Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[vechorik]

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

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

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

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

[jonhowe]

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

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

[IDefendThePlatform]

What exactly does a world without borders under the UN look like?

]

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

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

[Liberty74]

How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

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

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

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

Humans Are Not Causing Global Warming

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

[Sam I am]

There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

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

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

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

[vechorik]

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

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

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

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

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

[Feeding the Abscess]

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

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

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

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

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

[eduardo89]

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

And returning education to the state and local level.

[cstarace]

Anyway, the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is incorporation. I do realize this is why he gets so many evangelical Christian votes.

[papitosabe]

There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

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

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

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

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