PDA

View Full Version : If there are any issues that you don't agree with RP on




VRP08
11-15-2007, 10:57 AM
After reading through the forums a little more I found that we all have different believes, even if we support the same candidate.

So my question is; if there are any issues that you don't agree with RP on, what is the issue and why? What would you do different than RP?

TIA!

FrankRep
11-15-2007, 11:03 AM
Federal student loans for college. I believe he wants those programs to be removed. I'm for student loans, but I know other options will exist.

Psyclone
11-15-2007, 11:04 AM
Immigration and Abortion

VRP08
11-15-2007, 11:06 AM
Immigration and Abortion

What would you do different about Immigration. I'm very curious and love to learn.:D

RPTXState
11-15-2007, 11:07 AM
Abortion (i'm pro-choice)
Borders (Fence is waste of $$$, just remove illegals from SS and Medicare)

Patrick Henry
11-15-2007, 11:08 AM
I actually agree with the good Dr. on everything.

gagnonstudio
11-15-2007, 11:10 AM
Abortion

FrankRep
11-15-2007, 11:11 AM
Abortion

What's your view on abortion?

strategos
11-15-2007, 11:12 AM
Israel and South Korea, Abortion- although it is not constitutional for supreme court to define that law, I am a supporter of the freakonomics theory.

DJ RP
11-15-2007, 11:13 AM
I think Abortion in the early months should be permitted... though Ron Paul makes good arguments for an entirely pro-life stance. Which is more than can be said for any other pro-lifers I've ever listened to... they should be singing his praises not endorsing fucking huckabee.

I tend to agree that immigration isn't so much a problem as the subsidising of them is. If they come and don't expect any handouts I don't see the problem, isn't that the free market truely at work? I think Ron Paul kind of agrees.

"If we had a truely free society we would welcome immigrants and they would not be the scapegoat"

yongrel
11-15-2007, 11:14 AM
-Seperation of Church and State Type Stuff - I'm an atheist irrelevantist who's a big fan of secularism, so yeah...

gagnonstudio
11-15-2007, 11:14 AM
Israel and South Korea, Abortion- although it is not constitutional for supreme court to define that law, I am a supporter of the freakonomics theory.

I also agree with the freakonomics theory. I think late term abortion (anything after the first trimester) should be banned, but besides that I think it is okay how it is now.

strategos
11-15-2007, 11:16 AM
I also agree with the freakonomics theory. I think late term abortion (anything after the first trimester) should be banned, but besides that I think it is okay how it is now.

good to see a group who not only wouldn't be hostile to the ideas like a bunch of retards, but would understand it :)

iamvoodoo
11-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Abortion (i'm pro-choice)
Borders (Fence is waste of $$$, just remove illegals from SS and Medicare)

By the way, a fence is the dumbest deterrent I've ever heard of. Anybody who can walk for miles in the desert should be capable of scaling a measly fence.

You need men with big guns to scare away illegal aliens.

And by the way, I think Paul voted for the fence, not because it was an idea he believed would work, but it was one of few options given to PROMOTE border security.

Drknows
11-15-2007, 11:17 AM
Yes but the states would decide! Why should the federal government get involved? Just elect people on the local level you agree with.

Your state has a governemnt too.

FrankRep
11-15-2007, 11:17 AM
On Abortion, each state can choose to legalize it or ban it.
I think people on both sides on the abortion issue can agree with that stance.

VRP08
11-15-2007, 11:17 AM
endorsing fucking huckabee.
"

I'm sure you meant "friggin". :D

Please let's NOT make it a abortion debate, everyone may feel different about it and opinions should be respected. I'm sure a bunch of smart RP adults will manage to keep it nice.:) Thanks!

VRP08
11-15-2007, 11:21 AM
And by the way, I think Paul voted for the fence, not because it was an idea he believed would work, but it was one of few options given to PROMOTE border security.

That's interesting, I didn't know that.

rockwell
11-15-2007, 11:22 AM
I agree 100%

Even when there are things that bother me or I think were better before the Constitution was amended- suffrage for example was, in my view- a disasterous error, I still prefer to rely on the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of Man's laws rather than any other. I do find it curious though that those who keep picking on the abortion issue don't really seem to get his point, re: that it's an issue for the states, not the federal government, so there would no doubt be places where you could get one if you so desired, only that the federal government has no horse in that particular race.

Chaos Unlimited
11-15-2007, 11:24 AM
Abortion - judging by the average American we need every means of birth control possible. Leaving it up to the states means only those in pro-choice states or those with money to travel can get abortions.

akovacs
11-15-2007, 11:24 AM
I'm libertarian, so pretty much everything.

The local government (Though I even distrust them) should have the more say where your money goes, not the federal government.

chandlerLBT
11-15-2007, 11:26 AM
i heard that ron wants to let the states decide on gay marriage. if that's true, i disagree on that issue. marriage is a legal contract, and the government should not discriminate against sexual orientation. but that's the big L libertarian in me. :]

i also disagree on using guns or fences to secure our borders. i think the best way to deal with this issue is to ensure that immigrants have no incentives to come illegally. ex. healthcare, schooling, ect.

gagnonstudio
11-15-2007, 11:27 AM
I agree 100%

Even when there are things that bother me or I think were better before the Constitution was amended- suffrage for example was, in my view- a disasterous error, I still prefer to rely on the Constitution as the ultimate arbiter of Man's laws rather than any other. I do find it curious though that those who keep picking on the abortion issue don't really seem to get his point, re: that it's an issue for the states, not the federal government, so there would no doubt be places where you could get one if you so desired, only that the federal government has no horse in that particular race.

I can agree with this, and I have no problem returning the issue of abortion to the states. That is the constitutional way, and I think that only a handful of states would outlaw abortion. I think most states would ban late term abortion though, which is what I disagree with the most.

Ron Paul Fan
11-15-2007, 11:28 AM
I agree with him 100% and threads like this are just meant to divide the forum. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us. Ron Paul and I may have a few petty differences, but who cares? I'm here representing Ron Paul 100% and that's all that matters.

thatnerdyguy
11-15-2007, 11:32 AM
i heard that ron wants to let the states decide on gay marriage. if that's true, i disagree on that issue. marriage is a legal contract, and the government should not discriminate against sexual orientation. but that's the big L libertarian in me. :]

Yeah, me too. I like Bill O'Reilly's stance on it: "Civil unions for everyone, marriage for none."

akovacs
11-15-2007, 11:35 AM
i heard that ron wants to let the states decide on gay marriage. if that's true, i disagree on that issue. marriage is a legal contract, and the government should not discriminate against sexual orientation. but that's the big L libertarian in me. :]

I agree, though I think the best way to do that is to not have the government acknowledge it in any way. If you want to marry your significant other, regardless or who they are, then just find a church that will do the ceremony or whatever. I don't think you don't need the government legislating marriage at all.

Duckman
11-15-2007, 11:43 AM
My disagreements are similar to that of others...

1) Immigration - I think we should simply not provide services to illegals. I support a path to citizenship. I know I'm in the minority on this, but I feel like it is somewhat of a violation of human rights to say that someone can't live in your country just because they weren't born there. I do think we need to be able to know who is entering the country for terrorism reasons, but I'm ambivalent about the fence. I think it will be expensive and I'm not sure it will work. I think forcing employers to verify citizenship will end up snaring alot of employers, snare some actual US citizens whose paperwork is out of order for whatever reason, and probably lead to the dreaded ID card if anyone but Ron Paul is directing the strategy against illegals. The main thing I am strongly against is the idea of forced mass deportations (although I don't think Ron is for that, but I don't know really).

2) Church/State - I'm a rabid atheist secularist :), but I actually feel like eliminating all references to god in the public square might be an overreach on the part of secularists, so I am willing to support the pendulum swinging back slightly, but I am hardcore opposed to such things as teaching creationism in school, compulsory school prayer, and compulsory swearing of oaths to god for public office, etc.

3) Euthanasia - honestly I'm not sure how Ron Paul feels about this issue, but I am a supporter of a voluntary "right to die" and I guess I doubt Ron Paul would be.

4) Exiting the United Nations - this might draw alot of flak, but I believe a US exit from the UN would look bad to the rest of the world and would hurt our international diplomacy. However, I fully support the idea that the UN should not be allow to usurp our soverignty in any way, but I think to fully abandon the UN and not even send representatives would be akin to taking your ball and going home. Just IMO.

BuddyRey
11-15-2007, 11:43 AM
I disagree with him strongly on the Net Neutrality issue. The internet is perfect as it is, no reason whatsoever to let the telecoms buy it up.

unklejman
11-15-2007, 11:45 AM
Allowing businesses to refuse service based on skin color.

FrankRep
11-15-2007, 11:49 AM
I disagree with him strongly on the Net Neutrality issue. The internet is perfect as it is, no reason whatsoever to let the telecoms buy it up.
Do you really trust the government to regulate the Internet?

Duckman
11-15-2007, 11:51 AM
I disagree with him strongly on the Net Neutrality issue. The internet is perfect as it is, no reason whatsoever to let the telecoms buy it up.

I agree that I would hope the internet stays the way it is, but the internet is a creation of private enterprise and as such I believe private enterprise has the right to control it in virtually any way they see fit.

BiPolarBear
11-15-2007, 11:56 AM
I agree with him 100% and threads like this are just meant to divide the forum. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us. Ron Paul and I may have a few petty differences, but who cares? I'm here representing Ron Paul 100% and that's all that matters.

I have to respectfully disagree here. Threads like this promote rational discussion of ideas and I think the posts I've seen in this thread alone are one of the reasons I love Ron Paul. People are discussing their differences in a civil manner. I have only found this to be true of Ron Paul supporters. When I read articles or watch videos on other sites, normally what passes for "discussion" is simple name-calling and juvenile attacks with no basis in fact. The freedom message does bring us together, but you must remember it brings each one of us here for different reasons. I for one would be a bit skeptical if every supporter agreed 100% with all of the views of a particular candidate. Open discussion about our differences in opinion is creative and helpful to the cause and to society in general. (Okay, I'll stop preaching now.)

Ron Paul Fan
11-15-2007, 12:04 PM
I have to respectfully disagree here. Threads like this promote rational discussion of ideas and I think the posts I've seen in this thread alone are one of the reasons I love Ron Paul. People are discussing their differences in a civil manner. I have only found this to be true of Ron Paul supporters. When I read articles or watch videos on other sites, normally what passes for "discussion" is simple name-calling and juvenile attacks with no basis in fact. The freedom message does bring us together, but you must remember it brings each one of us here for different reasons. I for one would be a bit skeptical if every supporter agreed 100% with all of the views of a particular candidate. Open discussion about our differences in opinion is creative and helpful to the cause and to society in general. (Okay, I'll stop preaching now.)

I unrespectfully disagree here! Threads like this are only started so that we bicker and fight and what gets achieved to help Ron Paul go the distance? Nothing! We've got signatures to get, we've got ballots to get on, we've got fliers to hand out, and here we are going back and forth about net neutrality and gay marriage. And this thread shouldn't even be in the grassroots forum. It should be in Issues for America and I have notified the mods about moving this. Society in general will be helped more if we promote Ron Paul and his ideas instead of spending 6 pages debating whether or not we should stay in the UN.

"The foundation for a police state has been put in place and it's urgent that we mobilize resistance before it's too late." -Ron Paul

BuddyRey
11-15-2007, 12:04 PM
Do you really trust the government to regulate the Internet?

Why do we assume that public ownership goes hand-in-hand with government regulation? The internet has operated freely for more than fifteen years as a protected public resource. In fact, I can't think of anything more free-market than the current model of the net, whose unquestioned sovereignty has never been taxed, regulated or otherwise curtailed. Why then, do we expect that this will change, unless we do something crazy to louse it up?

chandlerLBT
11-15-2007, 12:10 PM
I unrespectfully disagree here! Threads like this are only started so that we bicker and fight and what gets achieved to help Ron Paul go the distance? Nothing! We've got signatures to get, we've got ballots to get on, we've got fliers to hand out, and here we are going back and forth about net neutrality and gay marriage. And this thread shouldn't even be in the grassroots forum. It should be in Issues for America and I have notified the mods about moving this. Society in general will be helped more if we promote Ron Paul and his ideas instead of spending 6 pages debating whether or not we should stay in the UN.

"The foundation for a police state has been put in place and it's urgent that we mobilize resistance before it's too late." -Ron Paul

looks like the only one bickering and fighting is you. i don't get it. not one person has said anything derogatory to someone else's views other than you. ron paul can respect that people have different stances on different issues, so far everyone on this thread can too, so why can't you?

BiPolarBear
11-15-2007, 12:12 PM
I unrespectfully disagree here! Threads like this are only started so that we bicker and fight and what gets achieved to help Ron Paul go the distance? Nothing! We've got signatures to get, we've got ballots to get on, we've got fliers to hand out, and here we are going back and forth about net neutrality and gay marriage. And this thread shouldn't even be in the grassroots forum. It should be in Issues for America and I have notified the mods about moving this. Society in general will be helped more if we promote Ron Paul and his ideas instead of spending 6 pages debating whether or not we should stay in the UN.

"The foundation for a police state has been put in place and it's urgent that we mobilize resistance before it's too late." -Ron Paul

I didn't see any bickering or fighting until your post, honestly. If you are so concerned about signatures and ballots and fliers, why are you here trying to deny people the ability to openly discuss issues? I think most people are doing there best to promote Ron Paul and by discussing and seeing the viewpoints of others, we are even further showing that Ron Paul clearly is a candidate for everyone even if there are minor issues which you don't agree with him.

I can't believe I am having to defend open debate on a Ron Paul forum. :confused:

CMoore
11-15-2007, 12:20 PM
Court stripping.

Once the legislature can take a federal issue out of the jurisdicition of the federal courts, then there is an undermining of checks and balances. The Patriot Act got rid of habeas corpus in this manner. Dr. Paul wants to get rid of abortion rights in the same manner, by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to try the issue. I do not understand why it is OK to tell the federal courts they can't deal with abortion, but it is not OK to tell them they can't hear cases by Gitmo detainees.

chandlerLBT
11-15-2007, 12:25 PM
Court stripping.

Once the legislature can take a federal issue out of the jurisdicition of the federal courts, then there is an undermining of checks and balances. The Patriot Act got rid of habeas corpus in this manner. Dr. Paul wants to get rid of abortion rights in the same manner, by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to try the issue. I do not understand why it is OK to tell the federal courts they can't deal with abortion, but it is not OK to tell them they can't hear cases by Gitmo detainees.

EDIT: nevermind i'm stupid haha. you have a legitimate point.

MadOdorMachine
11-15-2007, 12:33 PM
His biggest issue - Foreign Policy, I don't completely agree with. While I think we should get out of Iraq, but probably not as fast as he is saying and I don't think we should take Iran lightly. Ron Paul keeps saying they aren't a threat to us, yet they said they want to wipe us and Israel off the face of the map. I could see us drastically reducing our forces overseas, but to completely shut down every overseas base is not a good idea. Wherever we have a base (Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. etc.) needs to be turned over to that country, but not shut down. It's still important for S. Korea to have a military presence at the DMZ in case N. Korea gets a crazy idea and decides to invade. Therefore it needs to be phased out much like he talks about doing with people dependant on wellfare in this country. Maybe that's his plan, but he hasn't explained it.

Goldwater Conservative
11-15-2007, 12:34 PM
Federal student loans for college. I believe he wants those programs to be removed. I'm for student loans, but I know other options will exist.

Like other programs people have paid taxes for and come to expect, they should only be transitioned away, and after other policies change they might not even be necessary (a lot less money wasted overseas, addressing inflation, etc.).

Anyway, nothing really, believe it or not. Maybe things like food inspection agencies, although I don't know if he only opposes the way they currently are, because I think they can be justified on the grounds of interstate commerce.

scbissler
11-15-2007, 12:40 PM
I have to respectfully disagree here. Threads like this promote rational discussion of ideas and I think the posts I've seen in this thread alone are one of the reasons I love Ron Paul. People are discussing their differences in a civil manner. I have only found this to be true of Ron Paul supporters. When I read articles or watch videos on other sites, normally what passes for "discussion" is simple name-calling and juvenile attacks with no basis in fact. The freedom message does bring us together, but you must remember it brings each one of us here for different reasons. I for one would be a bit skeptical if every supporter agreed 100% with all of the views of a particular candidate. Open discussion about our differences in opinion is creative and helpful to the cause and to society in general. (Okay, I'll stop preaching now.)


Exactly right.

IHaveaDream
11-15-2007, 12:48 PM
The Draft. Although I fully understand Dr. Paul's sentiments regarding the military draft, I am confident that people would be far more hesitant to support a declaration of war with another nation if they feared that they might actually have to shed their own blood for it instead of just sitting in front of their TV and watching other people die for it. I would like to see a constitutional amendment that would automatically initiate the draft (every able-bodied person eligible) with any declaration of war, and automatically cease a draft with a declaration of victory. If such legislation had existed after 9-11, people wouldn't have been so quick to glorify the neocon agenda.

unklejman
11-15-2007, 12:51 PM
His biggest issue - Foreign Policy, I don't completely agree with. While I think we should get out of Iraq, but probably not as fast as he is saying and I don't think we should take Iran lightly. Ron Paul keeps saying they aren't a threat to us, yet they said they want to wipe us and Israel off the face of the map. I could see us drastically reducing our forces overseas, but to completely shut down every overseas base is not a good idea. Wherever we have a base (Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. etc.) needs to be turned over to that country, but not shut down. It's still important for S. Korea to have a military presence at the DMZ in case N. Korea gets a crazy idea and decides to invade. Therefore it needs to be phased out much like he talks about doing with people dependant on wellfare in this country. Maybe that's his plan, but he hasn't explained it.

You need to look into this further.
http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

Drknows
11-15-2007, 12:52 PM
His biggest issue - Foreign Policy, I don't completely agree with. While I think we should get out of Iraq, but probably not as fast as he is saying and I don't think we should take Iran lightly. Ron Paul keeps saying they aren't a threat to us, yet they said they want to wipe us and Israel off the face of the map. I could see us drastically reducing our forces overseas, but to completely shut down every overseas base is not a good idea. Wherever we have a base (Korea, Japan, Germany, etc. etc.) needs to be turned over to that country, but not shut down. It's still important for S. Korea to have a military presence at the DMZ in case N. Korea gets a crazy idea and decides to invade. Therefore it needs to be phased out much like he talks about doing with people dependant on wellfare in this country. Maybe that's his plan, but he hasn't explained it.

Whoa are you sure you're a RP supporter? jk Someone posted this article today in another thread. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/11/15/couricandco/entry3505760.shtml

Its very good and puts not just our foreign policy into perspective but all the major players. Our history of doing good or going around the world for special interests has a future price.

I swear Ron Paul is almost like a prophet and I'm not even religious.

Mort
11-15-2007, 12:52 PM
The Draft. Although I fully understand Dr. Paul's sentiments regarding the military draft, I am confident that people would be far more hesitant to support a declaration of war with another nation if they feared that they might actually have to shed their own blood for it instead of just sitting in front of their TV and watching other people die for it. I would like to see a constitutional amendment that would automatically initiate the draft (every able-bodied person eligible) with any declaration of war, and automatically cease a draft with a declaration of victory. If such legislation had existed after 9-11, people wouldn't have been so quick to glorify the neocon agenda.

The ends don't always justify the means. It might be a way to end a war quicker. However, more people dying isn't worth the price.

Your banking on the draft having an instant effect. It won't. We already know that from history (Vietnam). It took a while for people to rise up.

unklejman
11-15-2007, 12:53 PM
I unrespectfully disagree here! Threads like this are only started so that we bicker and fight and what gets achieved to help Ron Paul go the distance? Nothing! We've got signatures to get, we've got ballots to get on, we've got fliers to hand out, and here we are going back and forth about net neutrality and gay marriage. And this thread shouldn't even be in the grassroots forum. It should be in Issues for America and I have notified the mods about moving this. Society in general will be helped more if we promote Ron Paul and his ideas instead of spending 6 pages debating whether or not we should stay in the UN.

"The foundation for a police state has been put in place and it's urgent that we mobilize resistance before it's too late." -Ron Paul

It seems as if you are the one encouraging division and malice. These issues are one's that will pop up when you tell people about Ron Paul. It's better if we discuss and know our way around the issue than to blindly support RP with no understanding of people's concerns.

IHaveaDream
11-15-2007, 01:10 PM
It might be a way to end a war quicker.

That isn't why I would support the draft. Just knowing a draft would automatically begin would make voters very reluctant to endorse a war in the first place. And just imagine if every "able-bodied" politican became automatically eligible along with the rest of us.

"I'm fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in."
-- George McGovern

JenaS62
11-15-2007, 01:13 PM
Death Penalty

VRP08
11-15-2007, 01:14 PM
I agree with him 100% and threads like this are just meant to divide the forum. The freedom message brings us together, it doesn't divide us. Ron Paul and I may have a few petty differences, but who cares? I'm here representing Ron Paul 100% and that's all that matters.

I care, that's why I posted those questions. I'm truly sorry that you feel this was meant to divide anyone. I wonder if this is because you do not handle diversity well?
I'm very tolerant and every opinion deserves respect. I can disagree with something but I won't judge you for it, I go on.
I happen to be very curious and open minded and appreciate those who responded.

VRP08
11-15-2007, 01:20 PM
I unrespectfully disagree here! Threads like this are only started so that we bicker and fight and what gets achieved to help Ron Paul go the distance? Nothing! We've got signatures to get, we've got ballots to get on, we've got fliers to hand out, and here we are going back and forth about net neutrality and gay marriage. And this thread shouldn't even be in the grassroots forum. It should be in Issues for America and I have notified the mods about moving this. Society in general will be helped more if we promote Ron Paul and his ideas instead of spending 6 pages debating whether or not we should stay in the UN.

"The foundation for a police state has been put in place and it's urgent that we mobilize resistance before it's too late." -Ron Paul


Wow. You do have the choice to ignore this thread. What is wrong with exchanging ideas? What's wrong with learning different things? Nobody wants to fight anyone, not me anyway.

someguy200
11-15-2007, 01:21 PM
I disagree with RP's thoughts that life begins at conception, which implies that the morning-after-pill is killing life. I really can't see life as beginning anytime before fertilization at the very earliest, and actually think its a little bit after that. Since the morning-after-pill only prevents ovulation and subsequently fertilization I'm very much for it. I really don't care enough about the abortion issue either way for it to effect my voting, but I do think RP presents good arguments for his positions based on legal reasons, instead of the usual religious reasons that most people use. I'm also a strong believer in the freakenomics type theory, having listened to Loveline for years and knowing the massive damage to society that is caused by parents that weren't prepared to have kids.

I also think I heard RP mention once that he thought it was better to go back to the old way of electing senators, by having the state governments elect them, instead of the people in the state, but I don't really know the reasons for that, and I doubt it would ever happen.

On environmental issues I don't really understand how his idea of enforcing private property rights would work, I like the idea in theory, and think it's a lot better than carbon offset tax ideas, but it seems that it would involve courts and lawyers, which usually means the richest side wins, but the carbon offset things means special interest environmental nazi groups would get money to do bs research, when we already know we could solve the majority of this problem and many others with nuclear power and electric based cars. Checkout the Tesla Roadster and some of the other new electric cars if you still think they're too slow or "uncool" for most people to want one. I think RP mentioned some city, I think Pittsburgh where they used the idea he talks about for cleaning up the environment, or at least had an effective program that he likes.

VRP08
11-15-2007, 01:23 PM
It seems as if you are the one encouraging division and malice. These issues are one's that will pop up when you tell people about Ron Paul. It's better if we discuss and know our way around the issue than to blindly support RP with no understanding of people's concerns.

Thank you!:)

BillyDkid
11-15-2007, 01:24 PM
Are you talking about his personal views or political philosophy. They are two fundamentally different things. I'm sure there are many things I disagree personally with Dr. Paul about. I agree completely and without any reservation with philosophy of government.

VRP08
11-15-2007, 01:27 PM
Are you talking about his personal views or political philosophy. They are two fundamentally different things. I'm sure there are many things I disagree personally with Dr. Paul about. I agree completely and without any reservation with philosophy of government.

Well, I'd say I really would be interested in both your opinions. ;)

Uggamugg
11-15-2007, 01:30 PM
Points that I disagree with Ron Paul or my comments on issues discussed.

Disclaimer: Despite these differences, I fully support Ron Paul on the main issues (economy, military, civil liberties).

Immigration: As an immigrant (now a permanent resident) I can say for sure that people come to this country looking for work. This is work that is not wanted by citizens and is valued less than the minimum wage. The fact that these opportunities and the work force exist suggests free market principles are at work. I think a smooth transition to citizenship is the humane solution to the large number of immigrants (without the huge fee to apply), as opposed to immediate amnesty. If they were citizens and received higher pay, they could participate in the economy more, helping society. Then and only then, will it become feasible for immigrants to receive welfare programs as most are under the poverty line. I think Ron Paul is taking the right approach by addressing the border issue. This country needs to establish a better system for people to come into the country before focusing on immigrants already in the country.

Abortion: Ron Paul's opinions on abortion do make sense but I am pro-choice (definitely during the first trimester but a little skeptical on second trimester abortions). Giving the power to the states makes a whole lot of sense. There is no way we could all agree on one federal law regulating (or not regulating) abortion, or any other controversial issue. We would find it easier to live in a state where all the residents agree on these type of issues.

FCC: This department is a big bureaucratic waste, except, for regulating frequencies. If there were no regulations, ham radio frequencies, which are protected in the current state, would be lost to corporations or other uses. These type of regulations are supported by engineering and science based organizations (i.e. IEEE). One could make the argument that civilians, professionals in this case, would uphold these type of regulations with no government backing. Once again this is another RP point: personal responsibility.

FERC: The energy commission does routine safety inspections which corporations would not do on their own. In a better world, this commission would not be needed but I have no trust in most large companies.

P.S. Free discussion is essential. It does not divide us but does unify us under our most precious liberty: Freedom of Speech.

IHaveaDream
11-15-2007, 01:33 PM
Please put the food fights on hold until after the election. The opposition would just love to see this movement implode due to infighting about issues.

A house divided...you know?

dspectre
11-15-2007, 01:38 PM
I dunno, I almost agree 100% with RP. I can't think of anything in particular I disagree. I think there maybe one or two details I may not fully agree, but it's hard for me to argue with him on very much because he seems to have a well thought philosophy.

280Z28
11-15-2007, 02:31 PM
marriage is a legal contract, and the government should not discriminate against sexual orientation.


Yeah, me too. I like Bill O'Reilly's stance on it: "Civil unions for everyone, marriage for none."

This post is not directed to any particular person. I use the word "you" to refer to any person who fits some criteria. :)

These views are polar opposites. Pro-gay-marriage liberals refuse to acknowledge this and as such are only concerned with winning instead of real civil rights. The hypocrisy is sickening.

A true civil rights activist desires any couple be allowed to enter a joint status economic contract under the law. My great aunt (single) and grandmother (widowed) are sisters who might enjoy the protection a legal contract could offer - where one could take care of / make decisions for the other in case they couldn't for themself.

By attempting to force a new, offensive definition of a word believed sacred a very large group of people, you do not show concern for civil rights. You show greed and a relentless obsession with oppressing people who disagree with your religious views.

jon_perez
11-15-2007, 11:07 PM
I think Ron Paul's analysis of the economic situation is brilliant, but ironically, the more I read and think about the topic, the less I find myself agreeing with his [specific] prescription of going back to [purely] gold backed money. All his other recommendations do make sense (e.g. cutting back taxes in conjunction with the reduction of government subsidies and military spending) to me.

I'm more convinced than ever that there is ample justification for [Keyne's] denigration of gold as a 'barbarous relic'. While I do agree that the more abstract money becomes, the greater the potential for abuse is (just look at how derivatives get abused all the time), one has to realize that this nostalgia for switching back to "gold as money" presupposes a civilization which is unable to meet the challenges (as well as taking advantage of the enormous benefits) of operating under abstract terms.

Some people have said that Paul has not called for a switch back to a pure gold standard but rather towards "free-market", "commodity backed", "private money". I've been getting mixed messages over which of the two views Paul really subscribes to, although if it's the latter, I would be quite interested in seeing a move in such a direction (with the caveat that it is highly experimental and we must remember to proceed along such a path with eyes wide open).

The so-called libertarians on this forum will usually point you to Murray Rothbard's book "What Has Government Done to Our Money?" for the requisite propaganda/brainwashing :) regarding their views on the monetary system. Rothbard's book is a must-read because it offers such a strikingly different analysis of the monetary situation compared to the more mainstream literature, but it always behooves us to do our own research and study contrasting views.

I certainly don't find myself disagreeing with any of the stuff I've read so far in Rothbard's book. Some people might overlook though, what Rothbard has said: as long as we let government determine what our money should be, it doesn't matter if it is fully gold-backed or otherwise, it will always be subject to abuse [in favor of statist agendas]. So if Ron Paul does indeed advocate some kind of gold-backed money, but supplied by the government and mandated as the only possible legal tender, then that is pretty much in contravention of the principles that Rothbard has outlined.

.

Abyss19562
11-17-2007, 07:22 PM
I agree with Ron Paul on everything.

Indy Vidual
11-17-2007, 07:28 PM
After reading through the forums a little more I found that we all have different believes, even if we support the same candidate.

So my question is; if there are any issues that you don't agree with RP on, what is the issue and why? What would you do different than RP?

TIA!

Abortion: You simply can't have women resorting to 'self-service' abortions. :eek:

``````````

Important: Ron is not picking up enough support among woman. :(
Please, stress abortion is not a federal issue, and the states, or better yet, local areas, have a right to decide.

kylejack
11-17-2007, 07:52 PM
I'm a little skeptical of a new user asking for divisive issues. I disagree with Ron on some issues, but I wonder why a new user would be interested in getting a list of issues that alienates Ron from his base of supporters.

unklejman
11-19-2007, 08:30 AM
I'm a little skeptical of a new user asking for divisive issues. I disagree with Ron on some issues, but I wonder why a new user would be interested in getting a list of issues that alienates Ron from his base of supporters.

I'm not. It actually seems like a question a noob would want to know about to me.

pcosmar
11-19-2007, 10:12 AM
Nope, Nada, Nyet, No.
His 2nd amendment stance is what introduced me, and it's second to none.
After researching his position and reading much of the Ron Paul Library, I am in agreement with all I have found.
I am not quite up to speed on the monetary issues but I am learning. There again he seems to make the most sense of any I have heard.
Most politicians give vague answers and have fuzzy positions.
Ron Paul gives Real answers that are logical and clear.
Rare and welcomed.

Corydoras
11-19-2007, 10:50 PM
Abortion: You simply can't have women resorting to 'self-service' abortions. :eek:

Well, at a very very early stage...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_extraction
:eek:

mordechai
11-20-2007, 06:21 PM
Free trade policy. I think what's left of the government ought to be entirely funded by tariffs and excise tax. And, China folks. They can use the lao gai prison system as a form of slave labour. Nooo country can compete with that without getting their own prison labourers.

Even there, I'm variable, and don't think the tax should be that heavy unless it's supposed to function as a kind of trade embargo.

Kade
11-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Separation of Church and State is the big one. "Christian Nation" crap.

Abortion stance. Although overturning Roe v. Wade is not the end of the world. When people see what a shithole Texas will become, they might change their minds about the value of a woman's way of life versus cell life.

Immigration stance. Tossing out people whose parents broke the law is no different than the concept of original sin. There is no proper definition of an American anymore, sadly, not even people who enjoy liberty as the supporters of this current administration show. I don't have answers, I'm all for limitations, and I think ending the welfare system will fix some of these issues... I have a problem with making people leave their homes, regardless of how they got there.

Federal Student Loans and Education. This nation is already hurting in terms of education. You have weapon grade idiots attempting to pass off religious insanity as science and Ron Paul seems very okay with this. I'm not, and nobody should be. We are the second worst country with a majority of people believing absurd nonsense about the world around them. Only Turkey, TURKEY for goodness sake, is worse in terms of people accepting the overwhelming scientific census on things like the age of Earth. We need more people in college or this country is really going to hurt... I don't care how libertarian or conservative any of you are... we need to find ways to help people pay for college, through vouchers, civil service, military service, I don't care. And I don't care if every cent of my tax dollars go to educating other people's children... anything, anything to cure the unbelievable mass exodus from reason this country is suffering from... rampant stupidity and ignorance... it even exists on this board, as noted by the tool who referred to "Sounds like some serious purgatory for catholics and some "weeping and gnashing of teeth for protestants.""

*Shudder*

JohnM
11-24-2007, 06:58 AM
Interesting thread.

Myself, there are a few things I'm not sure about - there are issues that Dr Paul has thought through, that I have not thought through, and that I remain to be convinced about.

My main questions are about foreign policy. What if a truly free nation is invaded an annexed by a large powerful dictatorship? I can see arguments for both sides on that one.

I'm also not convinced that the US should leave the UN.

But to be honest, I'm absolutely amazed on how much I do agree with Dr Paul on.

brianewart
11-28-2007, 10:26 PM
I agree with Ron Paul about everything except for the "NAFTA Superhighway"

It sounds like a conspiracy theory, and even if it is true, I'm not sure I care about them building a road ... (the eminent domain part I DO agree on, and think he should talk about it more. Americans HATE Kelo).

jaybone
12-04-2007, 03:09 PM
The one issue that I disagree with Ron on is the U.S. paying some sort of restitution to the nation of Iraq.
Now, I do not like the idea of forcing all taxpayers to foot this bill, but I feel a strong personal moral obligation to help Iraq rise from the ashes. When we end the occupation, I will put my own $ where my heart is.

Ron says that the individuals responsible for the occupation should pay, and I concurr. But personally, I would have no issue with paying a 'complicity tax'. I think that we all bear a certain measure of responsibility for the destruction that our leaders have unleashed on Iraq. I, personally did not come to my current strong anti-war stance until about 2003, and I regret every life lost while I was not speaking out.

I find federal taxation of individuals repugnant, but I can't help feeling that the citizens of America owe the citizens of Iraq a great big apology and several tons of gold.

DJ RP
12-04-2007, 03:13 PM
The one issue that I disagree with Ron on is the U.S. paying some sort of restitution to the nation of Iraq.
Now, I do not like the idea of forcing all taxpayers to foot this bill, but I feel a strong personal moral obligation to help Iraq rise from the ashes. When we end the occupation, I will put my own $ where my heart is.

Ron says that the individuals responsible for the occupation should pay, and I concurr. But personally, I would have no issue with paying a 'complicity tax'. I think that we all bear a certain measure of responsibility for the destruction that our leaders have unleashed on Iraq. I, personally did not come to my current strong anti-war stance until about 2003, and I regret every life lost while I was not speaking out.

I find federal taxation of individuals repugnant, but I can't help feeling that the citizens of America owe the citizens of Iraq a great big apology and several tons of gold.

This seems quite obvious to me a disaster UNLESS people do it vonuntarily. If goverment is the problem it cannot be the solution.

jaybone
12-04-2007, 03:25 PM
This seems quite obvious to me a disaster UNLESS people do it vonuntarily. If goverment is the problem it cannot be the solution.

I agree, eveything touched by goobermint turns to s*it
My disagreement is more in the realm of philosophy than policy

JS4Pat
12-04-2007, 03:34 PM
I actually agree with the good Dr. on everything.

Same here - Even the Death Penalty!

Never thought I would find a Pro-Life, Anti-War, Anti-Income Tax, Anti-Death Penalty, Pro-Civil Liberties Conservative Minded Polite and Good Natured Candidate who is also NOT a lawyer!

It is almost too good to be true!

WilliamC
12-04-2007, 03:43 PM
Greetings All,

I haven't thought through this completely but given the ease of interstate travel I think there is a role for a National crime fighting organization. Obviously to make it right it would take a Constitutional amendment, but I can't see the harm in keeping the FBI or an organization like it.

William C Colley

TurtleBurger
12-05-2007, 06:09 PM
By the way, a fence is the dumbest deterrent I've ever heard of. Anybody who can walk for miles in the desert should be capable of scaling a measly fence.

You need men with big guns to scare away illegal aliens.

And by the way, I think Paul voted for the fence, not because it was an idea he believed would work, but it was one of few options given to PROMOTE border security.

If you get over Duncan Hunter's fence, they sign you up for the Olympics immediately!

murrayrothbard
12-05-2007, 06:25 PM
I agree with RP on everything he says the government should stop doing.

I agree with RP on everything he says the government should not do.

I disagree with RP on everything he says the government should do. The government should not exist at all. ;)

Hoffman
12-05-2007, 08:10 PM
I disagree on the death penalty. Some people deserve to die.