Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Strangely enough, the Supreme Court for at this point 200 years has been ruling the opposite, but what do the most qualified constitutional scholars of case law know over the internet. But really, the federal government is completely within its power to regulate these things under interstate commerce and enforce national standards. Newsflash, this isn't 1799 anymore. States had more autonomy back then because one, they barely did anything, there were vaguely any roads or canals, there were no schools, no police, no fire departments, libraries, parks, multi national corporations, ect, ect. These things need to be standardized around the country or the country can't function properly(ask foreign investors, the US is still by far the largest recipient of foreign investment but companies hate the hodgepodge of regulation between federal, state and local laws.) More importantly though, this feeds into the fact it's not 1799. Our country was fist created in an era where most people never went more than 10-15 miles outside their hometown in their entire life. Most of us now travel farther than that to get to work daily. Most of us will live in more than one state in our life. We no longer identify ourselves by our state beyond it being a location where we live. Heck I can be on the other side of the country in 3 hours. We can't have 50 near autonomous units in an era like that and judges have consistently agreed over time with case law that federal power can be increased to fit the modern world as long as it doesn't interfere with the inherent rights of states. In fact it can often mean mandating a state to do something in some regard, albeit states normally have the power to set their own regulations and program rules(medicaid for example)

See above. Not 1799. National issues now.

I'm saying states have a gigantic degree of autonomy still, on a global level probably tied for first with Swiss cantons. When "state's rights" gets brought up on specific issues, most of the time it's because in said issue a state is trying to do something terrible and the judicial branch of the federal government has to stop them.

 

I understand your point, it is a valid one. But I still believe more issues should be left for the states. Because in the end we all want to be free and happy right? I say let the Bible Belt have their own policy, West Coast theirs, East Coast, North, Midwest, etc. The state in which you live is a lot more than just location. Attitudes and Mindsets change from state to state. People in different areas want different things. If we let them each have what they want, with limitations of course, then we could spend less time in endless debates and more time trying to fix the bigger problems that we are all facing....Or are bound to face if something isn't changed.

 

I provided like 5 examples of specific policies in detail.

But if you'd like, I'll list some policies that come to mind.

Abortion, gold standard, infrastructure, (roads and hospitals) Taxation, (regressivness) international relief funding, gay rights, (military, same sex marriage) enviornment, Education funding, science funding, food stamps, healthcare, school prayer, sarbanes-Oxly, school prayer, parks, global warming, emergency medical care, civil rights act...

 

Lode,

Some of those are legitimate concerns.....but not all of them.

One thing about RP that sets him apart from most human brings, is that he doesn't want to force his beliefs onto others (abortion, gay marraige/rights, religion/prayer, etc.). No matter what he believes in....he still thinks it should be up to the voters and not the government officials.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of attending to too much Liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Paul is not perfect by any means. But no man or woman will ever be. His shortcomings seem a lot easier to deal with than anyone elses.

 

do you people realize the green party was originally called the anti-secret society part? Ron Paul is the only way to vote as the other two are pretty much just taking orders from from the elite. Ron Paul wants to shrink the establishment which is exactly what we need as the other two will expand it. We dont need to be told how to live our lives and if we're safe...

 

Do you realize that Rosanne Barr is the Green Party Candidate?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

You know, yellowcab - it truly escapes me how you can make statements with such smug conviction that are completely inaccurate! Do you really believe that all people are so ill-informed with no propensity for inquiry, that
they'll just blindly believe what you say to be true? How do you save face every day? I would be so embarrassed if I were you!

It should interest you to know that trying to discredit someone like Ron Paul, who is fiercely strong on integrity and principle - and with a proven long-term record demonstrating this; is a fruitless endeavor; right? I mean, right?! The answer is, "yes."

Since you have no concept of what Ron Paul's stance is on anything; and I do; here are some Pearls of Wisdom comin' at cha; so the next time you want to participate in a forum about Ron Paul, you can do so by contributing valid information about his platform. That way, you won't have to be embarrassed about spouting off and saying things that aren't right. No need to thank me publicly, yellowcab - I extol the virtues of Ron Paul because it's the right thing to do - matters of principle are of paramount importance to me as well. The school bell's ringing, yellowcab - park your vehicle and come to class ..............

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"As long as we allow federal regulations and bureaucratic red tape to get in
the way of energy exploration, our country will never solve its energy crisis, and Americans will continue to pay the price in high costs."
.. Ron Paul

"Unfortunately, decades of misguided federal action have helped lead to
skyrocketing fuel prices, making it even more difficult for hardworking families to make ends meet. Washington’s bureaucratic regulations, corporate subsidies, and excessive taxation have distorted the market and resulted in government bureaucrats picking winners and losers. In fact, much of the "pain at the pump" Americans are now feeling is due to federal policies designed by environmental alarmists to punish traditional energy production; like oil, coal, and natural gas – and say we shouldn't tap into them - and instead, setting it up so the energy sources they want to use for their own betterment are used - and they just slap on a reason for it, calling it "more economical" - even though it isn't more economical."
.. Ron Paul

"Sadly, even with $4.00 a gallon gasoline, many are attempting to make
our energy crisis even worse by working to impose job-destroying carbon
taxes, or a "Cap and Tax" system;" even as we speak." ... Ron Paul

The taxes are now never ending - anytime the Government wants more money for themselves, they just create a new tax to get even more of our money. Ron Paul wants to eliminate all taxing of the American citizens
at every level - how can you say that's not going to be good for us,
yellowcab? The answer to that question is easy - you can't!

"The Free Market – not Government – is the solution to America’s energy needs." .. Ron Paul

A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron Paul will lead the fight to:

- Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast
amount of oil we have here at home.
- Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would
result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.
- Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.
- Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to
property owners in court for the damages they create – not to
Washington.
- Make tax credits available for the purchase and production of alternative
fuel technologies.

In conclusion, it is time for a President that recognizes the free market’s
power and innovative spirit by unleashing its full potential to produce
affordable, environmentally sound, and reliable energy.

(Oh, and the "racial" thing? It wasn't racial at all - he promotes racial
harmony. What he opposed, as usual, was the intervention of the
Federal Government regarding that issue. He owns an unflappable
stance on eliminating the Federal Government's intrusion in our lives.
Again, why would you not favor that position?)

--------------------------------------

One Of The Difference

--------------------------------------

"The purpose of the Government is to protect the personal liberty of it's citizens - not to run their personal lives, not to run the economy, and not to think that we can tell the world how they ought to live."
.... Ron Paul

"I am absolutely opposed to a National ID card that our current government wants. This is a total contradiction of what a Free Society is all about. The purpose of the American Government is to protect the privacy of all individuals; not to protect the secrecy of Government. We don't need a National ID Card." .... Ron Paul

 

Dude....you aren't helping, One OfTheDifference.

You got some shit twisted there buddy. And by personally attacking someone, it almost always discredits your argument right away.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Iode - providing this list of words as you have done does not explain what you think Ron Paul's stance is on any of them. One could write that list of words under anyone's name and it still does not define what that person's stance is on the subject. This is a trend that many folks indulge in - writing a list of words, but failing to expound on each issue. Many times, when they are asked to expand on each word, or issue; they are ill-equipped to provide a valid explanation for what that candidate's actual stance is on that subject (or word). I state this not to challenge you, but to request that you explain what you think Ron Paul's actual stance is on any of them.

As well, the most important issues that are really relevant to improving the lives of the Citizens of the United States; that Ron Paul stands behind - you fail to even mention! None of us will be in complete alignment with every aspect of any candidate's platform - what we go for is the candidate who has a platform that will result in changing all of our lives for the better; if he is elected to be the leader of our country. But something that makes Ron Paul particularly favorable (that you haven't even mentioned), is the
absolute fact that he has a thirty-year history of doing what he says he will do - of repeatedly voting against tax increases - 100% of the time!
Of voting against increased government intrusion in our lives. Of voting against senate bills that take away our liberties and freedoms, little by little. Of consistently maintaining a mindset that is in complete alignment with the principles of our Founding Fathers, and striving to re-establish
the foundation they set down in the Constitution & Bill of Rights. He was one of only 2 or 3 Senators who voted against Senate Bill S1867 - the one that Obama ultimately passed; after he promised us he wouldn't - and now
we can all be arrested and incarcerated without being charged with anything, and held indefinitely without trial. Just like what happened during the Holocaust. Ron Paul would restore our right to trial. Is none of this important to you, Iode?

The one issue you mentioned - "international relief funding" - since you did not provide what you think that sort of funding should entail; and to whom the American citizens should pay it to - but where have you been, dude?
America is broke!! Ron Paul says that Americans need to keep the money
in America for a change, so we can take care of ourselves and all the financially disadvantaged people living in America - which have been neglected far too long because we think we have a right to take care of the entire world. We can't do it anymore - we are ga-zillions of dollars in the hole that we can't pay back because of meddling in the affairs of countries overseas. We need to take care of our own and get them straight, because quite frankly, they have it coming first. That's part of the "Economic Recovery" part of his platform that you obviously know nothing about. Another issue you mentioned - "Taxation" - he's going to eliminate income tax! How can that be to our detriment, dude? I'll explain it to you: it's a good thing. Get with it, and look around you at what is really going on in this country before you ridicule the man that is best chance we have - the only chance we have, for hope for any kind of a decent future for ourselves. Go to his website and learn what the gentleman stands for
before you continue to spread erroneous information at everyone's expense; please.

I tell you truly .... if we do not see to it that Ron Paul is our next President,
then we are through; and I'm not kidding. You thought the Holocaust was
bad? You have any awareness of the vast number of "Internment Camps" that Obama has staffed recently? They did it for a reason. You think that doesn't tie in with the passing of Senate Bill S1867? Think again.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------

LetLovinTakeHold - what "shit" do you reckon I got twisted? I'm not challenging you, it's a sincere question. Sorry; I'm fiercely loyal to Ron Paul and what he stands for. This yellowcab dude is completely wrong; I was just providing valid information to the contrary.

One Of The Difference.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

This is very, very funny, BTS !! I needed a little comedy relief; thanks!

One Of The Difference

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a supporter of Paul myself. But the way you are saying things isn't helping the cause. Like I said, it's almost always a bad idea to insult people when you're trying to debate. Especially when the person you are insulting is actually pretty intelligent. Just because he doesn't agree with you doesn't make him an idiot.

Paul doesn't want to eliminate ALL taxes on every level. That's impossible. By saying so does not help your argument. Also, you make it sound like he thinks oil is the only answer to energy. He wants to utilize what oil we have, yes....but you fail to mention how his policies support the advancement of alternative energy. Which would be an important point, especially with this particular audience.

Last, but DEFINITELY not least. Don't ever compare the opposition with Nazis/Halocaust, etc. I know what camps you're talking about, and it's a BAD DEAL, but come on dude....doing that shows either complete ignorance to what Halocaust means, or complete insisitivity on a subject. A subject, mind you, that is so inconsievably horrid that no words can truly describe it. Once you cross that line, people are going to completely disregard everything else you have to say.

No matter how much I despise Obama, he's no fuckin Hitler

 

In my opinion, delegating some of those decissions to states is less free even if it's prefered by the majority.

For instance ROE v WADE. He would install supreme court justices against ROE V WADE, it would then be up for the states to decide, which is his position, that it's a state issue and not a federal issue.

Even if the majority of neighbors in your state are against your decision, they're still enforcing their morality on a woman.

 

It's Lode.

You can't critique me for being indirect. I've mentioned numerous specific policy disagreements.

You've babbled about the constituion and concentration camps.

 

He is right about Afghanistan and The Drug War.

 

Roseanna Barr is awesome.

But he has no problems with states doing completely draconian things. This is my point. Where exactly do states need more rights? What are they being oppressed on? The only time you ever hear of state's rights coming up as an issue is say back in 2003 with the Lawrence V Texas case, there were still 14 states that had sodomy laws on the books and Texas(among others) were willing to spend millions of dollars appealing it to the supreme court in an effort to keep them on the books. And Ron Paul said he'd support any state's right to keep sodomy laws on the books. No. States don't have a right to take away civil rights just because a majority in some states are absolutely retarded. Case in point, it's the same reason most southern states still have to seek federal approval to change their election laws or district maps, because the majority there still come up with plans that are so terrible in regards to minorities and the poor that they still constant get rejected by federal courts for being discriminatory. A lot of these states too are going to be really mad when they find out they do not have a constitutional right to ban same sex marriage. Or on the flip side, states do still have near total control over education, and many states have decided to use that power to ram creationism/intelligent design into high school science courses.

 

Um, thanks for the school invitation but I have already been, and you have basically listed the reasons why I would not give Paul my vote. Unleashing corporations to do as they please in the name of profit is not my idea of a sound environmental policy, sorry. And as has been stated in several earlier post while the EPA is far from perfect and definitely needs a good cleaning along with the rest of Washington the environment is much better off with restrictions on corporate dumping of hazardous materials. I know this to be a fact as I can see those results in the waters of the Great Lakes. But this all has pretty much been posted over an over again. And how do you see Paul winning the nomination because like I said his own party dislikes him. I do agree with his stance on the drug and rest of the wars but thats pretty much it. The no tax thing is a dream, death and taxes you know, and if it means I can drive across the country if I wish and not have a bridge collapse on me or the road buckling than I do not mind. His whole energy policy lacks vision for the future by allowing oil to ramp up exploration ensures we would be sucking the oil tit for the next hundred years. Then the world would be right back at this same place again but then there would be no options to get more.

 

"The LA Riots Only Ended when it came time for blacks to pick up their welfare checks"
Ron Paul.

To be fair, those were based on his (And that´s his and not one he endoresed) newsletter to which he says he didn't not know how wrote the comments. But the Ron Paul news letters went on for years with these kind of quotes which were not incedental, but an attempt to capture the zeitgeist of the white supremacist movement.

With a canidate who is against the civil rights act who would have power to appoint supreme court justices?

 

And from Obama's senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett, speaking to youths at North Carolina Central University on the positive aspects of unemployment.

"Even though we had a terrible economic crisis three years ago, throughout our country many people were suffering before the last three years, particularly in the black community," Jarrett said. "And so we need to make sure that we continue to support that important safety net. It not only is good for the family, but it's good for the economy. People who receive that unemployment check go out and spend it and help stimulate the economy, so that's healthy as well."

Most everything from the Left is made an issue of Blacks vs Whites, the rich vs the poor, or some other narrowly identifiable subgroups of society.

Most often this is the way things are communicated.

The opposition (anything Right of the Left) and the response (from the Left).

1. Taxes are too high. "They want to eliminate ALL taxes."
2. We have too many regulations. "They want to do away with ALL regulations."
3. We need to reduce the number of government agencies. "They want to destroy the environment, and kill people with unsafe drugs or poisoned food."
4. Anything related to recognizing and governing within the limits of the Constitution and the 10th amendment. "States would force their moral views upon their inhabitants" And that totally ignores one of the issues that enhances our freedoms above most every other Nation, the fact that we are not only free to move around and seek residence where we can exercise our freedom, and because of the 10th amendment such locations should be made available. Sovereignty begins with the individual, and it is governments responsibility to protect our individual freedom, liberty, and rights, NOT to provide them for us at the expense of others. Societies are built by the individuals who populate them, NOT by those who govern them, and prosper greatest when ALL members contribute productively. Government, especially over the last century has done great harm to our societies, dividing them against one another, primarily for the benefit of those who have made elected office a lifetime occupation.

Would Ron Paul reinstate slavery? I think not. Would he make any changes that would lead to the destruction of our environment, or our safety? I think not. Would he TRY to make changes that would restore our freedoms, and reduce the cost and debt of our government? Most definitely. But it needs to be recognized that it would require not only his effort as President, but that of the Congress and the people to accomplish any of the changes that need to be made. That is not the case today, as Congress, and even more importantly, the people have been made insignificant in what the Federal government can do.