Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
I'd like to see a debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
Someone I know took the test at http://www.isidewith.com to see who they would most likely want to vote for and it come up with Jill Stein which kind of surprised me, wouldn't mind seeing that debate.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
I bet they'll let Jill debate, but not Gary.
Statistics don't lie, people do.
They should let every candidate with ballot acces to enough states to get 270 electoral votes debate.
Rand Paul 2016
only 97000 more to go.
I don't have a problem with Stein in the debates. I'm just not interested in hearing her speak, especially about economics. Her economic policies are worse than Obama and Romney.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
I would vote for Jill Stein.
I have no problems with universal health insurance and social programs for the least fortunate. (It's really not a whole lot different than police. The police are their to protect our freedom from other people. Health insurance is there to protect our freedom from the unlucky random possibility of becoming sick.)
And I care about the environment. And I do think the rich should pay more in taxes. There is a lot of evidence that in free markets, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. They own land, they have more start up resources. They playing field is not as level as libertarians pretend. I see no reason why the rich shouldn't pay more in taxes. Throughout most of US history before 1950, the richest Americans were paying over 90% in taxes. Obama made a decent point. Rich people don't become rich all on their own. They use a lot of society's resources, and with the playing field tilted in their favor, there is no reason they shouldn't give more back to society.
Say whatever you want about how it's wrong to steal from someone to save someone else. But consider this:
America produces enough food to feed the entire world FACT
Billions of people die every year from hunger FACT
Billions of people are malnourished FACT
Billions live on less than $1 a day FACT
Something is very wrong here, and if you really care about freedom, this is where you should start--the billions of people who have almost no freedom.
Last edited by cdc482; 09-10-2012 at 02:51 PM.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
We call it regulations. Others call it leveling the playing field. If you look at the details of what she proposes, I think you'll find it's all pretty reasonable, even if it does take away some freedom.
To give you just one example of the semantics between what we call regulations and others call reasonable, consider Rand Paul's crusade for people's right to bigger toilets. Assuming there were not far bigger issues in this country and this issue was something worth dealing with, why do we have a right to bigger toilets? There is a fixed supply of water. A central authority, our government, manages this supply of water for the benefit of everyone and the environment. I think this is only fair.
"How can we be free, when the water we drink is owned by some company." Ultimately, this could happen in an American libertarian society (and it has happened in other countries). So while it is partially true, that the size of our toilets is regulated, it doesn't really limit freedom as much as freedom would be limited by removing the regulation.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
"Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan
"Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan
Tell that to the billions of people working 70 hour weeks in China, India, and Africa who are still undernourished. Are they free?
If you study the effects of what Americans call free markets, you would not be surprised that some people become extraordinarily wealthy while many become poorer and poorer. Adam Smith himself was a government regulator. He believed in regulations on markets and laid out very specific criteria for which a true free market could operate. He is often quoted by conservatives, but if you actually read his works, you will find that he was more in line with modern day progressives.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
Say what you want about the rights of businesses. All I know is that something is very wrong when Apple makes >40% profit, the CEO makes billions per year, the board of directors makes hundreds of millions per year, the stockholders get double digit returns for DOING NOTHING and the people who make the actual product work 70 hour weeks JUST TO SURVIVE, living in a $#@!ty room with 7 other equally depressed people, eating $#@!ty food.
If you really care about freedom, you wouldn't be touting the free market so much.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
"Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan
I'm sure there is a better free market solution to that problem, but for arguments sake, Ill give you that. What Stein proposes is flat out overregulation. Government should ideally have a FEW laws and strict enforcement. Just like any business. Stein wants a law for everything. It just doesn't work. She's just another example of a small minded person in politics. If someone commits a crime, her solution is they should just add more laws. She never considers that they should just eenforce the laws we already have or enable greater competition which could eliminate the problem better and with less costs. That's why I like Ron Paul. He gets to the root of the problem.
"Look, the American people have chosen to have a fiat money standard because they want a welfare state. You cannot have a gold standard and a welfare state at the same time. You have to make the choice. We have made a decision as a society that we’ll be dealing with the welfare state." -Alan Greenspan
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
Unfortunately, that won't work. Much like the Republican Party, welfare for the disadvantaged and least well off is not very popular in "communist" China.
I believe the idea is something along the lines of:
Those who were born in rural communities that are now industrialized will have to work their way to the top just like Donald Trump did. How dare I suggest that those who work 70 hours per week in a factory STEAL money from those who worked just as hard are now making 100 times as much in cushy office jobs.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, because that idea seems incredibly stupid, contrary to freedom, and selfish.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
Last time I checked, Mexico was not a socialist country. Am I wrong?
Also, there are LOTS of counter examples to this. The countries with the highest standard of living (a better measure of wealth IMO) in the world are socialist (or as they call it, progressive). Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, and the list goes on...
The USA may be the richest, but the lower standard of living shows just how corrupt and greedy the people can be.
Last edited by cdc482; 09-10-2012 at 03:21 PM.
“War is not real to us, but only too real to those that are needlessly killed.
Violence, when not in one’s own self-defense, can never be justified, no matter how noble the explanation.” -Ron Paul
Although I agree with you that she has her share of differences with Ron Paul on economics and government's role, I tend to think what she is saying is what she would actually do if in office, I can't say the same about Obama or Romney so in that sense if I had to I'd probably vote for her over Obama or Romney if I had to choice between those three. Of course if you add in Gary Johnson or a write-in Ron Paul option, I'm going to go with one of those choices first.
It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. -Samuel Adams
Connect With Us