Congressman Ron Paul

[Vasco]

That is the misconstrued definition given by his opponents. He is pro-life, yes, and he wants to repeal Roe vs. Wade because he recognizes that the federal courts have no jurisdiction on state matters. He has openly said he would rather abortion not be legal but would leave that up to the individual states and get the federal courts out of state related matters.

I don't know much about his UNICEF stance

Wouldn't some matters be better decided at the federal level though? Wow I was reading up on Roe vs Wade...so the decision was made because abortion laws violated the constitution, but people against it say the ruling itself violated the constitution. Heh.

Using redistribution of income as a reason for keeping income taxes, especially with libertarian minded opponents of income tax, is a big mistake. Redistribution of income is translated to government theft. It basically means taking money from those who earn more money and giving it to those who have earned little or nothing. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor sounds very noble and Robin Hood-like, but everyone forgets that Robin Hood stole from the rich that benefitted from unjustly taxed poor people and gave them back their money. He wasn't against rich people, he was against people benefitting from money unwilling taken from others (aka redistribution of income).

My stance on the idea is basically covered in my sig.

Well yes, but you have to understand not everyone getting welfare benefits are not necessarily "not working" for it. Tightening means testing is a way to make sure that those who need assistance can get it (i.e. the unemployed, young people with no skills, education or support, etc), which can be done through employment programmes (Work for the dole) and retraining schemes.
It's good to have inequality in income in society but if you have too much then it would probably become impossible for people with lower incomes to actually increase their income because they might not have access to basic education and health services.

 

[Omnis]

Wouldn't some matters be better decided at the federal level though? Wow I was reading up on Roe vs Wade...so the decision was made because abortion laws violated the constitution, but people against it say the ruling itself violated the constitution. Heh.

Look up the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

No matters that aren't in the Constitution are better decided at the Federal Level. That's why the amendment process is like it is. Roe v. Wade is a court decision, not an amendment.

Well yes, but you have to understand not everyone getting welfare benefits are not necessarily "not working" for it.

Actually, they are. It's still redistribution brought about through coercion, not charity.

Tightening means testing is a way to make sure that those who need assistance can get it (i.e. the unemployed, young people with no skills, education or support, etc), which can be done through employment programmes (Work for the dole) and retraining schemes.

Who pays for that? Eventually, the burden gets passed down to the very people these things try to help. It perpetuates dependence.

It's good to have inequality in income in society but if you have too much then it would probably become impossible for people with lower incomes to actually increase their income because they might not have access to basic education and health services.

Fallacy alert! It's good to have equity in a system, but we already have that. The marketplace is the automatic response for your idea of "too much inequality". Rome, the British Empire, the USSR, and countless other governments and peoples have all ended in failure upon adopting entitlement systems. Capitalism, on the other hand, has an excellent track record. It's why America became great in the first place.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wouldn't some matters be better decided at the federal level though? Wow I was reading up on Roe vs Wade...so the decision was made because abortion laws violated the constitution, but people against it say the ruling itself violated the constitution. Heh.

Look up the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Here, I'll go ahead and quote it for you.

Amendment X
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.

In other words, since abortion is not covered in the Constitution the Federal Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.

Well yes, but you have to understand not everyone getting welfare benefits are not necessarily "not working" for it. Tightening means testing is a way to make sure that those who need assistance can get it (i.e. the unemployed, young people with no skills, education or support, etc), which can be done through employment programmes (Work for the dole) and retraining schemes.
It's good to have inequality in income in society but if you have too much then it would probably become impossible for people with lower incomes to actually increase their income because they might not have access to basic education and health services.

Inequality in income in a society means that people who are working harder to achieve more are earning more. It is not hard to find people who come from low income brackets that do better for themselves than their entire neighborhood, but they basically had to live a completely different lifestyle from their neighborhood because the people receiving welfare have no true incentive to try harder. If someone fed and clothed you everyday why would you work for it? Welfare delivers a message to people with low incomes that the government feels they can't do any better and will help them out so they don't have to worry about it. Welfare hurts the people it claims to help. The same goes for Social Security as many people see that as their retirement and don't try to save any more.

And of course none of this even looks at those that abuse the system, which I somehow seem to know more of than people who actually believe themselves stuck.


By the way, can you honestly tell me that taking money from someone just because they have it to take is justified in anyway? If a man does it on his own it is called theft, if the government does it then it is called welfare.

 

[Vasco]

Here, I'll go ahead and quote it for you.


In other words, since abortion is not covered in the Constitution the Federal Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.

Touche.

Inequality in income in a society means that people who are working harder to achieve more are earning more. It is not hard to find people who come from low income brackets that do better for themselves than their entire neighborhood, but they basically had to live a completely different lifestyle from their neighborhood because the people receiving welfare have no true incentive to try harder. If someone fed and clothed you everyday why would you work for it? Welfare delivers a message to people with low incomes that the government feels they can't do any better and will help them out so they don't have to worry about it. Welfare hurts the people it claims to help. The same goes for Social Security as many people see that as their retirement and don't try to save any more.

And of course none of this even looks at those that abuse the system, which I somehow seem to know more of than people who actually believe themselves stuck.


By the way, can you honestly tell me that taking money from someone just because they have it to take is justified in anyway? If a man does it on his own it is called theft, if the government does it then it is called welfare.

Yes I can see where you're coming from, and there are a lot of problems with welfare system and people taking advantage of it, because there is that lack of incentive to work.
But there are ways it can be improved (Welfare to work, eliminating the pension by encouraging increased savings through superannuation) to eliminate those "holes" in the system.
I still think you do need welfare though. What about carers, who can't hold a job because they have to care for someone with a disability?

 

[Omnis]

Ron Paul's book went from #1400 to #250 on Amazon's bestsellers in less than a day after his Jay Leno appearance.

"He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!"

 

[FoolKiller]

Ron Paul's book went from #1400 to #250 on Amazon's bestsellers in less than a day after his Jay Leno appearance.

"He's catchin' on, I'm tellin' ya!"

They were discussing elections on the radio this mornhing and they were talking about how everyone says they have a plan for different thinsg but no one actually says what it is and the first thing that went through my head was that Ron Paul lays many of his domestic plans out.

 

[Omnis]

Lol, guys, look what I saw on Gameday...



Left of Corso's head.

 

[FoolKiller]

Anyone looking to support Ron Paul, but don't like putting bumper stickers on your car, I found a guy on eBay that puts them on car magnets. I just got mine this weekend. He claims that any profits go to the Ron Paul campaign. I don't know about that but I wasn't about to actualy apply a sticker to my car.

So, when the elections are over I can take it off with no fuss.

I wish campaigns would actually offer bumper magnets. I would pay extra for them and be more likely to buy them.

 

[Omnis]

I made my own magnets. They didn't last for so long though because the sun curls them up and if they get wet they sog. I bought those magnetic paper sheets at officemax and just printed out some stuff.

I saw some guy's website who is selling window clings which sound like a great idea, however.

 

[FoolKiller]

I made my own magnets. They didn't last for so long though because the sun curls them up and if they get wet they sog. I bought those magnetic paper sheets at officemax and just printed out some stuff.

I saw this guy's auction when actually looking for car magnets to make my own. But it is the actual vinyl bumper sticker sold on Ron Paul's official site on a car magnet, so I don't expect it to be affected by wet weather. I'll see after our "wintery mix" this weekend.

 

[FoolKiller]

OK, over Thanksgiving my whole family saw my bumper sticker and asked me, "Who is Ron Paul?" At first I laughed at how his campaign slogan just comes out of people's mouths. When I explained that he was a Republican presidential candidate nearly all had blank looks on their faces. I tried explaining his policies but I got the usual uninformed responses and just more questions. When I pointed out the fact that they were not as informed as they thought if they didn't even know his name they quieted down.

The only person who had even heard the name was my brother, but then my brother watches Bill Maher almost religiously. Even then my brother shut his brain off when he heard Republican Presidential Candidate, because he is a Democrat and refuses to believe there is a good Republican.

It was quite sad, my entire family was willing to tell me I was wrong but had no clue who the man I said I was supporting is. Whenever any of them asked me what was wrong with their current favorite I could tell them what issues I had problems with and where I disagreed and why. None of them coudl tell me why Ron Paul is wrong, just that he is, and it basically came down to he isn't (insert candidate's name here).

 

[Omnis]

You can work with them, FK.

 

[Swift]

Yep, that's the usual response from people on the left. Some republicans do it as well. But it's mostly lefties. They disagree with no alternatives.

• Why don't you like the Iraq war?
  
  Because it's bad.​
  Ok, what would you do?
  
  I don't know, just yank all the troops home I guess.​
• I don't like that Bush vetoed a bill that would've given children healthcare insurance.
  
  Did you know that bill included homes that made over 80K a years and 60 percent of the children would've already had insurance?​
  No...
• I think the government should run the healthcare system. That way everyone would get a fair shot.
  
  The government IS running Social Security and Medicare. Are all those recipients getting a fair shot?​
  Well, not really.
  
  So why would you give the government MORE power over your life?​
• and so on...

It's not that I mind people disagreeing. It's when they disagree with no stance or understanding that's pitiful.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yep, that's the usual response from people on the left. Some republicans do it as well. But it's mostly lefties. They disagree with no alternatives.

• I don't like that Bush vetoed a bill that would've given children healthcare insurance.
  
  Did you know that bill included homes that made over 80K a years and 60 percent of the children would've already had insurance?​
  No...

Funny, I had this exact same conversation with my brother. I listed who all they were going to be covering and his only response was "I hadn't heard that. Are you sure?" At which point I questioned his "better" news outlet (aka NPR).

 

[Swift]

Funny, I had this exact same conversation with my brother. I listed who all they were going to be covering and his only response was "I hadn't heard that. Are you sure?" At which point I questioned his "better" news outlet (aka NPR).

Some people aren't up on top of all the political information and that's fine. But at the same time, they shouldn't be so stubborn in their opinions if they don't have solid information on the subject.

 

[FoolKiller]

You can work with them, FK.

Well I sent quite a large email to my mother explaining what it is about her choice, Romney, that I don't like, his points that I can't see her agreeing to, and links to Ron Paul's Issues and Writings page. I pointed out that unlike every other candidate running he not only has ideas but has written essays on nearly every issue, why he thinks what he does, and what his actual plans to implement his ideas are.

From what I can tell of my mother her political opinions so far have been:

1. Pro-life (I pointed out Romney's flip-flopping on this issue)
2. Border security needs more than just building a fence (I have no clue who it is that she thinks is saying this, but Romney's first immigration point on his Web site is: Build a fence)

 

[Omnis]

Barry Goldwater Jr. endorsement:



Whoop whoop!

 

[Swift]

*Dr. Paul. Like I was saying, the collectivists have taken over. Ask yourself why more people like RP aren't in congress, and then do something about it.

Oh, and I suppose the founders had horrid foreign policy as well. You can't knock it when it worked when we tried it. Interventionism doesn't have such a pretty track record. I can't believe people think conducting foreign policy as the Constitution mandates and as recommended to us is so radical.

From the Mortgage Bailout thread:

No they didn't. And I don't disagree with the general concept of non-intervention. However, with us ALREADY over there. To just split would be anti-american as well. We all saw what happened in Vietnam when we got out too early. 3 million people died. We can't do the same thing in Iraq. THAT is where I think Congressman Paul's policy is flawed.

 

[Omnis]

From the Mortgage Bailout thread:

No they didn't. And I don't disagree with the general concept of non-intervention. However, with us ALREADY over there. To just split would be anti-american as well. We all saw what happened in Vietnam when we got out too early. 3 million people died. We can't do the same thing in Iraq. THAT is where I think Congressman Paul's policy is flawed.

So do we have to lose 300 thousand soldiers before we leave Iraq too? Millions of Iraqis are dead because of sanctions and the occupation.

Occupation is not American. Empire is not American.

It's not like we're going to leave Iraq and pretend like nothing ever happened. I'm sure we'll still talk and trade with them, but to have our military over there and money being spent on being a national paramilitary police force doesn't work.

 

[FoolKiller]

And I could swear that I have heard him say that he wouldn't just pull troops out immediately because he knows that isn't feasible.

I'd have to hunt through a few hundred You Tube videos to find that though.

 

[Swift]

So do we have to lose 300 thousand soldiers before we leave Iraq too? Millions of Iraqis are dead because of sanctions and the occupation.

Occupation is not American. Empire is not American.

It's not like we're going to leave Iraq and pretend like nothing ever happened. I'm sure we'll still talk and trade with them, but to have our military over there and money being spent on being a national paramilitary police force doesn't work.

Where didyou get that 300K from?

Whether or not Iraq was the right thing to do or not is a moot point now. But if we "just come home" like RP says, there will be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis AND a terrorist haven. That would be our fault. And since life is something that the constitution holds in VERY high regard, it would be anti-american to "just come home"

 

[Swift]

So do we have to lose 300 thousand soldiers before we leave Iraq too? Millions of Iraqis are dead because of sanctions and the occupation.

Occupation is not American. Empire is not American.

It's not like we're going to leave Iraq and pretend like nothing ever happened. I'm sure we'll still talk and trade with them, but to have our military over there and money being spent on being a national paramilitary police force doesn't work.

Where didyou get that 300K from?

Whether or not Iraq was the right thing to do or not is a moot point now. But if we "just come home" like RP says, there will be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis AND a terrorist haven. That would be our fault. And since life is something that the constitution holds in VERY high regard, it would be anti-american to "just come home"

 

[Danoff]

OK, over Thanksgiving my whole family saw my bumper sticker and asked me, "Who is Ron Paul?"

It works on multiple levels. It's great because it's so true, that few people know who he is or what he stands for. But it's also a take on the famous line "Who is John Galt", which is a quote from Atlas Shrugged, a libertarian minded book. (look just above my avatar)

(I'm sure you knew that, but just in case...)

 

[FoolKiller]

It works on multiple levels. It's great because it's so true, that few people know who he is or what he stands for. But it's also a take on the famous line "Who is John Galt", which is a quote from Atlas Shrugged, a libertarian minded book. (look just above my avatar)

(I'm sure you knew that, but just in case...)

I'm fully aware. Currently my work screensaver scrolls WHO IS RON PAUL?

And I have recently loaned both Atlas Shrgged and The Fountainhead to my best friend. He agrees with everything I say and has even said he intends to vote for Ron Paul after looking into him. He showed a lot of interest after I explained Ayn Rand's philosophy to him, so I felt I would only be doing him a service by handing him a couple of thousand pages worth of life changing literature.

 

[Danoff]

I'm fully aware. Currently my work screensaver scrolls WHO IS RON PAUL?

And I have recently loaned both Atlas Shrgged and The Fountainhead to my best friend. He agrees with everything I say and has even said he intends to vote for Ron Paul after looking into him. He showed a lot of interest after I explained Ayn Rand's philosophy to him, so I felt I would only be doing him a service by handing him a couple of thousand pages worth of life changing literature.

I also fully recommend Milton Freedman's classic "Free to Choose". It's a practical application of libertarian philosophy, and a good economics lesson.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Yep, that's the usual response from people on the left. Some republicans do it as well. But it's mostly lefties. They disagree with no alternatives.

• Why don't you like the Iraq war?
  
  Because it's bad​

• 
  
  My answer: it was unnecessary to attack in the first place. The notion we attacked them because they had WOMD proved to be false. The notion that we attacked because Saddam refused to co-operate with the UN had nothing to do with the truth. The true reason? Bush/Cheney and cronies want money, oil, and control of the region. They want to get richer. They have their own agenda. They thought the war would last 6 months, everybody in Iraq would be happy to be "liberated", and we'd look like good guys in the end. Has it been worth it? Most sources point to "no". Those who disagree are in denial.
  
  

  Ok, what would you do?
  

  I don't know, just yank all the troops home I guess.​

  
  My answer: It's not that simple. We've destroyed their country for selfish reasons...we have a responsibility to help them rebuild it. Ultimately Iraqis will have to take over and run their own country and then the majority of us can leave. Will this actually happen? I highly doubt it since the in-fighting that goes on over there will never cease. Minor differences in their religion causes a lot of this strife, and we can't fix this. Democracy will not help these monsters. Hate to say, but it'll probably take another Saddam-like figure who rules with an iron fist to keep things under control...
  
  

  [*]I don't like that Bush vetoed a bill that would've given children healthcare insurance.
  

  Did you know that bill included homes that made over 80K a years and 60 percent of the children would've already had insurance?​

  
  Is that all it included? Sounds simplified. I'm not 100% well-read on the subject as i'm generally a very healthy person, and i don't make it a habit to do stupid things that could land me in a hospital.
  
  
  

  [*]I think the government should run the healthcare system. That way everyone would get a fair shot.
  

  The government IS running Social Security and Medicare. Are all those recipients getting a fair shot?​

  
  Can't really agree or disagree here...i see both sides of the coin. The argument from those who want health care in America often say "well they have it in Europe". My view is: Europe has "free" government-sponsored healthcare, but those countries that sponsor this care also aren't populating as stupidly as we are. In some cases, their populations are actually decreasing. Health care that would guarantee a "fair shot to everyone" would cost a fortune in this country for the government if they ran it...
  
  ....and then you start thinking of the abuse many of our citizens would place on the system if it were in place. 👎
  
  On the other hand, we spend so much money on our stupid Iraq war, it seems better spent to help citizens who truly need it and can benefit from it. As i said, i see both sides of the coin. I think everyone (in a more perfect world) should have access to help it they can't afford it, but i also think some of the responsibility lies with us as humans, who don't realize we are overpopulating our country and this creates more and more problems in the long run. Should the government try and keep up with the cost of supporting health care for all these people that keep multiplying without a care as though we're entitled to do so? I personally don't think so.
  
  

  So why would you give the government MORE power over your life?​

  [*]and so on...

It's not that I mind people disagreeing. It's when they disagree with no stance or understanding that's pitiful.

Not all of us democrats (liberals...whatever) have no stance. I'm not sure where you're coming from with this argument.

 

[Omnis]

Where didyou get that 300K from?

Whether or not Iraq was the right thing to do or not is a moot point now. But if we "just come home" like RP says, there will be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis AND a terrorist haven. That would be our fault. And since life is something that the constitution holds in VERY high regard, it would be anti-american to "just come home"

~300k is WIA, not KIA; sorry about that. Still, KIA and MIA combine for about 60 thousand soldiers.

There might also NOT be hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis as a result of us withdrawing. Nobody knows for sure.

Your opinion amounts to keeping the military in Iraq forever. The primary motivation for the Islamic terrorist jihad is occupation of Muslim lands. They're there because we're there and we're there because they're there. If we come home, both sides will be in peace at home.

 

[Danoff]

My answer: it was unnecessary to attack in the first place. The notion we attacked them because they had WOMD proved to be false. The notion that we attacked because Saddam refused to co-operate with the UN had nothing to do with the truth. The true reason? Bush/Cheney and cronies want money, oil, and control of the region. They want to get richer.

Too conspiracy oriented for my taste - and from a practical standpoint, just plain silly.

Hate to say, but it'll probably take another Saddam-like figure who rules with an iron fist to keep things under control...

So you don't exactly believe in inalienable human rights then do you?

On the other hand, we spend so much money on our stupid Iraq war, it seems better spent to help citizens who truly need it

...because spending it is really the only option.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

Too conspiracy oriented for my taste - and from a practical standpoint, just plain silly.

You're blind. You're still blind. I think you're that guy i was arguing with back in the summer.

So you don't exactly believe in inalienable human rights then do you?

I believe that the only way this region will ever be under control (which is otherwise gonna tear itself apart) is via dictatorship. Monarchy. Someone who plops down, says "these are the rules" and that's that. Democracy will not work. Many of the monsters who are killing each other in Iraq are doing so because of minor differences in religion (and other such nonsense) and could care less about another person's human rights. Again, you're blind.

...because spending it is really the only option.

Unfortunately, this is the truth.

 

[Omnis]

I believe that the only way this region will ever be under control (which is otherwise gonna tear itself apart) is via dictatorship. Monarchy. Someone who plops down, says "these are the rules" and that's that. Democracy will not work. Many of the monsters who are killing each other in Iraq are doing so because of minor differences in religion (and other such nonsense) and could care less about another person's human rights. Again, you're blind.

If he's Ray Charles, you're Hellen Keller. Honestly, the people living in the middle-east are not beasts. What few are radicalized is the result of our intervention in the region against the Soviets and installing the Shah in Iran. What deep-rooted conflicts exist-- such as between the caliphates-- can be and was always settled between the involved parties. However, we unwisely took sides and are suffering the consequences.

Unfortunately, this is the truth.

Government doesn't make money to spend, they take money to spend. They don't have to spend; they ought to stop taking.