PDA

View Full Version : two issues I don't agree with Dr. Paul on




TheNewYorker
12-26-2007, 05:09 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**with that said I'll still look past it and vote for him since I agree with him on everything else and he's the only honest one running. Now let's make a game of this - post some issues that you don't agree with him on, but will look past!

*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.

NewEnd
12-26-2007, 05:11 AM
1. abortion
2. prayer in schools
3. immigration
4. death penalty

noztnac
12-26-2007, 05:18 AM
I think they should pull all troops from overseas and give them all free narcotics when they arrive home.

Austin
12-26-2007, 05:20 AM
Based on everything I have researched thus far, I agree with him on everything.

xCakex
12-26-2007, 05:21 AM
prayer in schools, immigration, death penalty, abortion, removal of all troops oversees, legalization of narcotics, social security, Iraq war, Income Tax

JK lawlawlawlawlawl---I do see that removing troops oversees will boost our economy because they spend the money we pay them here, but I think that if there is trouble somewhere and we have the permission of the foreign government to set up a very very very small base there, I don't see that as a hurt.

TheNewYorker
12-26-2007, 05:23 AM
I just added the reasons why I don't agree on those issues. If you guys have the time too, we should all add the reasons for it into our posts and then have friendly debate on why.

TheNewYorker
12-26-2007, 05:27 AM
JK lawlawlawlawlawl---I do see that removing troops oversees will boost our economy because they spend the money we pay them here, but I think that if there is trouble somewhere and we have the permission of the foreign government to set up a very very very small base there, I don't see that as a hurt.

Well I'm all for bringing the troops home from Iraq and stuff, that's not what I mean.

I meant, I think Dr. Paul is wrong on us removing our "empire" as he calls it. Unfortunetely we NEED our empire. He says it weakens us, but really it's what keeps us the strongest.

If we get into a war with another country- and yes I mean a real war declared by congress or declared on us by another country, it's our bases overseas and first-strike capability that gives us the power to cripple them within an hour after the war is declared. If all our troops are here in the continental USA, and we have no bases overseas - it will take us DAYS to get the troops there, more DAYS to mobilize an attack - by then we would be finished.

Pastanoose
12-26-2007, 05:41 AM
Show me in the constitution where anyone derives the authority to have military bases in countries not our own. These bases antagonize the people of the countries they occupy just as a giant, heavily armed Russian base in Nebraska would piss us off. I think the good doctor is spot on. As far as deployments go we have the capability to send bombers nonstop to anywhere in the world as well as c-130's and c-5a's for deploying troops. not to mention our aircraft carriers.
as far as drugs go, he has stated that it is a state's rights issue. if texas wanted total abolishion, that would be ok. if delaware wanted to be the next amsterdam that would be ok too. To some degree it is just making people take responsibility for their actions (I lost my mother last year to alcoholism, so I am not saying these things with a cold, blind eye).

literatim
12-26-2007, 05:43 AM
Those army bases sure are 1$ trillion dollars a year well spent. :rolleyes:

ConstitutionGal
12-26-2007, 05:45 AM
The only thing I disagree with Dr. Paul about is immigration. I think ALL the illegals, along with their offspring, should be expediciously deported as soon as they are found out. Too many of these illegals and their children have NO interest in assimilation and are Balkanizing our Country right before our very eyes. We need a moratorium on ALL immigration for about 10 or 20 years to give those who aren't deported time to assimilate and THEN we need to drop back to some pre-1965 sane immigration levels and need to stop enciouraging two languages within our borders. The best way to accomplish this, IMHO, is attrition through enforcement - by fining, or even jailing those who employ illegals, and by removing ALL tax-payer subsidized goodies (health care, housing, food, education, etc.) from those who are not citizens or who are "citizen" children of two non-citizens (anchor babies).

This is one of the most important issues to me at this time (along with fiat currency and our military empire) so, for me to support Dr. Paul even though I disagree with him on the immigration issue, is HUGE.

idiom
12-26-2007, 05:46 AM
The Subs aint coming home. However closing the bases in New Zealand amongst other would be well received.

hawkeyenick
12-26-2007, 05:50 AM
he doesn't want legalization, he just doesn't want the government to be able to say what you can and can't do with YOUR body

Man from La Mancha
12-26-2007, 05:51 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**with that said I'll still look past it and vote for him since I agree with him on everything else and he's the only honest one running. Now let's make a game of this - post some issues that you don't agree with him on, but will look past!

.1st he never said a 100% pull out, some bases would remain. As for Russian the threat to us would also be against Germany and Europe. Let them pay their own way and have them be the 1st line of defense, we don't need to be their protectors. Our nuclear strike capabilities would prevent this.

2nd. Your girl friend got these drugs anyway illegally so it makes no difference, I don't want the government telling what I can put in my body. Their many helpful drugs and medicines that they also bane I want.

I agree 100% with Paul.
Glad your supporting Ron

.

Oliver
12-26-2007, 05:52 AM
*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.


And I disagree. First of all, Paul is right about
retaliation as a result of casting the stones around
all over the world.

A reduction of "Stone casting" surely would take
a lot of steam off in the Middle East. Like you
kicking me everyday and one day you decide
to stop kicking me. I would be thankful for your
wise decision. (And not considering to join
Al Qaida anymore to kick back :p)

Secondly: America lost a lot of it's reputation
all around the world and among their allies.
This actually means that the Bush policies
drastically weakened their national security by
loosing Allies support.

And finally. No Nation will attack or invade the US.
That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. And if
you're afraid of Russia, you surely missed the cold
war, when Russia actually was an enemy.

So what exactly don't you agree with - based
on what facts or fears?

Benaiah
12-26-2007, 05:52 AM
I think that we could find other ways to have a strong national defense without having our troops overseas.

All we have to do is perfect the x-43a jet. Who needs troops sitting over next to Russia or China when we can fly 200 planes there in 2 hours.
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

Pursue this technology and then we could have large aircraft that could transport troops and ground equipment, too (like a C130 that goes 7,000mph).

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-26-2007, 05:54 AM
*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

How does having our military spread so thin all over the world put us in a better position to deal with any country, let alone Russia (who is in no position to go to war with us, and really has no reason to)? Have you been watching too much Red Dawn? :D


** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.

The thing is, regardless of whether or not people would use drugs more or less often in the event that they were decriminalized, as a matter of principle the government does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.

Drknows
12-26-2007, 05:56 AM
Well at first i was like damn this guy is right on about everything then after awhile i seen his stances on other issues and i was like damn this guy is crazy!!!!

You voted against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor? You want to legalize Narcotics? You want to take away Social Security and toss old people into the streets? You want to get rid of the IRS, Department of education and other agencies? Why do you love gold so much?


Then after thinking about these issues long and hard i was like damn he is right.

Teenforpaul08
12-26-2007, 05:57 AM
For people who talk about hypothetical situations where we could go to war, I say this to you: You don't step on Superman's cape.

Oliver
12-26-2007, 06:00 AM
For people who talk about hypothetical situations where we could go to war, I say this to you: You don't step on Superman's cape.

Pffft. Osama would laugh his ass off about this
remark, wherever he is right now.

Ron LOL
12-26-2007, 06:03 AM
OP, I strongly disagree with your, um, Russia argument. We have such ridiculous technical superiority over every other country in the world (can't the F-22 engage air-to-air from something like four MILES out?) that we just don't need foreign troop placements. And as Dr. Paul has commented on this issue, why bother with bases when we can just place submarines strategically?

By the way, aren't we forgetting about Alaska?

Anyway...

Honestly, the only place I've found that I really part ways with RP is on the abortion issue.

I'm actually much more receptive to the pro-life argument hearing it from Dr. Paul speaking as an OB/GYN instead of the stupid religious zealotry that usually accompanies this position. That being said, I still don't know if I can get behind it. I believe that life does begin at conception in the strictest technical sense that yes, it is the starting point -- and this is going to sound a little superficial -- but as long as the fetus doesn't look like a human...then I'm kind of okay with abortion for a number of reasons.

Also, I think there's a bit of a logical issue in the pro-life argument if you do argue that life begins at conception, because it implies such a high reverence for life that you're basically a hypocrite if you've ever harmed a fly. Of course, I get the impression that RP is just this kind of person...

I'm upset by the sanctity of life act stuff that Dr. Paul has introduced.

TheNewYorker
12-26-2007, 06:07 AM
The thing is, regardless of whether or not people would use drugs more or less often in the event that they were decriminalized, as a matter of principle the government does not have the right to tell you what you can and cannot put in your body.


The last time I checked, the government has never arrested or fined anyone for consuming drugs, only for buying, selling, and possessing drugs. So technically, they are not telling us we can or can't put it into our body.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-26-2007, 06:08 AM
Honestly, the only place I've found that I really part ways with RP is on the abortion issue.

I'm actually much more receptive to the pro-life argument hearing it from Dr. Paul speaking as an OB/GYN instead of the stupid religious zealotry that usually accompanies this position. That being said, I still don't know if I can get behind it. I believe that life does begin at conception in the strictest technical sense that yes, it is the starting point -- and this is going to sound a little superficial -- but as long as the fetus doesn't look like a human...then I'm kind of okay with abortion for a number of reasons.

Also, I think there's a bit of a logical issue in the pro-life argument if you do argue that life begins at conception, because it implies such a high reverence for life that you're basically a hypocrite if you've ever harmed a fly. Of course, I get the impression that RP is just this kind of person...

I'm upset by the sanctity of life act stuff that Dr. Paul has introduced.

The only change that a President Paul will make is put the abortion issue back to the State level like the 10th Amendment demands, so that the federal government can't ban or legalize ALL abortions in the entire country based on the current whims of the day.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-26-2007, 06:11 AM
The last time I checked, the government has never arrested or fined anyone for consuming drugs, only for buying, selling, and possessing drugs. So technically, they are not telling us we can or can't put it into our body.

You say tomāto, I say tomąto.

kahvi
12-26-2007, 06:14 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**
*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.
Your example is a bit odd in my opinion. Why should russia have any interest going to war with the USA. With the foreign policy of Dr. Paul there would simply no reason for any country to be offended. The way I see it todays power lays not in military strenght, but in money and big cooperations. If any big country would start a war the world economy would be broke real quick. It might weaken you in some dregree, but it's all for the better.



** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.
Yea, I think that could be a negative sideeffect of legalizing . Still, you have to blame your girlfriend for being irresposible and not the drug.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-26-2007, 06:16 AM
Yea, I think that could be a negative sideeffect of legalizing . Still, you have to blame your girlfriend for being irresposible and not the drug.

Agreed. I won't personally say anything about having ever used the drug myself.....but I can assure LibertyinNY that weed alone does NOT impair your judgment so much that you would have sex with someone without knowing what you were doing. Sounds like the problem was with your girlfriend, not the drug.

LibertyEagle
12-26-2007, 06:16 AM
You want to take away Social Security and toss old people into the streets?


But, he does not want to throw people out into the streets at all. In fact, he's the only one who has a plan to keep Social Security funded. All the others, on both sides of the aisle, talk about how SS must be kept, but they don't talk about how to do it, short of raising taxes. It's Dr. Paul who wants to cut government spending in other areas, so that there will be money to pay for these programs that people paid into and are dependant upon.

aspiringconstitutionalist
12-26-2007, 06:17 AM
But, he does not want to throw people out into the streets at all. In fact, he's the only one who has a plan to keep Social Security funded. All the others, on both sides of the aisle, talk about how SS must be kept, but they don't talk about how to do it, short of raising taxes. It's Dr. Paul who wants to cut government spending in other areas, so that there will be money to pay for these programs that people paid into and are dependant upon.

+1

Social Security is coming to an end sooner or later. It's just merely an unsustainable program. However, only Dr. Paul has a realistic plan to keep it funded for the people who are already dependant on it.

LibertyEagle
12-26-2007, 06:21 AM
LibertyinNY,

I hate to tell you, but you are deluding yourself if you think pot caused your girlfriend to be unfaithful. That is a cop out. She did it, because she wanted to. I realize it's easier to blame it on some nefarious drug, but it is just a cop out. Sorry.

Oliver
12-26-2007, 06:21 AM
Your example is a bit odd in my opinion. Why should russia have any interest going to war with the USA. With the foreign policy of Dr. Paul there would simply no reason for any country to be offended. The way I see it todays power lays not in military strenght, but in money and big cooperations. If any big country would start a war the world economy would be broke real quick. It might weaken you in some dregree, but it's all for the better.

+1

And I might add that the Terror hype is a fearmongering
myth. There isn't more or less Terrorism as it was before
9/11. So maybe Americans can skip this myth anytime
soon :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents
1 1800s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1800s)
2 1900s-1940s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1900s-1940s)
3 1950s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1950s)
4 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1960s)
5 1970s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1970s)
5.1 1970 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1970)
5.2 1971 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1971)
5.3 1972 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1972)
5.4 1973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1973)
5.5 1974 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1974)
5.6 1975 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1975)
5.7 1976 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1976)
5.8 1977 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1977)
5.9 1978 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1978)
5.10 1979 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1979)
6 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1980s)
6.1 1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1980)
6.2 1981 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1981)
6.3 1982 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1982)
6.4 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1983)
6.5 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1984)
6.6 1985 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1985)
6.7 1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1986)
6.8 1987 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1987)
6.9 1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1988)
6.10 1989 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1989)
7 1990s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1990s)
7.1 1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1990)
7.2 1991 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1991)
7.3 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1992)
7.4 1993 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1993)
7.5 1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1994)
7.6 1995 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1995)
7.7 1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1996)
7.8 1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1997)
7.9 1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1998)
7.10 1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#1999)
8 2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2000s)
8.1 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2000)
8.2 2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2001)
8.3 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2002)
8.4 2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2003)
8.5 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2004)
8.6 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2005)
8.7 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2006)
8.8 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents#2007)

MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
12-26-2007, 06:25 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**with that said I'll still look past it and vote for him since I agree with him on everything else and he's the only honest one running. Now let's make a game of this - post some issues that you don't agree with him on, but will look past!

At first, I was going to make what I thought was a pretty good critique of your reasons and reasoning.

Instead, I'll just say I'm not comfortable with overturning Roe v Wade. I'm not comfortable with less separation between chruch and state (especially state run schools).

I'm also not comfortable with what probably has to be done regarding illegal immigration. Most illegals want the same things I do. They're already here working, and already my neighbors at this point. But, I can't bring myself to be for amnesty, either. I also don't live in a border town, and don't see problems that heavily affect some others with that issue. I know they still exist.

I'm glad we both think Paul is mostly right. Overall, he's the best candidate I've ever seen for a federal office.

bricklayer
12-26-2007, 06:30 AM
But, he does not want to throw people out into the streets at all. In fact, he's the only one who has a plan to keep Social Security funded. All the others, on both sides of the aisle, talk about how SS must be kept, but they don't talk about how to do it, short of raising taxes. It's Dr. Paul who wants to cut government spending in other areas, so that there will be money to pay for these programs that people paid into and are dependant upon.

Not only would he keep it funded, he wouldn't devalue the dollar so much that their SS check became worthless when they got it.

hellah10
12-26-2007, 07:02 AM
Based on everything I have researched thus far, I agree with him on everything.

+1

charger
12-26-2007, 07:08 AM
I agree with Dr. Paul on all Issue's.
We are only pissing other countries off by having troops all over the world. What gives us the right? Because we are the USA?

The 500,000 troops would serve our country better by securing our own borders.
A true war in the future with another super power will be nuclear. What we are doing in Iraq and Afganistan is not a war. It is nation building and peace keeping.Both of which G.W. said he would not do if elected president.
These type of conflicts are just posturing and promoting someones agenda. They are not true wars.
A war is when you fight to defeat your enemy.

More important than policing the world we need to make sure that we have a manufacturing base large enough to supply goods to our own people if we were to go into another world war.
Another area our government has failed. So basically we are going around the world calling countries names making threats and pissing them off and we have our pants around our ankles. Does this make sense to anyone but our government?

Coola
12-26-2007, 07:22 AM
You voted against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks, and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor?

Just to clarify though, he was against using the Tax payers money to pay to give them the medals. He proposed that congress use their own money and he offered his own money ot pay for the medals. But didn't want the tax payers to use it for medals when it could be used for other things.

Big difference between his political opinion and moral opinion.

ThomasJ
12-26-2007, 07:24 AM
Fifty years ago we might have possibly needed troops all around the world. Even then I would say it was not necessary.

You need to understand something very important. It is call the Department of Defense. That is because it is supposed to protect US citizens from invasion. Nothing more nothing less. The purpose of the military is not to protect Haliburton's profit margin.

That is really what we have been doing with the military for the last 50 years.
Pull all the troops home. Let them actually defend this country.

As for Russia attacking. Our current foreign policy would cause an attack much more than pulling troops home would. The Neocons want to set up an Anti Ballistic missile base right on the border of Russia. We do not need this stuff. We could for once in human history have some modicum of peace in this world. It is possible.

Now do not take that last statement to mean I am a pacifist. I believe in the Just war principle. But if every country follows the Just war principle there would be no war.

ButchHowdy
12-26-2007, 07:26 AM
If we can DIVORCE ourselves from Zionist Israel like God did in Jeremiah 3:8, we wont need this offshore military.

Aballistar
12-26-2007, 07:30 AM
I disagree with him on abortion* and the environment. Other than that, I think he's spot on.

*Although, I suppose I only disagree with him on his *personal* hatred of abortion, as he would not federally ban it. So I guess that's cool.

As for the environment, I think Roosevelt did a very bold and visionary thing when he set aside all the land for national forests and parks... we need to be a good steward of the earth.

EvoPro
12-26-2007, 07:39 AM
For a Federal government official, I agree with him on about everything. If he was running for State or Local office, I would have some disagreements.

mudburn
12-26-2007, 07:41 AM
I pretty much agree with Dr. Paul on his positions. His stance is for liberty and the belief that you and I and what's ours doesn't belong to the gov't. We have no constitutional right to have troops deployed all over the world. We have no right to the resources of other nations no matter how much we may be dependent upon them (one of the reasons for such deployment). Fundamentally, Dr. Paul is right about drugs because his stance is based upon a respect for private contracts between individuals, something the gov't has no business interfering with. Now, if someone does something that infringes upon the rights of someone else outside of a contractual relationship, then something should be done.

I somewhat disagree with Ron on the economic effects of cutting gov't spending and bringing the troops home. So many people are dependent upon their gov't jobs that eliminating bureacracies/departments will create unemployment for many. Troops returning home will also add to the 'labor pool,' and it will take time for jobs to be created even with economic incentives from the market. I think these things need to be done, but I expect there will be some hard times before it gets better. Of course, that depends upon a lot of different factors, but I certainly see a possibility for economic difficulties in the transition period.

Darryl

tsetsefly
12-26-2007, 07:41 AM
1. Abortion (It should be legal)
2. Foreign policy (blowback is what makes it easier for islamofascist to recruit but you can be sure they are brainwashing people to hate america, but its an ideological war)


As to drugs, there is no correlation between legality and usage, if people want to use drugs they will regardless of whether they are legal or not. Having said that you have to determine what policy creates the most damage, having drugs legal or illegal, the answer is definitley illegal... creates more violence, gives money to thugs and you still get people using it like if they where legal. Remember drugs where legal till 1939...

Thurston Howell III
12-26-2007, 07:43 AM
Question for the OP; If your girlfriend got drunk and screwed around on you, would you be calling for a ban on alcohol?

EvoPro
12-26-2007, 07:51 AM
Seriously, what State would legalize hard drugs?? But if they wanted to try a method(regulation, decriminalization) that they think would reduce crime, usage and put drug pushers out of business, why should the federal government tell them they can't?

hocaltar
12-26-2007, 07:59 AM
Dr. Paul believes that the government should coin money in accordance with the Constitution. I trust the government a little less than a heroin addict in a poppy field when it comes to behaving itself.

hocaltar
12-26-2007, 08:04 AM
Seriously, what State would legalize hard drugs?? But if they wanted to try a method(regulation, decriminalization) that they think would reduce crime, usage and put drug pushers out of business, why should the federal government tell them they can't?

The type of drug is totally irrelevant. People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they want, irregardless of the drugs potentcy. It has nothing to do with crime, or DUI rates, it has everything to do with liberty.

Remember, you either have liberty or you don't. If they just take away a little bit of your liberty, then you have none at all.

EvoPro
12-26-2007, 08:07 AM
The type of drug is totally irrelevant. People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they want, irregardless of the drugs potentcy. It has nothing to do with crime, or DUI rates, it has everything to do with liberty.

Remember, you either have liberty or you don't. If they just take away a little bit of your liberty, then you have none at all.

Yeah, I know. But Ron wouldn't try to infringe on State Laws against drugs.

Ron LOL
12-26-2007, 08:07 AM
The type of drug is totally irrelevant. People should be free to put into their bodies whatever they want, irregardless of the drugs potentcy. It has nothing to do with crime, or DUI rates, it has everything to do with liberty.

Remember, you either have liberty or you don't. If they just take away a little bit of your liberty, then you have none at all.

I agree. It really just is not anybody's business to tell you what you can and cannot do with your own body. If you do harm, you suffer the consequences. That's the beginning and the end of it.

Edit: I've often wondered why nobody has ever founded a "recreational pharmaceutical" company. Get a bunch of bright folks together and just tweak the drug designs as they're banned. Keep it up and I think the end result would have to be legislation so sweepingly general that it would require also banning the sale of alcohol, which nobody would stand for of course. Would be a good way to expose some of the hypocrisy in the "War on Drugs."

CAKochenash
12-26-2007, 08:13 AM
Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship.

bwahahaha

Seriously dood?? I challenge you to smoke a joint and look at some porn....IT DOESN"T WORK LIKE THAT....alcohol, maybe.....cocaine, maybe...but weed? Come on man...you need to look into your relationship a little more.

Don't make YOUR legislators try to manage MY health...

but seriously man, if you continue to think that every girl that walks in your life will do weed and cheat on you, prepare to be lonely. Every person has the potential to fuck your life up....

LibertyEagle
12-26-2007, 08:18 AM
2. Foreign policy (blowback is what makes it easier for islamofascist to recruit but you can be sure they are brainwashing people to hate america, but its an ideological war)


You mean, kind of like how WE are being brainwashed to hate all Islamics? Like that?

Seriously, there will always be people that hate us, but if we would cut down on the things we are doing that MAKE them hate us and for what our government has no constitutional right to do anyway, there would be far less people who feel that way. At the same time, we perhaps should use our military to protect our own country for a change, rather than to overthrow other countries, who have not attacked us, nor were a threat to our national security.

PaulPatriot
12-26-2007, 08:20 AM
You want to take away Social Security and toss old people into the streets?

It's amazing to me that some people think he wants to do this. I know you don't but if you go to RP's web site and look up the issues that his platform talks about, he lays out the case for getting rid of SS pretty well. He also has explained it well in some interviews. The fact is he really is the most sensible and compassionate candidate because he will allow younger people to opt out while funding the older people still dependent on the system. My mom is on SS right now and there is no way she could quit her job with the paltry sum they give her. It's such a failure. And then you have to pay taxes on your SS on top of that.

CAKochenash
12-26-2007, 08:25 AM
i forgot my two issues.....

1) Ron Paul believes 19 guys (most coming from Saudi Arabia) hijacked commercial airliners and carried out the 911 attacks. I can't agree with him on this issue.

2) The fact that he is so damn humble. I mean, his humbleness attracted me to the campaign, but that was in the beginning of '07. We got Iowa in just a few days, Ron needs to start knocking down some of his opponents. It would be a simple..."Just look at my record..."

DealzOnWheelz
12-26-2007, 08:25 AM
Your reasoning against drugs is soooooo flawed

Your ex didn't cheat on you because she smoked weed.

Trust me I smoke weed everyday and it doesn't impair your judgement
it may make your reaction time delayed but thats about it.

Your ex cheated on you because, and don't take offense to this

She was a slut

I know where you are coming from Every girl I have ever been with has cheated on me except for my current girlfriend and I even had a girl cheat on me with another girl.

She may have said that she didn't know what she was doing because she smoked weed; but that my friend is a complete lie.

Now if you said she did some other drugs and cheated and said she didn't know what she was doing I could believe it but on weed it is impossible that she did it without knowing full well what she was doing.

You'd have a better chance convincing me that she did it when she was drunk and didn't know what she was doing.

But no matter what it was her choice. If she really loved you she never would have done it.



and as far as the troops go we're not preventing any war by keeping subs close to russia. You are obviously miseducated on the matter.

FIRST STRIKE????? Do you understand how long it would take for Russia to strike us first even when they push the button.

And just because we don't have troops on their borders doesn't mean we don't still have satelittes that can see exactly what they are doing.

Not to mention any missle they sent would be shot out of the air and left in the ocean. We can leave our subs off our own coast to protect us from anything.

Your reasons are very flawed, it's great your still going to support Dr. Paul but you need to educate yourself more on these matters and not let a girl tell you her cheating was not her fault.

Remember I've been exactly where your at with woman, It's hard to swallow but it was never meant to be.







Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**with that said I'll still look past it and vote for him since I agree with him on everything else and he's the only honest one running. Now let's make a game of this - post some issues that you don't agree with him on, but will look past!

*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.

NerveShocker
12-26-2007, 08:25 AM
This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them.

LOL! Liberty!! Are you kidding me! Have you ever smoked weed before? You are completely in control of what you are doing and it does not impair your judgment in any large way. The worst that can happen is you get a little dizzy and have slower reaction time. Reading your post I actually can be sure you have never tried weed(This is why your ex knew she could make up this terrible story), alcohol if anything can make someone not be in control of their actions and thats only if you drink enough to cause you to black out. I hate to break it to you but if anything weed makes you less social and likely to talk to new people. As for your girlfriend.. well she played you man. You can't be that naive man ;( It takes hard drugs or a large amount of alcohol for you not to know what you are doing. All the weed in the world(Even the highest quality) can not make you so confused as to not know what your doing. Sorry, but this is just the truth. Your girlfriend simply was the type that cheats, as I said weed makes you less social.. therefore less likely to flirt with and especially sleep with new people. I now see why you disagree with Ron Paul on this one, but her excuse was just that.. an excuse/lie. Trust me on this if she knew you had smoked weed before she would have never even tried to pull off that lie. I would literally be offended if my g/f tried to say something like that to me, but that's because I know what weed is capable of. Your better of without someone like that anyways man..

malkusm
12-26-2007, 08:26 AM
Seriously, what State would legalize hard drugs?? But if they wanted to try a method(regulation, decriminalization) that they think would reduce crime, usage and put drug pushers out of business, why should the federal government tell them they can't?

Agreed wholeheartedly. Does anyone here really think any state is going to completely decriminalize heroin? Of course not. The drug issue, however, is an issue that Dr. Paul brings up for two reasons:

1) It is a matter of principle, to follow the written law of the land in the Constitution. The federal drug laws, as they stand, are unconstitutional; they violate the Tenth Amendment, as written, by providing a uniform federal law which was not passed as an Amendment to the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

2) Not only is the "War on Drugs" as passed by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 unconstitutional, but it annually consumes about $45 billion - $12 billion in "drug control", and over $30 billion in legal processing of offenders to federal narcotics laws. In addition, studies have been performed which demonstrate no significant decrease in use of the narcotics banned by the CSA.

Seems like $45 billion that we could use towards...I dunno, Social Security? Elminiating the debt?

malkusm
12-26-2007, 08:35 AM
Also I'd just like to add, that when you allow the government to regulate something like the sale of drugs, and we allow it because we assume it is "for our protection," we give up liberties that far surpass the simple freedom to buy/sell/consume the drugs in question. We send the message to the federal government that, in the future, if there are other things they deem to be dangerous to the general welfare of the American public, that it is ok for them to regulate those as well. Unfortunately, there is a fine line between the government trying to provide protection, and the politicians using this newfound right to push a political agenda. This is what's been happening recently in the War on Terror - the Patriot Act may be implemented to "protect" the American people, but ultimately it may used for subverse motives which erode away the liberties that we founded this country upon.

Jagwarr
12-26-2007, 08:41 AM
If states were allowed to create their own drug policy over time we would see which one works the best. You would also be able to move to a state which set a policy that you most agree with, if it was an important issue to you.

After WWII drugs use was almost unheard of in this country. It was not until 1961 when the federal government began arresting non-violent drug offenders that the current drug cycle began. This created the black markets and gave drugs an artifical value, thus the drug trade was born.

Since the government gave drugs an artifical value more drugs began to be shipped into the US and by 1970 drug use increased dramaticly and our murder rate had doubled, compared to 1961, when the real drug war began.

Drugs used to cost about the same as a can of soda, so there was very little need for people to steal to aquire them, at least not like today.

Roughly 5k people die from illegal drug use each year, most think that number is much higher but it's 5k for the entire US.

The fact is more Americans are murdered each year because of the black markets which the drug laws create, then the drugs themselves kill. This does not even take into account the millions of Americans which are jailed and labeled as felons and all those families which are broken apart, most of which are non-violent offenders.

Do you know who most wants our drug war to continue? The international drug cartels and organized crime and lawyer unions and the entire prison industrial complex, that's who.

The Drug War creates more crime, perhaps doubles the amount of total violent crimes in the US. It allows our government and police to use rather extreme measures of enforcement. It imprisons millions of non-violent American citizens. It tears apart millions of American families. It is responsible for tens of thousands of murders within our country. It costs billions of dollars to run. It creates international drug cartels which then use drug money for other illegal activities. It reduces Americans freedom of choice. It creates the very drug markets which the laws propose to destroy.

All this for 5k deaths per year by people who freely choose to use them.

Mastiff
12-26-2007, 08:42 AM
For a Federal government official, I agree with him on about everything. If he was running for State or Local office, I would have some disagreements.

Ditto. Or at least "might" have some. He hasn't said exactly what he would do regarding drugs if he were running for governor or county supervisor or whatever. I'm all for the feds butting out, but I have concerns about complete deregulation of drugs locally - unless there was some major modification and/or clarification of liability rules and such related to dealing.

This isn't the forum for this though. New people come here and see us pointing out all the places we disagree with Paul?!

jabrownie
12-26-2007, 08:45 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*

These bases are premised upon the very old idea that you have to physically occupy an area to maintain control over it. Since then, our technology has gone up a tad, and we can now do things like launch airstrikes against Iraq from the middle of america. Or use ICBM's from subs to attack anywhere in the world from anywhere in the world. So, no; we don't need to physically occupy spaces in order to carry out defensive counterstrikes.

legalization of narcotics**

Ron Paul is not saying 'make them legal'. He is saying let each state decide what they want to do with the issue. Pot would probably still be illegal in 49 states, with a few making exceptions for medical uses.

Girlfriend: Sorry bout your situation, but as already posted a few times, pot does not make it so that you 'don't know what you're doing'. Hard drugs, yes, lots of alcohol, yes; but that's not what pot does. Depends a little bit on the person and potency of it, but generally will just make you calm/relaxed/mellowed out....and hungry....that's about it.

allyinoh
12-26-2007, 08:47 AM
Wow... if your girlfriend used the excuse that she was high on weed, she was an idiot. And like someone said, no offense, but a slut.

I have smoked weed before many times actually, and it does not impair your judgment contrary to what people say. The best way to describe the high from weed is that you are super relaxed.

The argument that if drugs were legal that more people would use them is flawed as well.

If people want to use drugs they will whether they are legal or illegal. The people who don't use them don't do it because it's illegal, they don't do drugs because it's a personal choice and has nothing to do with the legality of it.

Airborn
12-26-2007, 08:47 AM
[LIST=1]

** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.


Your Girlfriend could have easy done that being drunk, and alcohol impairs your judgment way more then cannabis. But people should take responsibility for their own actions. Your girlfriend choosed to do drugs own her own, that doesn't mean we should ban everything that can have bad effects. Believe me we would be living in a boring world if we illegalized everything that could do a little bad to you. People who skydive know the risks they are taking. Everyone should educate themselves before doing anything that could have risks involved. And weed is pretty safe.

Airborn
12-26-2007, 08:56 AM
On the drugs being legal. I agree they should and be regulated like booze. But for a start in the right direction, soft drugs(weed, mushrooms ect) should be legal and harder drugs decriminalized. Much like Amsterdam, Holland, weed is legal, decriminalized actually but treated in much like a legal way. And harder drugs, for the user would not get you put into jail. But selling is very illegal. WE should never treat users of anything as criminals.


Prostitution should be legal like it is in Holland. Keep it legal only in one certain area. It keeps the rest of the streets clean and all the girls(or guys) are regularly checked for STDs.

Jagwarr
12-26-2007, 08:56 AM
You have a greater risk of dieing from eating or juicing one raw potato then you do from attempting to smoke as much weed as you could within a 24 hour period of time.

That's because to date I still have not read of one person worldwide, having died as a direct result of smoking MJ. Although like tobacco, it's not a healthy habit and could have long term health effects, just like eating at Burger King does.

bdmarti
12-26-2007, 09:00 AM
I don't agree with Ron on the inheritance tax. My understanding is he would like to have no such tax. I, on the other hand, would like to see a death tax in place for sufficiently large estates.

While I believe in property rights, and even the right to pass on your property to your heirs, I also believe as John Locke did that the "natural" property rights should allow a man to accumulate only as much land/wealth as he can "work with his own two hands." Excessive wealth in the hands of an individual remains such as a result of the social contract he has with his government and fellow citizens and not because it is a natural right.

Taken to an extreme, if one takes the stance of absolute property rights with no limits, then one believes that should it be the case that 1 person comes to own the entire world that the only moral thing to do is respect that individual's "right" to own the world and that all other persons shall act as slaves to the world's owner as long as he lives. I find this to be an absurdity. Clearly, it isn't moral of the individual in question to exert property "rights" over the entire world when it so clearly would be at the expense of every other being in the world. Sure, this case is never likely to happen...but when dealing with moral principles when you can find a single instance of such catastrophic failure (even if it's unrealistic) then one should question the principle itself.

This is one reason why I question absolute inheritance rights beyond the limit of what one would need and "could work with their own two hands." Now, I'm all for those who excel and work hard to get ahead and accumulate as much wealth as they like and are able to during their lives...but it seems to me that at the moment of death, an individual ceases to have rights and this is the most appropriate time for society to tax that individuals excessive wealth (that again, isn't his by natural property rights but by social contract alone).

I feel that an inheritance tax, on sufficiently large estates, is:
1. an acceptable form of revenue
2. a slight check against the forming of an aristocracy

and since we have to decide what lousy way we want to tax people, the benefit of keeping the "ruling class" in check is enough for me to say let's use this tax as opposed to some other lousy tax.

shasshas
12-26-2007, 09:11 AM
You are wrong on both counts :-

1) Ron Paul does want to pull as many troops back from overseas as possible. NATO troops in Western Europe are the lowest priority on his list. They are likely to stay there for much much longer than the others. Probably will never come back.
And about maintaining an Empire -- the USA can forget about that. You can maintain it if you can afford it. The US can't afford it any longer because China and India are about to WHUP our asses economically. So we all have to stop being white stuck up americans and get REAL. The easy times were OVER several years ago.

2) If you legalise drugs, it becomes like tobacco and alcohol. Once people are educated about the health risks they will control its use themselves. Read this article to get educated :-
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs

LibertyEagle
12-26-2007, 09:20 AM
I don't agree with Ron on the inheritance tax. My understanding is he would like to have no such tax. I, on the other hand, would like to see a death tax in place for sufficiently large estates.

and since we have to decide what lousy way we want to tax people, the benefit of keeping the "ruling class" in check is enough for me to say let's use this tax as opposed to some other lousy tax.

Because 1. Taxes have already been paid once on those things in the estate. So, what you are suggesting is double taxation. 2. The aristocracy that you so hate, are not the ones being raped by estate taxes. They are able to structure their estate such that very little taxes are paid. 3. You, nor government, has any right to dictate what is done with the money that I earned and saved during my lifetime.

CMoore
12-26-2007, 09:33 AM
As a practical matter, the federal government derives very little from the estate tax. People with large estates do tax planning to largely avoid it. People who want it in place because they hate the rich simply do not know enough to realize this. The tax mostly serves to place burdens on the estates of people who were small businesspeople.

DealzOnWheelz
12-26-2007, 09:33 AM
Who determines what a "sufficiently large estate" is??

And from the sounds of it you are not a wealthy man or you would not be saying "my money that I save should not be passed down to my children"

The death tax is the most absurd thing on earth.

it basically implies YOU MUST PAY TO DIE!!!!




I don't agree with Ron on the inheritance tax. My understanding is he would like to have no such tax. I, on the other hand, would like to see a death tax in place for sufficiently large estates.

While I believe in property rights, and even the right to pass on your property to your heirs, I also believe as John Locke did that the "natural" property rights should allow a man to accumulate only as much land/wealth as he can "work with his own two hands." Excessive wealth in the hands of an individual remains such as a result of the social contract he has with his government and fellow citizens and not because it is a natural right.

Taken to an extreme, if one takes the stance of absolute property rights with no limits, then one believes that should it be the case that 1 person comes to own the entire world that the only moral thing to do is respect that individual's "right" to own the world and that all other persons shall act as slaves to the world's owner as long as he lives. I find this to be an absurdity. Clearly, it isn't moral of the individual in question to exert property "rights" over the entire world when it so clearly would be at the expense of every other being in the world. Sure, this case is never likely to happen...but when dealing with moral principles when you can find a single instance of such catastrophic failure (even if it's unrealistic) then one should question the principle itself.

This is one reason why I question absolute inheritance rights beyond the limit of what one would need and "could work with their own two hands." Now, I'm all for those who excel and work hard to get ahead and accumulate as much wealth as they like and are able to during their lives...but it seems to me that at the moment of death, an individual ceases to have rights and this is the most appropriate time for society to tax that individuals excessive wealth (that again, isn't his by natural property rights but by social contract alone).

I feel that an inheritance tax, on sufficiently large estates, is:
1. an acceptable form of revenue
2. a slight check against the forming of an aristocracy

and since we have to decide what lousy way we want to tax people, the benefit of keeping the "ruling class" in check is enough for me to say let's use this tax as opposed to some other lousy tax.

adwads
12-26-2007, 09:37 AM
incorporation of the bill of rights

pickfair
12-26-2007, 09:37 AM
There are two things that bother me, which are probably more on the minor side.
1) Immigration. He wants to amend the Constitution and put in a clause that rids the policy of giving citizenship to babies of foreign parents born in America. If you put that as an amendment, you may slow down this illegal immigration business, but it affects many others as well who could be just as American as the next person.
2) Dropping out of the UN. I realize that the UN is not doing its job effectively. But I'm not sure about our dropping out entirely.

On the troops, I am totally with him. Having bases in other countries where we're not at war with is uncalled for. Iraq? Pointless and failing. South Korea? Please. I live in the country and I don't see one good reason why our soldiers should be stationed here.

On drugs as well, I'm with him. Even if you look at history, the Prohibition was a terrible mistake. Gang crimes driven by the bootlegging business. And it wasn't just the gangs. They had an AMENDMENT for the prohibition of alcohol (which we SHOULD have proposed if we were going to make drugs illegal) and that certainly did not stop people from drinking. But Dr. Paul, being a doctor, emphasizes a different side of the senseless war on drugs and I always say, leave the doctors to talk about medicine, not engineers or architects and certainly not politicians. The federal government has no clue what's going on in the little hospitals. That is why we need to operate things on the state level, and no other candidate is stressing this critical issue except Ron Paul.

jenninlouisiana
12-26-2007, 09:39 AM
Drugs are illegal and the government's own statistics show:

1. drugs are easier to get today than ever before
and
2. more people today are trying drugs than ever before

All you have to do is some googling and you will find the statistics you need to prove yourself wrong.

You don't have to be pro-drugs to see how stupid the drug war is.

Besides, addiction needs to be dealt with on a medical (physical), theraputic (emotional) and spiritual (AA or something else) basis and not just by throwing people in jail where they can get drugs easily anyway.

SteveMartin
12-26-2007, 09:41 AM
1) Ron Paul believes 19 guys (most coming from Saudi Arabia) hijacked commercial airliners and carried out the 911 attacks. I can't agree with him on this issue.

BINGO! Right on. He is either putting forward a campaign strategy that he thinks will work, or he is incredibly naive. He seems to be too intelligent to be the latter, so I keep hoping its the former. The minute I find out it's not, he will be exposed as just another pied piper being used to keep us all in line.

dougkeenan
12-26-2007, 09:48 AM
OK I had to hunt around to find something. Caught off HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-real-conservati_b_78248.html)this morning:

"We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. "

The Doctor drifts too close to nuclear here for my comfort. JMO

eldeeder
12-26-2007, 09:49 AM
[LIST=1]

** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.


Thats great and all, but it goes against everything Ron Paul stands for. First, let me say, he hates drugs, and has no desire to legalize them. He DOES want the federal government out of it though. Freedom is just that, freedom of choice. You can't have it one way, and then tell someone else they cant choose on their own. Thats paternalism.

If you think drug legislation will preserve your right to have a decent relationship then you've missed the entire point...


Oh, btw, she DID know she was doing it, she DOES remember it, and if she'd cheat on you fucked up, she'd cheat on you sober...

Blooberry777
12-26-2007, 09:51 AM
Just About Everything Sounds Good.

eldeeder
12-26-2007, 09:51 AM
OK I had to hunt around to find something. Caught off HuffPo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-freedman/ron-paul-real-conservati_b_78248.html)this morning:

"We've been interfering with the development of nuclear energy for 30 or 40 years. We don't develop any new nuclear power plants, but then at the same time we take money and we subsidize alternative fuels such as ethanol, which nobody's ever proven is an economically feasible alternative. "

The Doctor drifts too close to nuclear here for my comfort. JMO


Nuclear Power and Nuclear weapons are two very different things. Nuclear power is extremlely safe. The only problem, where to put the waste. They'll have a place in the desert for all of it within the next decade, but do some research before you just get scared by the word nuclear. People die in the fossil fuels buisness everyday.

Mortikhi
12-26-2007, 09:54 AM
There's not much going on in the world concerning military mobilization that cannot be detected via satellite.

We no longer need bases all over the world because "our enemies can have first strike capabilities"

Shooterman
12-26-2007, 09:58 AM
Removal of all troops and bases from overseas*
legalization of narcotics**with that said I'll still look past it and vote for him since I agree with him on everything else and he's the only honest one running. Now let's make a game of this - post some issues that you don't agree with him on, but will look past!

*I don't agree with removal of troops and bases overseas because it WILL weaken us, not make us stronger as Dr Paul states. If we get into a war with Russia, it will be much harder winning the war when our troops are not anywhere close to them and it takes us days to get them there. They would have the first strike opportunity on us which would cripple us. Ron Paul speaks of "MAD", or "mutually assured destruction", but the problem is Dr. Paul fails to realize the reason that works is because we have troops and subs right on Russia's border waiting for the go should we get in a war with them. I am however all for the removal of troops in stupid locations like Iraq, Iran, South Korea, Israel, etc. And I'm all for bringing our troops home from Iraq.

Russia isn't a threat any longer unless our hubris makes them so, which seems to be the trend of our current CIC. ( I really don't care if he looked into Putin's soul through his eyes ) We had best get over this bent for imperialism we've nurtured since the War of Northern Aggression.


** I don't agree with legalization of drugs. I'll agree that it would stop violent drug-related crime, since it would put drug dealers and organized crime syndicates out of business - but the fact is, if it's not illegal more people are going to do it. I'm pulling a number out of my ass here, but I'll say at least 75% of people are stupid and rely on the government to tell them what is safe and what's not safe. If it's legal, people are going to do it. If it's illegal, the majority of people won't do it because they know since it's illegal because it's dangerous. This issue also gets a bit personal - my ex-gf whom I loved very much did drugs, and it ruined our relationship and ruined our lives. Basically she would go to parties, get high on weed, then have sex with other guys. Because she was so high, she didn't even know she was doing it. The drugs impaired her judgement. Had she never gotten high, she wouldn't have cheated on me, and we still have been happily together enjoying our relationship. I know what you're saying - well wait, drugs are CURRENTLY ILLEGAL yet she still did them. So if it's legal, what difference will it make? Well - because I have a fear future girlfriends will do this to me now, go get high and cheat on me. If it's illegal, the chances that are going to happen is less likely. If it's legal, more people are going to do drugs and it's just going to fuck everything up.

Sorry, my friend, but the cold hard facts are you need to choose your girlfriends with a little more caution. There is no nice way to put it other than that. Besides, if she had a problem and you knew it, then throwing her to the wolves was not an act of love.

There will always be people that use and abuse drugs. One of the most abused drugs sold is booze. It is legal.

Alex Libman
12-26-2007, 09:59 AM
I don't think Ron Paul would run for a mayor or a governor, and I don't think I would vote for him if he did. He's all about the role of the Federal government and the economy, which would leave the matters like the drug / abortion prohibition / school policy up to the states.

I have a feeling he has Martin Luther sitting on one shoulder and Ayn Rand on the other. I'd prefer someone with just Ayn Rand, but then there'd be no chance in heck of him being elected...

hasan
12-26-2007, 09:59 AM
The only thing I disagree with Dr. Paul about is immigration. I think ALL the illegals, along with their offspring, should be expediciously deported as soon as they are found out. Too many of these illegals and their children have NO interest in assimilation and are Balkanizing our Country right before our very eyes. We need a moratorium on ALL immigration for about 10 or 20 years to give those who aren't deported time to assimilate and THEN we need to drop back to some pre-1965 sane immigration levels and need to stop enciouraging two languages within our borders. The best way to accomplish this, IMHO, is attrition through enforcement - by fining, or even jailing those who employ illegals, and by removing ALL tax-payer subsidized goodies (health care, housing, food, education, etc.) from those who are not citizens or who are "citizen" children of two non-citizens (anchor babies).

This is one of the most important issues to me at this time (along with fiat currency and our military empire) so, for me to support Dr. Paul even though I disagree with him on the immigration issue, is HUGE.

i am sorry to see this paranoia over balkanization. its just a byword for maintaining the status quo and current racial balance. i dont think there is any clause in the constitution that calls for maintaining a white majority america. i can see that you mentioned eradicating illegal immigration and i am all for that. but as for 'balkanization' i just dont see a problem. a good example of healthy immigration would be canada. canada only takes in qualified people and as far as i can see couldn't care less about maintaining a white majority

eldeeder
12-26-2007, 09:59 AM
There will always be people that use and abuse drugs. One of the most abused drugs sold is booze. It is legal.



Amen... If you want to live in a country you call "free," you have the right to put whatever you want to into your own body, PERIOD.