Please everyone find out who Ron Paul is and why he may be our last hope for a progressive libertarian to reach the office of President. Don't be filled with dismay because this election like all of the others is filled with assholes like Rudy Guliani and Sen. Mc Cain. Visit RonPaul2008.com to find out why he is a good choice for the people who want to take back our nation. They call him Dr. No for a reason: He voted against the Patriot Act. He voted against the War in Iraq He voted against raising Congressional pay He will vote to abolish the IRS and the Fed Suprised that you haven't heard about him....I'm not, the mainstream media has virtually put in effect a blackout against him. He was at the MSNBC Republican debate as well as had appearances on the Colbert Report, HBO's Bill Maher, etc....but has been ignored in many press forums. Please register as a.....gasp...Republican!!!! and vote for the good Doctor's opportunity to represent the Republican party in the 2008 Presidential Election. I dont normally support any candidates and have actually been leaning more and more towards philosophical anarchism (or Jeffersonian Democracy) but I have met Ron Paul and have learned his stances on issues. He is the man to support, and is unlike any of the other candidates in the field, and will not be bought by corporate interests!!! www.ronpaul2008.com to see what all of the internet buzz is all about BTW....Dennis Kucinich is not the only hope for decriminalization of marijuana, I had the pleasure of discussing this with the good doctor and he is unequivocally against the sham War on Drugs.
Ron Paul is our only hope for our American Republic! Without him we will have more of the same selling out of America to corporate interests! Say hello to Ron Paul, or say hello to the NORTH AMERICAN UNION, and say goodbye to the United States of America! It's that serious! (for more on the North American Union, google "Security and Prosperity Partnership") Peace
Do you hippies know much about this man? Ron Paul is against abortion and stem cell research, he voted for the banning of gay adoptions in 1999, voted against beefing up drug control on the Mexican border, voted against the Kyoto protocol, he supports guns, he voted against the banning of physician-assisted suicide, he supports Bush's tax cuts and he voted against net neutrality. Most of these things aren't bad at all, unless you're a hippie. :tongue: Vote for a real Republican like Duncan Hunter, or possibly even the badass Fred Thompson. :H
And Hunter and Thompson don't feel the same way? Ron Paul is not exactly against stem cell research so much as he is against government funded medical research. When it does so, it becomes political and not about science. Plus, if someone objects to stem cell research should the government take their money and fund it anyway? Should the government take your money and fund a war you disagree with? http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul252.html You are for drug control and the War on Drugs? Ron Paul is not nor am I. I love, support and promote peace but I also support people's rights to have guns. Why shouldn't people have guns if they are going to use them responsibly? What is wrong with physician-assisted suicide? If someone feels that is what is best for them then I support someone's freedom to choose what they think is best for them. Ron Paul does not just support Bush's tax cuts. He supports lowering taxes and spending all around. I don't know about you but I am not crazy about paying taxes. I would like to pay less. I would also like to have less government, a lot less government. Do I agree with Ron Paul on everything? No, but I do agree with him on a lot of things, more so than any other candidate. Whether my opinions make me more or less hippie I don't know. I don't like labels anyway. What I do like is freedom and Ron Paul is the only candidate that I have seen who not only says he will work to give us all more but has worked to do so.
Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian Here are some comments I made about such thinking in the thread Bring in libertarianism “My question to the libertarian minded would be how would you bring in a libertarian type policies without helping the already rich and powerful? Low or no taxation would give the already rich an advantage Few regulations again would help the wealthy Little or no state welfare provision would seem to make it more difficult to get out of poverty Having to pay for healthcare, education or training would also give the richer an advantage. And repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage. In short even if brought in slowly the system would only seem to help out the richer and more advantaged in society?” http://hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151086 As it says on his official website “Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies”
I am not supporting anyone at this point. Don't the rich already benefit from this and so many loopholes many of them pay little or no taxes? Hasn't the promised deregulation of utilities already given them the upper hand, and allowed for abuses such as Enron and World Com Aren't we already there. Welfare and social programs have been cut to the bone, and recipients are required to jump through hoops already and participate in programs for retraining that have ended up to be profit making endeavors for big business, religious friends of the administration. The average worker already has to pay for these things themselves. Almost all protections for the working man have already been repealed or revised to the point where they already have no teeth. All these changes have already taken place under democratic and republican administrations. Isn't that just about what the other two parties also espouse?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZmPS0XmeBw 'makes a lot of sense to me! as for libertarianism benefitting the rich - I would prefer no govt intervention benefitting the wealthy over the current system of massive govt intervention assisting the the benefit of the wealthy. It seems to me that either way the cards are stacked in the favour of the wealthy, but in the current scenario they are using our tax dollars against us and to their favour. Think about it. Peace
I never said they didn't, but they are pro-military. There are many hippies shouting "YAY RON PAUL weed RON PAUL!)*!^#&!$#!)#!%&#@!)(!" Just because he is against the war on drugs and against the war in Iraq, yet so many of his views (and his voting record will back this) are so anti-hippie.... it boggles my mind. But then I must remember that hippies don't really think about things, and it begins to make sense :tongue: Yes. Its the only view of his I posted I don't agree with.... I mean, the rest of his views seem to be for the common good of mankind, but then he says that the war on drugs is pointless. Left-wingers and hippies don't like guns. Which is why their support for Ron Paul is really confusing to me. I have nothing against it... but you can rightfully assume that many people who are anti-gun and anti-war would be anti-death in general, therefore making Ron Paul an incompatible candidate for hippies. But Bush's tax cuts tax the poor more than the rich don't they?!*)#^ !*(#@!????!?!$#^!_!# I've never said hippie so much. ...):
I joined this place years ago thinking I was a hippie. I've yet to find a more diverse board full of action, but I can't say I've really looked. I like a lot of the people here.
The rich are always going to have an advantage. That is just the way it is. BUT under libertarian policies the laws would not be to their advantage. As it is now, the laws are slanted to give them and corporations an advantage over the less fortunate and those trying to start their own businesses and the self employed. I am by far not rich, but if I paid low or no taxes it would benefit me a lot. The rich have the means to find all the loopholes to get out of paying a lot of taxes and since they already have a lot of disposable income it would not really be that big of an advantage. It would help the middle class a lot as well as the poor. The poor would not feel disadvantaged by trying to better their situation and being hit with taxes. I disagree. It is the wealthy who put a lot of the regulations in place to begin with as obstacles to the lower classes from advancing. Highly regulating all aspects of our lives discourages creativity and people from action. Refer to the above about taxes. Reducing welfare along side reducing the taxes required to run them would help. Though as mentioned these programs have already been butchered and are not all that much of a help as they currently are. This is why libertarians dislike government. It is ineffiecent. A better solution would be to remove the middle man (government) and let those people who want to help the poor do so more directly by giving them money and help themselves or through charities. Since people would have more money from low/no taxes they could help more. Most people do anyway. But with libertarian policies, these would be in a free market (which they aren't now) where competition would improve quality while driving down price. That is a lot to touch upon but in general, removing a lot of the controls might very well stop jobs from leaving the US and actually bring them and many more back. With a lot of jobs available it would greatly help the middle and lower classes.
"Left-wingers and hippies don't like guns. Which is why their support for Ron Paul is really confusing to me." - Wave Owls Not Flags What a fucking idiot!
more on his views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgjI_WROg6w as for guns; a world without them would be better perhaps, but they are here, and most likely to stay. would any thinking hippie want only the govt and criminals to have guns? I think not. and anyway, guns by themselves are not dangerous. someone would have to pull the trigger. should we outlaw humans? personally, I own guns, and practice my Constitutional Right to own guns. I am a peace loving person, and would only use one on another as a last possible resort, but I would use one having exhausted any other possible means of defending myself, my family, my friends, or possibly even an innocent victim. It would really hurt me profoundly to do so, but I would choose protection over victimisation. Peace Love Harmony
Gun laws like abortion laws do not in fact run peoples lives. Marketers think they do and they've sold politicians on these items to the point where when neither of the two work they throw up flag burning, or gay marriage to the mix to throw people off the real issures. It's time we focussed on the real questions and demanded real answers. It's time we knew that they aren't going to take away our right to bear arms or seek a medical end to an unwanted birth. Not right away anyway, unless Bush can appoint a few more Supreme Court Justices that will vote party no matter what the constitution says. It's time to demand answers as to why Hurricane Katrina was handled so badly when we had funded a whole new department that should have had every contingency under advisement, it's time to ask why we went into a war we can't win, it's time to demand that Scooter Libby do his jail time, even though he's just taking the fall for an administration that used him to discount those that could have proven that Iraq had no nuclear projects in the tube. And so much more. It's time to see Enron execs pay up for the harm they caused this nation. It's time to know who sent the anthrax... It's time to ask what benefits NAFTA actually accomplished for any country, ten years later, and demand that the SPP be open to public discussion and congressional vote, before it becomes a fait accompli. It's time to know what's in the portfolios every congressman and their families before they entertain lobbies and buy their visions of new legislation. Without reading it themselves. How many that voted for NAFTA or other bills ever read the entire bills themselves. When Nader ask that question on CSPAN before NAFTA was passed he was the only one that had read it. It's time that goods from China and other places offshore were inspected before they were sold to the American public as safe. Only to find out later that they murdered our pets and are lacing our toothpaste with antifreeze. What exactly are we paying taxes for????
interesting thread, only one comment thus far, but im enjoying the debate. my one thought though is rather agaisnt libertarianism, if you abolish the regulations and taxes, sure the citizen will end up paying less to the gov, but in theory could end up making far less too, so much as to outweigh the benefits of not paying any taxes. Walmart payes its emplyees the minimum wage, which in the states i believe is about 5.10, thats the lowest they are legally allowed to go, with no regulations regarding how much employers have to pay their employees you can damn well bet walmart wont be keeping their wages at 5.10 lets say 25 percent of everything a minimum wage earner makes goes towards taxes, if thats so then roughly 1.27 wage drop would be the equivelent to not paying any taxes, so walmart would have to keep their wages above 3.83 for them (the minimum wage earners) to break even....except they wouldnt be breaking even, because they'd lose all their social services associated with their tax dollars. so instead of 1.27 going to the gov and having some come back in services, 1.27 goes to the share holders of walmart, and none comes back in services. that being said, with no minimum wage it would no longer be cheaper to outsource jobs to other countries, which would mean a stronger job market and less unemployment....less unemployment usually means more incentives for worker retention, but only so much incentive as to not make it cost prohibitive to keep the jobs local in the end how it would play out, i just dont know.
Is the reason he is not running as a libertarian because of the lack of votes the 3rd party usually get? Or is it another reason?
Hey Rat... obviously I know that everyone who posts here isn't a left-wing or a hippy. But many of the Ron Paul supporters are. Okay. Point out a real hippie that likes guns.
