Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[Weston White]

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

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

[CalebBetton]

I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

[Athan]

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

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

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

[Spikender]

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

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

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

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

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

[papitosabe]

I'm shakey on his foreign policy......unlike Paul, I would like to completely abandon Israel in terms of foreign aid and possibly going into combat with Iran.

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

[Weston White]

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

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

[Assassinrentao]

Ron Paul, Ron Paul....

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

Some ideas I agree with Ron Paul on are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[PierzStyx]

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

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

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

[ProIndividual]

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

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

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

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

[ProIndividual]

It essentially replaces God with the Almighty State.

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

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

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

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

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