Ron Paul,The man America needs for President.

[Darkness]

That depends upon one's interpretation of the power & scope of the 14th Amendment. Certainly, amendments to the Constitution are legitimate altering of original intent.
It would've been nice though, if incorporation of the Bill of Rights had be clearly stated.

That is Sweden. High taxes here are squandered on foreign adventurism & the propping up of failures, a counter-productive endeavor.
The US is not very good at socialism. Either we're too stupid, corrupt, lazy or incompetent.
Now, even the Chinese are better at free market economics than the US.

The very failure you cite is also the direct result of regulation of real estate lending practices & tax policy, both of which encouraged borrowing to the hilt at inflated prices, creating an unstable market. Regulation per se is neither good nor bad, although it always has costs. The question is what kind of regulation should we have. I favor that which lets markets be as free as possible, while imposing sanctions against fraud, crime, & danger. Example - rather than CAFE standards imposed upon auto makers, a high fuel tax would also achieve efficiency gains, but companies & individuals would freely make their own choices about what to make & buy. We're gonna have to raise revenue somehow, so let's do it by a disincentive to foul the air & feed the coffers of overseas oil producers.

Piffle! If Paul is a moron, what does the make the buffoons & cheats currently running the show?

This is something often said....like "Jesus saves". Tis a mere article of faith which serves those who love to spend.
They don't analyze the costs of having to pay back the taxed/borrowed/invented money which they carelessly cast about.

You call it protection, but with the power to "protect" comes the power to restrict.

But he's my kind of ape-**** crazy. It's time to try a different flavor after the failure of "Hope & Change" crazy.

After talking/debating with you for over a year now, I would say that your intellectual foundations are more secure than Ron Paul. In other words, I can respect someone like Milton Friedman, who advocated libertarianism, because he actually makes an honest attempt to support his conclusions. Ron Paul, on the other hand, subscribes to a philosophy that makes **** up.

 

[Revoltingest]

After talking/debating with you for over a year now, I would say that your intellectual foundations are more secure than Ron Paul. In other words, I can respect someone like Milton Friedman, who advocated libertarianism, because he actually makes an honest attempt to support his conclusions. Ron Paul, on the other hand, subscribes to a philosophy that makes **** up.

He ain't perfect, but his made up philosophy suits me pretty well compared to other big league politicians,
whose intellectual foundations seem no more consistent & even less grounded in reality. (My philosophy is
made up too. My foundation is simply my own whims & ignorance.)

 

[Acim]

Ron Paul has come closest in last 2 election cycles to have me reconsider my stance on non-voting. I am a proud non-voter (which is off topic here), but pertinent I think because it demonstrates, that America isn't completely lost. To be clear, there are other candidates I would (theoretically) consider voting for, but none that have gotten as close to 'legitimate chance' as Paul has.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ron Paul has come closest in last 2 election cycles to have me reconsider my stance on non-voting. I am a proud non-voter (which is off topic here), but pertinent I think because it demonstrates, that America isn't completely lost. To be clear, there are other candidates I would (theoretically) consider voting for, but none that have gotten as close to 'legitimate chance' as Paul has.

Yeah, I can respect non-voting out of principal...to be always voting for the lessor of 2 weevils is not only dang near worthless,
but it gives tacit approval for the type of candidates presented to us. I think the kind of America I like will never be (& never
entirely was), but it's likely there will be something I can cope with.

 

[Revoltingest]

Breaking Ron Paul news!

» Ron Paul Goes After The TSA Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[tumbleweed41]

Ron Paul On the Issues... (Note, Ron Paul has a record of votes and issues that I support, but these following issues I find disturbing)

Abortion

• Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
• Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
• Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)

Civil Rights

• Civil Rights Act was more about property than race relations. (Dec 2007)
• Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
• Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987)
• Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Education

• Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007)
• Equal funds for abstinence as contraceptive-based education. (Sep 2007)
• Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007)
• Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
• Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Free Trade

• Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (Nov 2007)
• Voted NO on implementing CAFTA, Central America Free Trade. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Australia Free Trade Agreement. (Jul 2004)
• Voted NO on implementing US-Singapore free trade agreement. (Jul 2003)
• Voted NO on implementing free trade agreement with Chile. (Jul 2003)

Immigration

• Amend Constitution to remove aliens’ birthright citizenship. (Dec 2007)
• Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)

Jobs

• Minimum wage takes away opportunities, especially for blacks. (Sep 2007)
• No “sexual orientation” in Employment Non-Discrimination Act. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)

Again, there is much to admire in Ron Paul. And I support a large majority of his voting record.
But he is a little too conservative for my tastes

 

[waitasec]

naw...i didn't like the way he handled bruno in the botched interview...(sacha baron cohen)
he's too whinny...

 

[Mr.yadda yadda]

Breaking Ron Paul news!

» Ron Paul Goes After The TSA Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

Once again Ron Paul the only one trying to protect peoples civil liberties.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ron Paul On the Issues... (Note, Ron Paul has a record of votes and issues that I support, but these following issues I find disturbing)

Abortion

• Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
• Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
• Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)

This is an interesting set of facts. But there is a larger picture concerning his position on abortion. From his web site....
"....the ninth and tenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution do not grant the federal government any authority to legalize or ban abortion. Instead, it is up to the individual states to prohibit abortion."
I'd like to have abortion rights granted explicitly in the Constitution, but they aren't. Paul's position looks legally sound, yet it also comports with exercising abortion rights, albeit perhaps by traveling to a more sympathetic state.

Other facts about his positions can be similarly lacking in painting a whole picture.
I think of him as conservative, but with a libertarian bent.[/quote]

 

[Engyo]

I found this op-ed regarding Ron Paul's disaster recovery ideas fascinating.

Ron Paul’s ‘Galveston Model’ for a New America | GOPlifer | a Chron.com blog

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Ron Paul to me looks like the only candidate worth voting for.His work towards a limited constitutional goverment,low taxes,free markets,and return to sound monetary policies are unparalleled by anyone else. He's the only candidate who is truely for the people and the only politician who's principles can't be compromised.This upcoming election looks good for Ron Paul,will he make it?Hopefully,but other politicians i'm sure aren't looking forward to losing any power. So voice your opinion if you think Ron Paul is the right man for president, or who you think is and why.

Peace and vote wisely!)(

My great grandmother would make a better candidate.

= and she's dead

 

[Revoltingest]

My great grandmother would make a better candidate.
= and she's dead

If she could get the Dem nomination away from Obama, I'd support her.
The living impaired suffer such discrimination, even if they are allowed to vote in Chicago.

 

[Penumbra]

I'm not going to vote for someone who wants to eliminate the EPA and wants to eliminate income taxes.

The US already has more income disparity than than other large developed country; we don't need more. He seems like a decent guy, but politically, his positions look like pretty good ways to turn us into a third world country.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not going to vote for someone who wants to eliminate the EPA and wants to eliminate income taxes.

The US already has more income disparity than than other large developed country; we don't need more. He seems like a decent guy, but politically, his positions look like pretty good ways to turn us into a third world country.

One way to look at Paul is not what he wants to do, but what effect he'd have because of what he wants to do.
I'm in favor of restructuring rather than eliminating income taxes, but the former is a far far more likely result than the latter.
This is how I look at all candidates, so I don't get all worked up about outrageous but unlikely things, eg, wanting to teach creationism in public schools.
If Perry got the nomination, I'd be most concerned about his agenda regarding foreign adventurism & defense. The prez has a whole lotta clout there.

 

[Penumbra]

One way to look at Paul is not what he wants to do, but what effect he'd have because of what he wants to do.
I'm in favor of restructuring rather than eliminating income taxes, but the former is a far far more likely result than the latter.
This is how I look at all candidates, so I don't get all worked up about outrageous but unlikely things, eg, wanting to teach creationism in public schools.
If Perry got the nomination, I'd be most concerned about his agenda regarding foreign adventurism & defense. The prez has a whole lotta clout there.

But he wants to do those things, and even a compromise between the status quo and Paul's vision would continue promoting (and even amplifying, probably), the same problems that were caused over the last 30 years. We're already among the most right-leaning of developed countries, and he's in favor of pushing us even further in that direction.

I prefer the effect Paul has in Congress. I actually like him there (although I wouldn't vote for him to represent my district). I view him as honest, sincere, energetic, with a handful of good ideas (among the many, many ideas I strongly disagree with), and a good debater. I like that his voice gets heard, that he argues with Bernanke, and so forth. But I certainly don't want him to have any more power.

 

[Revoltingest]

But he wants to do those things, and even a compromise between the status quo and Paul's vision would continue promoting (and even amplifying, probably), the same problems that were caused over the last 30 years. We're already among the most right-leaning of developed countries, and he's in favor of pushing us even further in that direction.

Right leaning? Nah....I don't see it. I see him advancing liberty rather than reducing it.
He's more libertarian than conservative, & especially not neo-conservative.

I prefer the effect Paul has in Congress. I actually like him there (although I wouldn't vote for him to represent my district). I view him as honest, sincere, energetic, with a handful of good ideas (among the many, many ideas I strongly disagree with), and a good debater. I like that his voice gets heard, that he argues with Bernanke, and so forth. But I certainly don't want him to have any more power.

Well, of course not....you are a socialist I presume, since you post in that DIR.
It makes perfect sense that you'd oppose him. I daresay that you should oppose him.

 

[Penumbra]

Right leaning? Nah....I don't see it. I see him advancing liberty rather than reducing it.
He's more libertarian than conservative, & especially not neo-conservative.

Well, of course not....you are a socialist I presume, since you post in that DIR.
It makes perfect sense that you'd oppose him. I daresay that you should oppose him.

I mean fiscally right leaning. Laissez Faire. He's a fiscal conservative. America already has one of the most right-leaning economic systems compared to other developed countries, and I have no interest in going further in that direction.

I don't like some of his social views, but out of the social conservatives, he's one of the few capable of leaving them (mostly) out of government.

 

[YmirGF]

My great grandmother would make a better candidate.

= and she's dead

If Ron Paul really is the man America needs for President, then America is indeed doomed. :help:

I don't like some of his social views, but out of the social conservatives, he's one of the few capable of leaving them (mostly) out of government.

How so? His principles cannot be compromised, apparently. Do you really think the Zebra would forget its stripes?

 

[Revoltingest]

If Ron Paul really is the man America needs for President, then America is indeed doomed. :help:

I agree.....I think.

 

[Shermana]

I mean fiscally right leaning. Laissez Faire. He's a fiscal conservative. America already has one of the most right-leaning economic systems compared to other developed countries, and I have no interest in going further in that direction.

I don't like some of his social views, but out of the social conservatives, he's one of the few capable of leaving them (mostly) out of government.

What are the tangible differences in America's "right-leaning economic systems compared to other developed countries" when its soon to have the world's highest Corporate tax? Hate corporations all you want, the more you tax them, the less jobs there will be. 40% tax is right-leaning? If it was 50% would it be centrist?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/16/america-to-have-the-highest-corporate-tax-rate-in-april/