on all the things I've listed, but disagree with him on everything else, You'd be Rick Sanatorium.
But if you don't agree with cutting taxes and private-run healthcare, you're a liberal... so...

Enforcer
04-02-2012, 01:26 PM
Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start ;)

eduardo89, I think I found your alter ego:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=234&highlight=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=265&highlight=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=87&mforum=outcastsandoutl

Since that board mentions this site quite a bit, it was relevant to this discussion.

jeremiahj13
04-02-2012, 01:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-LMeKlk2HY

Well bridges are used largely successfully with low death rates, burgers can also be used in good terms if you don't overdue it. I admit I'm largely ignorant about heroin/crack/LSD, but from my understanding, even a very small amount of uses can have very bad consequences?

eduardo89
04-02-2012, 03:25 PM
eduardo89, I think I found your alter ego:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=234&highlight=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=265&highlight=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=87&mforum=outcastsandoutl

Since that board mentions this site quite a bit, it was relevant to this discussion.

I'm my own alter ego :p

Feeding the Abscess
04-03-2012, 05:07 AM
Well bridges are used largely successfully with low death rates, burgers can also be used in good terms if you don't overdue it. I admit I'm largely ignorant about heroin/crack/LSD, but from my understanding, even a very small amount of uses can have very bad consequences?

Guns can have bad consequences in very small applications. Let's ban those, too.

ZenBowman
04-05-2012, 02:36 PM
Euthanasia (it should be legal)
Abortion (it is a moral grey area, but government should have no role in it)
States rights (I don't think states have the right to oppress any class of people)
Evolution
Global warming (its clear that it is happening, however I don't believe government should do anything about it, so in that sense I agree with Paul)

eduardo89
04-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Abortion (it is a moral grey area, but government should have no role in it)

No it's not, it's murder. And the government has the responsibility to protect life.



Global warming (its clear that it is happening, however I don't believe government should do anything about it, so in that sense I agree with Paul)

Show me your data. Even "climate change" alarmists have conceded that the earth hasn't warmed in the past decade. 2012 has slightly because of a solar maximum but next year will again show no signs of global warming.

ZenBowman
04-06-2012, 11:01 AM
No it's not, it's murder. And the government has the responsibility to protect life.

Show me your data. Even "climate change" alarmists have conceded that the earth hasn't warmed in the past decade. 2012 has slightly because of a solar maximum but next year will again show no signs of global warming.

This is not a thread for argument, we are simply stating where we differ with Dr Paul. There are plenty of threads where the specifics of these issues are being discussed.

Southron
04-06-2012, 12:02 PM
I want a halt on immigration and I am much more supportive of nation-specific tariffs.

I also have no problem with states administering the death penalty.

tttppp
04-06-2012, 01:22 PM
I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

The only real issue I disagree with him on is health care. I think if we switched to Chinese traditional medicine for chronic illnesses, we can save tons of money and dramatically increase service.

As far as everything else is concerned, my main complain with Ron Paul is that I think he can cut far more laws and regulations than he plans on.

I also disagree with him on the structure government should be. I believe one person should be in charge of the government and be held 100% accountable. Ron Paul apparently believes in Congress which is a complete joke. Anyone who has run a business knows its ideal to have only one person in charge of one responsibility. When you have multiple people in charge of one thing, everyone just sits around and points the finger at each other. Which happens to be exactly what congress is doing now.

Chrysamere
04-06-2012, 02:10 PM
---

Billy_McBong
04-06-2012, 07:05 PM
His stance on abortion differs greatly from mine. That's the main thing I don't agree with him on.

JJ2
04-07-2012, 12:23 AM
It does. So does his answer on abortion during the DeMint forum, as does almost every answer he ever gives on the subject. Based on the timing of his introductions of the bill, it's possible he does it as a declaration of his position before running for president.

Although, he doesn't really believe in that position himself, otherwise by his own standards he is a murderer. He endorses and prescribed hormonal birth control and morning after pills, and even said he'd give a woman a shot of estrogen to prevent implantation after a rape. By the conception definition, these are all acts of murder.

Ron is a far better politician than most give him credit for. This subject is proof.

In other words, you are accusing him of being dishonest and a liar and not telling people what he truly believes.

You are taking his comments in that video out of context. If you back it up a couple of minutes, the context is that he does not support a federal law for how to punish the crime of abortion, which is what he always says. Regarding birth control/estrogen, what he said is that there is no legal or scientific or medical proof that conception has occurred at that point, and I don't know if he meant that he personally would do that. He has made it 100% clear that he doesn't just "believe," but that as a medical doctor, he "knows" that life begins at conception. The only question is when conception occurs.

Here is a clear explanation of his belief on this subject, which someone posted on another thread:


Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USAís goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Courtís misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/

pcgame
04-07-2012, 09:58 PM
..

pcgame
04-07-2012, 10:06 PM
..

No Free Beer
04-07-2012, 10:44 PM
I agree with Ron Paul on everything with the possible exception of immigration?

Basically my stance on immigration = Abolish the welfare/warfare state & Enforce Border Security (no fences though), then basically make it easy to come in here.

I know Ron Paul agrees with the first part, I assume he agrees with the 2nd part (after the comma) because I read this off his site

"Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets."

Yeah, he is saying what a lot of people are saying. My parents immigrated from Germany.

People need to do it the right way.

Enforcer
04-07-2012, 11:39 PM
Yeah, he is saying what a lot of people are saying. My parents immigrated from Germany.

People need to do it the right way.

You know what's wrong with good, old fashioned honest dishonesty? It's dishonest.

When your parents, grand-parents, etc. emigrated to the United States, they did not have to jump through a continual set of unconstitutional hoops, but more importantly the vehicle that allowed them to come here actually existed.

For MILLIONS of people, no "proper" method exists. For many of the jobs and under the conditions employers are willing to hire there does not exist a credible visa.

Adding insult to injury, the same people that complain and say that people should come here the "right" way, but have this mindset that foreigners come to America "steal" (sic) the jobs of Americans, spend all day in a welfare line getting welfare, an then sitting all night in the emergency room getting "free" medical care only to show up, on time to get that job they "stole." So, these guys are all about controlling immigration and making sure people do it the "right" way.

Okay, the "right" way is to apply for a visa (which is a precursor to citizenship.) So, what these guys are arguing is to force welfare riding, job stealing, freeloaders to become citizens. Pour yourself a stiff one, because the idiocy does not end there.

The reality is the "right" way crowd realizes that no "right" way exists for MILLIONS. So, it becomes a game of semantics and they hope you don't understand my previous paragraph.

What is needed is to create a Guest Worker program with no expectation of citizenship. The "right" way crowd will not agree to such terms, but will continue to demand we force Guest Workers to become citizens... and so now they are telling you they want a welfare riding, job stealing, freeloader to LIE to you in addition to all of that and become a citizen. I told you that you would need a drink in order to wrap your head around this.

Adding insult to injury, the anti - immigrant lobby will profess its opposition to amnesty. But, without amnesty, we cannot have an amnesty for vets that brought weapons back to the U.S. and want to now keep them. Without amnesty, we cannot have a tax amnesty for people to bring BILLIONS of dollars back to the United States and get us out of this financial quagmire we are currently in. If the foreigners cannot have an amnesty, then nobody else can. It's that pesky equal protection of the laws guarantee in the 14th Amendment. An amnesty is an amnesty, is an amnesty, is an amnesty. Some day YOU may need one.

So, the real question is: How much of this anti immigrant B.S. are you willing to tolerate before dissecting this issue and looking at it objectively?

No Free Beer
04-07-2012, 11:50 PM
You know what's wrong with good, old fashioned honest dishonesty? It's dishonest.

When your parents, grand-parents, etc. emigrated to the United States, they did not have to jump through a continual set of unconstitutional hoops, but more importantly the vehicle that allowed them to come here actually existed.

For MILLIONS of people, no "proper" method exists. For many of the jobs and under the conditions employers are willing to hire there does not exist a credible visa.

Adding insult to injury, the same people that complain and say that people should come here the "right" way, but have this mindset that foreigners come to America "steal" (sic) the jobs of Americans, spend all day in a welfare line getting welfare, an then sitting all night in the emergency room getting "free" medical care only to show up, on time to get that job they "stole." So, these guys are all about controlling immigration and making sure people do it the "right" way.

Okay, the "right" way is to apply for a visa (which is a precursor to citizenship.) So, what these guys are arguing is to force welfare riding, job stealing, freeloaders to become citizens. Pour yourself a stiff one, because the idiocy does not end there.

The reality is the "right" way crowd realizes that no "right" way exists for MILLIONS. So, it becomes a game of semantics and they hope you don't understand my previous paragraph.

What is needed is to create a Guest Worker program with no expectation of citizenship. The "right" way crowd will not agree to such terms, but will continue to demand we force Guest Workers to become citizens... and so now they are telling you they want a welfare riding, job stealing, freeloader to LIE to you in addition to all of that and become a citizen. I told you that you would need a drink in order to wrap your head around this.

Adding insult to injury, the anti - immigrant lobby will profess its opposition to amnesty. But, without amnesty, we cannot have an amnesty for vets that brought weapons back to the U.S. and want to now keep them. Without amnesty, we cannot have a tax amnesty for people to bring BILLIONS of dollars back to the United States and get us out of this financial quagmire we are currently in. If the foreigners cannot have an amnesty, then nobody else can. It's that pesky equal protection of the laws guarantee in the 14th Amendment. An amnesty is an amnesty, is an amnesty, is an amnesty. Some day YOU may need one.

So, the real question is: How much of this anti immigrant B.S. are you willing to tolerate before dissecting this issue and looking at it objectively?

can you elaborate more on your last paragraph. Before writing a rebuttal, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Enforcer
04-07-2012, 11:51 PM
I agree with Ron Paul on everything with the possible exception of immigration?

Basically my stance on immigration = Abolish the welfare/warfare state & Enforce Border Security (no fences though), then basically make it easy to come in here.


Enforce Border Security? DONE. That is the subtitle of the so - called "Patriot Act."
I know Ron Paul agrees with the first part, I assume he agrees with the 2nd part (after the comma) because I read this off his site

"Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets."

"In the months following the terrorist attacks, Congress passed several pieces of
legislation intended to enhance border security such as the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L.
107-56) and the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (P.L.
107-173)".

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL31727.pdf

Also:

http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/civil/index.php?action=showtopic&topicid=18

SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL EVERYBODY THOSE LAWS ABOUT BORDER SECURITY ALREADY EXIST... AND AT THE EXPENSE OF YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTIES!!!!!!!

Enforcer
04-07-2012, 11:58 PM
can you elaborate more on your last paragraph. Before writing a rebuttal, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

The previous paragraphs pretty well tell you what part of your argument is absolutely bogus. Having practiced immigration law for six years and having been involved in some aspect of it for over 30 years, there is NOTHING you're going to say that does not lead back to socialism.

The bottom line is, there is NO RIGHT WAY - on in the correct legal terminology "proper" method of entry for the jobs offered and under the conditions whereby employers offer those jobs. Over the last 50 years, since the liberals forced those idiotic laws into place, America has undergone significant changes. Jobs are created in hours and must be filled within a few days. Some of those jobs are like snow: we don't know how much work we will get or how long it will last. And you don't need to be a citizen in order to get a job... such a proposition is antithetical to the principles of Liberty.

No Free Beer
04-08-2012, 06:55 AM
The previous paragraphs pretty well tell you what part of your argument is absolutely bogus. Having practiced immigration law for six years and having been involved in some aspect of it for over 30 years, there is NOTHING you're going to say that does not lead back to socialism.

The bottom line is, there is NO RIGHT WAY - on in the correct legal terminology "proper" method of entry for the jobs offered and under the conditions whereby employers offer those jobs. Over the last 50 years, since the liberals forced those idiotic laws into place, America has undergone significant changes. Jobs are created in hours and must be filled within a few days. Some of those jobs are like snow: we don't know how much work we will get or how long it will last. And you don't need to be a citizen in order to get a job... such a proposition is antithetical to the principles of Liberty.

I can't speak for all of the laws that are in place, because there is a good chance that I don't agree with a lot of them...just like others.

I am talking about laws based on principle. You must be accounted for, on some level.

Enforcer
04-08-2012, 07:19 AM
I can't speak for all of the laws that are in place, because there is a good chance that I don't agree with a lot of them...just like others.

I am talking about laws based on principle. You must be accounted for, on some level.

All I'm asking is that they pass the freaking law. We have 10 MILLION people in the U.S. without papers. We had the same number in 1986 PLUS an additional TWO MILLION people entering annually without papers. A little basic math ought to tell the anti - immigrant lobby that immigration is being controlled just fine, but as you said, you think everyone should be "accounted for" (which is code for National ID / REAL ID Act.)

Seventy five percent of the people in the United States without papers have gotten a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay taxes. Every ten years the Census Bureau knocks on the doors of houses and finds out who is here. When people are picked up for any kind of criminal activity, NCIC stores their fingerprints in a database. When someone goes to vote, they are required to show valid ID. You cannot draw any kind of welfare without producing your National Identity Card pursuant to the REAL ID Act...BTW, such National Identity Cards are not issued until the government cross checks your Socialist Surveillance Number (jokingly called a "Social Security Number") for verification.

We've put hundreds upon hundreds of tyrannical measures into play, all designed to circumvent the Constitution and bring about the ultimate POLICE STATE. I personally do not think you have a Right to try and account for people unless and until you think they've committed a crime and / or they try to become a public charge (be it welfare, unemployment, etc.) We have no legitimate / de jure (lawful) reason to use an updated version of the old highwayman techniques to oppress the people under the pretext of safety.

Everything you claim to want, you already have. I grudgingly ask Congress to implement a Guest Worker program just so your pretexts will be made a moot point. But, the anti - immigrant lobby does not want that. What they do want is a constitutional IMPOSSIBILITY. You are not going to be able to pass legislation that affects the foreigners Liberties and civil rights without said legislation affecting YOUR liberties and civil rights. It's part of the 14th Amendment that the anti - immigrant lobby chooses to ignore. Well, here's a news flash: Uncle Scam ain't ignoring that 14th Amendment. Your lobbying affects MY Liberties and MY Rights.

No Free Beer
04-08-2012, 07:27 AM
All I'm asking is that they pass the freaking law. We have 10 MILLION people in the U.S. without papers. We had the same number in 1986 PLUS an additional TWO MILLION people entering annually without papers. A little basic math ought to tell the anti - immigrant lobby that immigration is being controlled just fine, but as you said, you think everyone should be "accounted for" (which is code for National ID / REAL ID Act.)

Seventy five percent of the people in the United States without papers have gotten a Taxpayer Identification Number and pay taxes. Every ten years the Census Bureau knocks on the doors of houses and finds out who is here. When people are picked up for any kind of criminal activity, NCIC stores their fingerprints in a database. When someone goes to vote, they are required to show valid ID. You cannot draw any kind of welfare without producing your National Identity Card pursuant to the REAL ID Act...BTW, such National Identity Cards are not issued until the government cross checks your Socialist Surveillance Number (jokingly called a "Social Security Number") for verification.

We've put hundreds upon hundreds of tyrannical measures into play, all designed to circumvent the Constitution and bring about the ultimate POLICE STATE. I personally do not think you have a Right to try and account for people unless and until you think they've committed a crime and / or they try to become a public charge (be it welfare, unemployment, etc.) We have no legitimate / de jure (lawful) reason to use an updated version of the old highwayman techniques to oppress the people under the pretext of safety.

Everything you claim to want, you already have. I grudgingly ask Congress to implement a Guest Worker program just so your pretexts will be made a moot point. But, the anti - immigrant lobby does not want that. What they do want is a constitutional IMPOSSIBILITY. You are not going to be able to pass legislation that affects the foreigners Liberties and civil rights without said legislation affecting YOUR liberties and civil rights. It's part of the 14th Amendment that the anti - immigrant lobby chooses to ignore. Well, here's a news flash: Uncle Scam ain't ignoring that 14th Amendment. Your lobbying affects MY Liberties and MY Rights.

See, I disagree with that.

I don't think that the government should go around like the Nazi's and start knocking down doors.

Southron
04-08-2012, 07:35 AM
I agree with Ron Paul on everything with the possible exception of immigration?

Basically my stance on immigration = Abolish the welfare/warfare state & Enforce Border Security (no fences though), then basically make it easy to come in here.

I know Ron Paul agrees with the first part, I assume he agrees with the 2nd part (after the comma) because I read this off his site

"Immigrants who want to work hard, obey our laws, and live the American Dream have always been great assets."

If RP went back to his former position on immigration he would lose his paleo support. Likewise, future liberty candidates ought to keep that in mind.

Chester Copperpot
04-08-2012, 07:40 AM
Yeah I disagree with Ron Paul on raw milk.. I like it, he doesnt.

I can disagree with my president on things like this especially when he wont arrest me for buying it.

Enforcer
04-08-2012, 11:23 AM
See, I disagree with that.

I don't think that the government should go around like the Nazi's and start knocking down doors.

We're back to square one. You either support the provisions of the so - called "Patriot Act" or you don't. You asked for border protection, Uncle Scam gave it to you. You asked for accountability, you got the REAL ID Act. You have what you're asking for.

The anti - immigrants want the politicians to lie to them. The pols claim they will do away with birth citizenship. The only ways to do that are to amend the Constitution OR create a Guest Worker program. If you think you can amend the Constitution, you are completely delusional.


When the anti - immigrant lobby claims this is all about "legal" immigration, they are being disingenuous. Visas cover specific fact situations: family members of Americans, diplomats, people with specific job skills, students, agricultural workers. No such visa covers the fact situation for MILLIONS of people residing in the United States as Guest Workers. IF there were, somebody would have pointed to that specific visa over the past 11 years of me debating this with them.

Laws that lock people out and deny to them their unalienable Rights are patently unconstitutional. It is also unconstitutional because such laws are discriminatory against some employers. For instance, the hospital can hire the foreigner, but their contract cleaning company cannot hire the foreigner. The only thing that has not been passed by Congress is a Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship. That would allow for a "proper" method of entry.

The biggest way that the border could have been protected was to allow citizens the unfettered Right to protect their private property against trespassers. In 2003, the "movement" chose not to do so. Today, the standing court rulings are that foreigners have civil rights... and in 2003 those civil rights trumped the Rights of American land owners. The legislatures cannot help you. The case was resolved in court.

Enforcer
04-08-2012, 11:29 AM
If RP went back to his former position on immigration he would lose his paleo support. Likewise, future liberty candidates ought to keep that in mind.

You cannot say with absolute certainty that you understand Ron Paul's position. Millions of people having no "proper" method of entry are still law abiding. They get Taxpayer Identification Numbers and obey the laws. It's not their fault that we have a welcome mat inviting them here, employers willing to hire them, people willing to do business with them and then NO credible way of properly entering the United States.

If the law tells you to obey the laws regarding "proper" entry, but then does not provide that "proper" method, then the law obviously does not apply to you. IF / WHEN the laws infringe upon the Rights of others, those laws can legally be ignored.

Individualism
04-09-2012, 09:46 AM
He won't get rid of entitlements and he has to get rid of the deficit
Hes also social conservative which is a form of authoritarianism
Gold Standard will give the elites even more power, we need a resource backed economy
He won't amend the constitution to allow anything as legal tender not just silver and gold.
I would like it if he was anti war or war at last resort, not just congressional declaration.
Secure the border that is goverments job
Illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law
Skeptical of a person with a religion being for freedom but i could be wrong, as long as they don't impose it.

Hes far from perfect but hes a great start in the right direction.

Enforcer
04-09-2012, 10:02 AM
He won't get rid of entitlements and he has to get rid of the deficit
Hes also social conservative which is a form of authoritarianism
Gold Standard will give the elites even more power, we need a resource backed economy
He won't amend the constitution to allow anything as legal tender not just silver and gold.
I would like it if he was anti war or war at last resort, not just congressional declaration.
Secure the border that is goverments job
Illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law
Skeptical of a person with a religion being for freedom but i could be wrong, as long as they don't impose it.

Hes far from perfect but hes a great start in the right direction.

I like posts like this. Despite the entire conversation, the author of this post seems to ignore all the posts that have been made so far. His use of the English language is atrocious. Most foreigners do at least as good a job expressing themselves. The author of this post has no concept of reality, but once again, let us straighten him out:

Individualism wrote:

"Secure the border that is goverments job"

RESPONSE: The border is quite secure, but the anti immigrant lobby has a real red herring with this one. They want immigration to be a crime (which it is not) and then they want the military to enforce domestic laws (which most assuredly is NOT their job)

Individualism wrote:

"Illegals should not be rewarded for breaking the law"

RESPONSE: NOBODY is being rewarded for breaking the law, but Individualism thinks government should exercise some magic power to enforce laws that do not exist. He's insinuating that people in this country are "illegals' and are committing crimes. He is exactly 100 percent WRONG.

Individualism wrote:

"Skeptical of a person with a religion being for freedom but i could be wrong, as long as they don't impose it."

RESPONSE: The whole concept of Liberty is a Christian proposition. "Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (AKJV) The NIV version is a bit more in line with this thread: "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

"While the existence of legal rights has always been uncontroversial, the idea that certain rights are natural or inalienable also has a long history dating back at least to the Stoics of late Antiquity and Catholic law of the early Middle Ages, and descending through the Protestant Reformation and the Age of Enlightenment to today."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

Enforcer
04-09-2012, 10:07 AM
If RP went back to his former position on immigration he would lose his paleo support. Likewise, future liberty candidates ought to keep that in mind.

If we do not stand up to the paleos, as you call them, they will hand America over to National Socialists because they do not understand the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.

pcgame
04-13-2012, 09:32 PM
..

Stupified
04-16-2012, 01:38 PM
Personal issues, mostly. It's hard to disagree with someone with different views when they subscribe to a "live and let live" philosophy. The president should have as little to do with my everyday life as possible.

Natural Citizen
04-23-2012, 09:32 PM
If we do not stand up to the paleos, as you call them, they will hand America over to National Socialists because they do not understand the fundamental principles upon which this country was founded.

I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.

Weston White
04-24-2012, 01:56 AM
I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.

Isn’t it all truly but degrees of the same? Be it, socialism, corporatism, fascism, communism, totalitarianism or governmental austerity and statism through oligarchic-demagogic decrees of democratic privatization, kleptocracy, progressivism, et al?

CalebBetton
04-30-2012, 02:23 PM
I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

Athan
04-30-2012, 03:06 PM
I actually STOPPED thinking global warming was man made even before I learned of Paul. Whatever is going on with the weather, its much bigger than car emmissions. I think the sun is actually in a very hot period. Plus a volcano activity produces WAY more carbon mon/dioxide than cars do.

It could be a long hot pulse that happens every few centuries on earth. Up until a 100 years ago, people didn't really keep track of this crap globally.

I can definitely deal with the evolution thing though. That's his belief, and he respects mine. So I respect and defend him when people bring it up. Who are they to judge him?

Spikender
04-30-2012, 03:45 PM
I actually STOPPED thinking global warming was man made even before I learned of Paul. Whatever is going on with the weather, its much bigger than car emmissions. I think the sun is actually in a very hot period. Plus a volcano activity produces WAY more carbon mon/dioxide than cars do.

It could be a long hot pulse that happens every few centuries on earth. Up until a 100 years ago, people didn't really keep track of this crap globally.

I can definitely deal with the evolution thing though. That's his belief, and he respects mine. So I respect and defend him when people bring it up. Who are they to judge him?

Which is one reason I like Ron Paul so much. He's one of the few government officials who truly respects other people's beliefs without shoving his in all of our faces, which most mainstream politicians do in order to gain votes. Paul is just so humble about most of his beliefs that it's unreal. He really is a gem among all the crap in our government.

As for what I disagree with Ron Paul on, there are a few things, but I can't recall them off of the top of my head. I'm sure I'll remember them eventually, although it's probably just a few small things.

papitosabe
05-01-2012, 06:01 PM
I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

first post ever and not sure if you're just trolling because he's never stated he wants to give fa to Israel or go to war with Iran... he's completely against all foreign aid, and war unless we're attacked or there is an imminent threat..

Weston White
05-01-2012, 09:01 PM
You can rest assured that global warming is a deplorable charade for three primary reasons: (1) the insistent involvement of criminal mastermind Al Gore, (2) never is the real concern of carbon monoxide addressed but only the much harmless and life cycling carbon dioxide, and (3) the devising of the entire carbon tax and trade scheme, coexisting aside of the vicarious wolves in sheep’s clothing that perpetuates itself as the “green” movement or agenda.

Now this of course should be taken to discount very serious concerns with air and water pollution, smog, waste, etc., though to stretch that into the global melting of ice caps, extinction of entire animal species, endless earthquakes, and submersion of entire cities under oceans goes far beyond lunacy.

Assassinrentao
05-02-2012, 01:09 AM
Ron Paul, Ron Paul....

I've found it difficult to agree with Paul , in the past, , but I've eventually come to the conclusion to support Ron Paul. The majority of Democrats , and Republicans have dogmatic allegiances to their party, and they do not evaluate the core values that once made this country so great: individualism and free enterprise. Therefore, I have to give credit to Ron Paul ; Ron Paul encourages critical, thinking individuals to intervene , in government , when their government is taking a too liberal approach in their role; government is transitioning too much power to elected officials rather than the individual. In essence, we are seeing the seeds of a tyrannical, leaning government.

Some ideas I agree with Ron Paul on are:

I agree with Ron Paul on cutting spending. You have reduce welfare spending and military spending to balance the budget. You simply can't spend money you don't have;all us pay our bills on a budget, so , why can't our federal government do the same? Also, taxation doesn't solve the problem because ultimately national taxes from military and welfare programs tickle down to the most employed workforce of our nation: the working poor and the middle class.Since there is a larger proportional of wealth loss with a lower-class income, with increases in taxes, these groups suffer the most. Eventually, our country suffers the most due to it.

I agree with Ron Paul on civil liberties because of the simple fact that trading privacy , for security , is never the correct answer because it is always the government's failure to provide security; in result, that leads to the loss of privacy. If the government wants to be secure, it should have a policy that increases homeland troops, rather than using that money to fund overseas wars that eventually instigate attacks on American soil.

I agree with a non-interventionist and a non-preemptive war foreign policy. When I say foreign policy, I'm referring to the United States as being only involved in threats that deal with our national borders. Ever since our nation has gone into preemptive war with countries , from European , Middle Eastern countries, and Asian countries we've only instigated more wars that end up ending millions of innocence lives ; along with that, our nation has seeked long-term profits of these wars; this idea our government profiting from wars in-beds an immoral image of "pain for profit" as our county's foreign image.

The individual essence of life , and liberty should be the first obligation of any government, rather than economical, political and militaristic gain, can any true American disagree with that?

However, I understand my view on military interventionism is unrealistic due to the fact our government , for the last 100 years, has created enemies that do not go away over night, but instead of engaging in more preemptive wars to kill them - we should engage the individuals that engage in the specific terror events, rather than the group because it's too expensive, and too dangerous because it gives terrorists a reason to target our citizens. In a nutshell, you don't use the same ideological tactics , terrorists use , since it is counterproductive.

I agree with Ron Paul's argument on the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs, no doubt, has lead to a disproportional amount of Americans into our prison systems. While this is obvious, the main problem is that by incarcerating such a large population , just because they digest self-inflicting substance , seems absurd because the same argument can be made for any type of substance we digest.

Do we begin outlawing Burger King's fast food because of their food is considered unhealthy?

Of course not, as individuals, we should have our own ability to make our own choices. If we want to be unhealthy, that's our choice , and not our government's choice.

Not only does the War on Drugs violate individual liberties, but it only has a snowball effect on the true, detrimental effect is a false sense of security. The War on Drugs claims to lower "crime". However, the large incarnation of adult citizens does not lower crime, but encourages crime by creating a society without parental support. This, in fact , gives youth the incentive to commit crime because they have no family system that encourages correct, moral behavior. In the end, the government gains more power because the War on Drugs gets an economic incentive for local law enforcement to depend on government spending to enforce absurd laws.


I agree with a lot of Ron Paul's views because he encourages the individual to take part , in their government, a lot more than government officials whom rather get fed a silver spoon all their lives - at the expense of our working class.

When I do disagree with Ron Paul, it would have to be issues that he leans towards religion, such as abortion , because I kinda get the idea that he'd choose a religious argument, rather than his over his libertarian views, because of preference.

I used to think about what Ron Paul would have done in the past which most of my disagreements came from , however , the problems of today, and every era requires a new way of thinking.

Our era requires limited government spending, zero government infringement on individual freedoms, and limited governmental power , in general.

To fit the times, our ideologies must adapt , just as our founding fathers intended it to be.

PierzStyx
05-02-2012, 03:13 AM
I never understood what that actually meant . Does National Socialist serve to be the spoken replacement for saying Fascism? Fascism clearly defined as a merge of corporation and state, of course.

The definition of Fascism as the "merging of the corporation and the state" is actually a horrible definition of fascism. It is so much more than that. Fascism is the militarized nanny state. It promises to take care of all your needs, cradle to the grave, and in exchange demands all your liberty and freedom and absolute loyalty to the government in all ways and forms. It essentially replaces God with the Almighty State. As Mussolini said, "Everything within the State, and nothing outside of it." This is so much more than the corruption of the corporatist state, though corporatism is a step in that direction.

As for National Socialism, it is a good term for fascism, but not perfect since it is related to the racism of Nazi Fascism. But really except for that, the ideas are synonymous. And even the racism makes sense when you consider fascism was about making the perfect world for the perfect man. Read "Liberal Fascism" by Jonah Goldberg. Great book on this entire subject.

ProIndividual
05-02-2012, 04:36 AM
I'm for open borders (free market borders - only thing required for entry is a medical exam and background check...no quotas). It's the original border policy of this country. We didn't restrict anything but the Chinese until the 20th Centruy...and that was racist nonsense too.

I'm for abolishing the state, not just turning stuff over to the States from the federal as per the 10th Amendment. But his returning to the States those powers is a step in the right direction...decentralizing not to the States, but to the individual would be my goal. I don't think, for example, any State or federal, or town, or county, or any other person has the right to tell an adult not smoke weed, eat raw food, etc.

I'm for all kinds of stuff Paul isn't for (or at least doesn't say he's for directly)...but I'm still in 95%+ agreement with him overall.

The borders thing is probably my biggest issue with him. Free markets don't have closed or even quota'd immigration. Hoppe is easily refuted when it comes to his assumptions about valuations of different immigrants. He really believes (Hoppe) that you can place arbitrary valuations on humans. If we listened to Hoppe, the guy who came here as a child of poor immigrants wouldn't have founded Google in the U.S. We also know Friedman was wrong when he said "can't have open borders in a welfare state"...data shows that immigrants migrate 99% to jobs to work, and only 1% of the time to generous welfare states. It also shows that native wealth, incomes, and employment grow with immigration, as immigration is condusive to economic growth. It's counter intutive, but deductively logical.

ProIndividual
05-02-2012, 04:40 AM
It essentially replaces God with the Almighty State.

Hence why I'm against nationalism and all it's pseudo-religious symbols...like flags, anthems, oaths, pledges, etc. All brainwashing.

But that's really a good description of America today...fascist. We have militarized our police, are the most incarcerated nation of Earth (even though our population looks like a small town compared some countries), and have domestic secret police.

However, not all fascism replaces God with the state. In fact, Germany had a national religion...it was Christianity. They believed in the Aryan Jesus. The same religion most neo-nazis and Klan members follow today.

The reason for calling corporatism the definition for fascism is that Third Way Economics (Pope Leo) was the choice of fascist governments...a middle ground between communism and capitalism. Incidentally, Clinton advisor and neocon hack Dick Morris introduced Clinton to Third Way Economics during his Presidency. Keynesianism is also a form of "mixed economics" or "Third Way".

The economics of a nation combined with it's organizational methods and legal structure make it fascist.