News Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[Char. Limit]

::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.

Before we get back on topic, let me just say I'm glad that you find this guy as loopy as I do.

 

[Woopy]

::FACEPALM::

Okay, not all libertarians feel that way! Please don't lump libertarian ideology with anarchism. They are fundamentally different.

Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest government

 

[Evo]

Ideally I'm an anarchist, so I just do libertarian because it's the smallest government

Get back to the topic or please stop posting.

 

[turbo]

One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.

 

[FlexGunship]

One little wrinkle in Paul's campaign. Many of his most ardent supporters/canvassers are actually too young to vote or participate in the caucuses. At least I'm assuming that you have to be a registered voter, as is the case in Maine.

Yeah, it's odd that he has so many young supporters. I'm sure a lot of what he says appeals to a certain naivete on the surface, but that's not to be confused with the way his ideas can appeal more completely to a sound economic thinker.

Paul's push to reduce reliance on the Federal Reserve is a genuinely good idea. He wants to abolish it entirely, and that might be a little too far, but it's clear that the Federal Reserve has an anti-market tendency because its an enabler of the "bust" part of boom-and-bust cycles by cyclically devaluing the money in circulation.

 

[mheslep]

Does any of this constitute a conflict of interest?

No, not at all. My point was his investment ideas are ... unusual in the extreme.

 

[mheslep]

... To assume that being poor or unemployed is the fault of the poor/unemployed individual is fallacious,

It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.

to not think it was a virtue for society to take care of these people is callous.

'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.

 

[Evo]

It is not the fault of the poor/unemployed, it is the fault of the bloated state and the people that created it.
'society' does not have virtue, society does not take care of people. Individuals, people take care of people.

And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? Consider that many of these were working, contributing citizens before they fell on hard times.

 

[Dotini]

Speaking of Ron Paul and compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded

I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video, but I suppose it could only be an ad. What do you think?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Speaking of Ron Paul and compassion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4&feature=player_embedded

I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of this video, but I suppose it could only be an ad. What do you think?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

It states that it's an ad.

 

[Dotini]

It states that it's an ad.

But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Evo]

But is it authentic?

Respectfully,
Steve

How often are ads authentic?

 

[Dotini]

How often are ads authentic?

I'm not always sure.

Yours,
Steve

 

[turbo]

But is it authentic?

Political ads are fiction and spin.

Paul's past newsletters are homophobic, conspiracy-theory diatribes, laced with racism. He has said that 95% of the black males in DC are either criminals or semi-criminal. That is not a claim that a thoughtful, decent person would make.

IMO, the next move is for Paul to come out with an ad that says that he really doesn't think that the US government conspired with gays to down-play the AIDs epidemic. The guy is quite a nut-case, and his past will come back to haunt him over and over again even if he does OK in Iowa.

 

[mheslep]

And since there are not enough individuals to care for the multitude of citizens that need help? ...

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

 

[Evo]

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

How many individuals would help if it was 100% voluntary? What would they do, pay my rent, my doctor and hospital bills, my food, clothing, etc...?

 

[turbo]

There are not enough individuals that can help? I do not know that to be true. But there is a 'government' can help? A government that borrows $3B/day?

Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.

 

[Woopy]

Just listen to Ron Paul talk man. During debates or whenever he is on TV, he speaks his mind and stays on topic with whatever he believes will help the country. I know he would never succumb to lobbyists, unlike the rest of the candidates. That alone would be enough for me to vote for him.

Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.

 

[mheslep]

Let's get back on track, WRT to Ron Paul. Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent? Demolishing social safety nets would result in sickness, death, and suffering among the poor, the disabled, and the elderly. The idea that taxation=theft has some traction with right-wingers, but it doesn't fly with average people.

We all pay taxes in the form of sales taxes, excise taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc... These are all quite regressive, since poorer people pay a large portion of their incomes in those taxes. "Libertarians" like Paul are dangerous, IMO. We can't afford to abolish the Fed, for instance, like he wants to do, but we should be able to keep the Fed from ruining the interest rates of people who save by shoveling free money at Wall Street.

Paul is a slash and burn kind of guy. Not the kind of person we need in the WH.

What do you hope to accomplish with this list of unfounded assertions and strawmen, assuming to speak for all average people? Should I respond "collectivists like Obama are dangerous, IMO", so there?

Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net, he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound, which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual. He also focuses only on the limitations of the federal government. I read opinions forgetting that the federal government is not the only government in these United States.

 

[Evo]

Evo and others, since you guys feel the need to help people so much, why aren't you out there doing it? Go work at a soup kitchen, give a homeless man lunch, something. Just please don't force your will upon the rest of us. If I want to help a man down on his luck, I will do it on my own damn accord.

We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?

 

[Woopy]

We pay taxes that go to helping those in need. You're in high school, right?

Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.

 

[turbo]

Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.

 

[ThomasT]

Does Paul think that every person who has some expendable income needs to adopt a poor person, and to what extent?

I get the impression that Paul thinks the needy can be taken care of by religious and secular charitable organizations, and state and local governments. But, afaik, history doesn't support that position. Hence, it seems necessary for the federal government to maintain an array of at least basic social services and aid for those who, for whatever reasons, can't provide it for themselves.

Paul's being against that sort of federal involvement is, for me, one of the main reasons to not vote for him.

 

[Woopy]

Don't try to reach the clueless, Evo. Most of the people railing against "taxing the rich" will never get to the income level at which they could ever be affected. Right-wing radio is pernicious.

I paid the max SS tax for many of my years of employment, and when I was self-employed, I paid both the employer and employee portions of that tax. I don't begrudge any of that. I doubt that many of the right-wingers posting here have ever gotten into that income range. Lots of posers.

Such posers are probably the foundation for Paul's ground-troops in Iowa. Why? If you break into the Bill Gates income level, you can hire enough lawyers and accountant to protect yourself from all taxation=theft scenarios.

I'm not rich, and I may never be. That doesn't mean other people shouldn't be able to be rich.

It's fine that you're rich. Just don't buy my government.

 

[Evo]

Absolutely not, and I was gone for a few hours because I had to go do manual labor to feed myself and keep gas in my car, among the other myriad of expenses I have. And I don't want you to give me anything either. Once I get through the college hoop and get a career, I won't be having to work with my hands anymore. But in the mean time, please don't assist me, I'm doing fine by myself.

Thanks, I was told to give you a break because you were just a kid.

When you rely on the government to take care of you, you become reliant on them instead of reliant on yourself. You are truly free when you can rely on yourself.

People have paid fortunes in Social Security and Medicare taxes, they are then entitiled to receive money back when they can no longer work.

 

[Woopy]

Well I would hate to go off-topic as per your rules. But, Ron Paul would get rid of social security in a heartbeat if he could.

Why would you need to pay into social security. I want to know, when you put money in, how is it expected that you will get back more than you put in? Where does this money come from, and how is it going to work on a large scale?

If Ron Paul doesn't win the election, it'll give me more reason to move to Norway. And yes I know it's not a libertarian society, but atleast ron paul wouldn't have the gall to invade another country to force upon other regions of the world to have the same government as us, unlike previous presidents.

 

[ThomasT]

Paul does not want to completely eliminate the social safety net ...

From reading a list of his positions on various issues I got the impression that that is what he, eventually, would like to see happen.

... he wants (as a start) to reduce it to levels that are fiscally sound ...

That's how anybody wanting to abolish the federal social safety net would have to start.

... which the current system is not. It is the current federal entitlement system that will inevitably demolish itself if left to business as usual.

I agree with you that lots of changes can and should be made. What I fear from an extreme libertarian like Paul is that, imo, his ultimate goal would be to abolish the federal aid system(s) altogether. Which, imo, would do much more harm than good.

 

[lpetrich]

All this "government is bad, government is bad, government is bad" rhetoric suggests something to me: anarchism.

If government is bad, then it should not be trusted to command military and police forces. People would then defend themselves, instead of being lazy about their self-defense and begging the government to defend them with the help of other people's money.

Then, of course, there's states' rights. Some states' rights' advocates seem to love statism when it's the states doing it. If the Federal Government is so evil, then why not dissolve it outright and create 50+ separate nations? Like what happened to the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia.

That seems to me like a recipe for economic and political weakness. Would these new nations become dominated by meddlesome foreign powers? Would they end up undoing much of their disunion by forming some regional blocs?

Returning to Ron Paul, he is very willing to be very statist about at least one issue. Abortion. Santorum, Paul Compete To Prove Pro-Life Credentials | Fox News

He authored the 2003 federal partial-birth abortion ban. He supported another federal law to give legal rights to infants born alive after failed abortions, and one that acknowledged unborn children as victims if they are hurt or killed in a violent crime.

So much for less government. He hasn't exactly had a position of "I don't want the Federal Government to take sides about abortion. That's why I want to leave it to the states. If that leads to abortion tourism, then that's just too bad."

 

[Woopy]

What do you mean statist on one issue? He's a statist on most issues.

Edit: why does fox new's motto say ''Fair and Balanced''?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think the idea is that if you tax rich people, then they won't invest in new companies and the end result will be fewer jobs. If I'm right about that, then the obvious solution to our country's woes is to give all of the money to a single individual. That should create the most jobs.