Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Coming back to this, the election is totally going downhill. I don't need to explain anything about Romney for ya'll to know this. I'm sure you know. It was good to hope we might have a leader that actually cares about the people.

 

The Democrat and Republican parties always go out of their way to provide the people with a 'heads they win, tails we (the people) lose' choice of candidates, and I think it has been clear from the start that Romney is the choice of both parties to be the Republican candidate.

 

I would. His views are the only ones that aren't completely bigoted. Too bad there's no way he'll be the nominee.

 

Both the Democrat and Republican parties have a common agenda differing only in the means by which they accomplish it.

Both parties recognize the fact that they would suffer a severe setback in achieving their common goal if someone such as Ron Paul were to be elected as he would once again provide the 'people' a voice in their government, above that of those who now control Washington, by not just uttering the words "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States", but also adhering to it as originally intended.

I look at the Democrat and Republican parties as something similar to the AFL and CIO which combined, becoming the AFL-CIO as a means of increasing their power. Perhaps that might be the true source of Obamas stating that he had "visited 57 States, one left to go"? The AFL-CIO had 56 member unions in 2008, but now has 57.

While those on the Left accuse those of us on the Right of wanting to give more power to the wealthy, in reality it is they who are doing so by the promotion of a more powerful central government above both the States and the people, which gives wealth the advantage of exercising its influence at a Central location, needing only to influence a small number of politicians to achieve their goals Nationally.

 

^ I approve that message.

 

lode - you stated you want a government "based on progressive taxation and equitable treatment under law".

"Progressive": - Definition:
"A person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform,
especially in political matters. " (Source: Random House Dictionary 2012)

That said, you clearly have no clue what Ron Paul's stance is on taxation,
because if you did, then you'd be supporting him; because he is the ONLY
candidate who has a solid plan for tax reform - he will completely eliminate
Income Tax. How much more progressive do you want anyone to get?
He is the only candidate that has a thirty-year history of steadily voting
against raising our income tax rate. WTF??!!

And your last "want" - "equitable treatment under law". I'm here to tell you, pal; that any "equitable treatment" that American citizens were entitled to went out the window on New Year's Eve or Day; when our current leader betrayed the citizens of the entire country by passing Senate Bill S1867; instead of vetoing it like he promised he would. Since
you; again; clearly have no clue about Senate Bill S1867 and how it relates to you, I, and everyone else who lives in America; I'll explain briefly how we no longer have an entitlement of "equitable treatment under law" - unless, that is; we elect Ron Paul into office. He was one of only three Senators that voted against the passing of Senate Bill S1867, incidentally.

Part of the terms of S1867 have virtually done away with Amendments IV, V, VI, & VIII of the Bill of Rights; which have to do with just what you claim
you "want": the Constitutional right to be secure in our homes against searches without probable cause; the right to due process; the right to a speedy & equitable trial; and the right to "no excessive bail". The government can now arrest anyone without a charge and incarcerate them and hold them in jail indefinitely; without trial and bail. How does that grab ya?

Ron Paul voted against that, and will restore Constitutional Law immediately to protect our liberties & freedom because he will run the country in alignment with the principles of the Founding Fathers. NONE of the other candidates have any intention of restoring our rights. Understand?

Do you get me, sweetheart?

Perhaps it would behoove you to take the time to learn what Ron Paul's platform really is, instead of believing what you think it is - but are wrong about. People like you put the rest of us at risk because you continually push information that is completely incorrect - and you say it with authority, as though you know what you're talking about. Subsequently, you could influence folks who are uneducated about people & things - and you're feeding them completely incorrect information!! That is very wrong;
and you need to step up to the table and absorb correct information, so when you spread the info you have, at least it'll be valid. You & everyone need to understand that the upcoming 2012 election is not just "another election year". It is the most important election in our lives, and I'm not kidding. Ron Paul is President = peace, restoring our freedoms, liberty,
pursuit of personal happiness & happiness for the country as a whole;
economic recovery; countless lives saved by bringing all troops home; $4-Billion a month kept in our country by doing so; end Income Tax and
improve everyone's financial situation; end The Fed; end meddling in the affairs of countries overseas which will result zero backlash from countries
that we screw with; I could go on. But, Dude - if, after knowing what Ron
Paul will do for our country, you can still think he's not the best choice we've got, then there is unarguably something wrong with the way you think.
Any other Candidate is President = continuing the downward spiral to our complete demise; and I'm not kidding.

So, get with it and join us in fighting for the freedoms and liberties that countless men lost their lives acquiring over two-hundred years ago. Jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, because if you vote for anyone else, you vote
for the demise of all of us. This is the last time I will attempt to educate you.

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 convinced the best formula for preserving the American way of life and giving us all peace, is Freedom, Limited Government, & Minding our own business overseas." .... Ron Paul

 

Well I hope your enjoying your cool aid while your dole out another pearl of condescending wisdom on all us uneducated liberals. Seeing how your last attempt at enlightenment went so well.:willy_nilly:

 

Indie

You mean allowing the few to rule over the many? As pointed out many times now – originally only around 10% of Americans had the vote and even few had the ability to stand for office. Now you might think that would be OK seeing as you’ve already suggested that wealth should have greater voting power so it can block the popular vote but more democratically minded people would see such a system as only really serving a few.

OK right wing libertarians promotes tax cuts that would favour wealth the most. It would deregulate to allow the few greater ability to exploit the many, it would its promotion of a ‘free market’ would also give more power to a few to the detriment of the many. And its Social Darwinist outlook would condemn many to misery (all criticisms that remain outstanding).

Also as explained before wealth already gains much strength from a fragmented and disunited world an even more fragmented and disunited America is more likely to just increase its power even more.

 

One

You mean progression e.g. advancement is to you going backwards?

I mean this is incredibly backwards; it’s a move that would greatly increase the power and influence of wealth, allowing it to dominate your society even more than it does now.

As pointed out and explained many times now, most right wing libertarian ideas would result in increasing wealth’s power - criticism that no right wing libertarian has yet been able to address let alone refute.

A lot of the problems in US society and politics are the fault of neo-liberal ideas that have been prominent for the last thirty years or so and what is the right wing libertarian solution to that - greater more aggressive neoliberalism, neoliberalism on steroids.

It wouldn’t make the situation better just far worse – you say people would see that right wing libertarianism was a good thing if they looked at it, but those that have actually looked at it have seen the flaws and made their criticisms, now if it truly was a ‘good’ ideology then its supporters should be able to refute those criticisms but they don’t even try they either ignore them or claim they have been addressed when they haven’t.

Open your eyes right wing libertarianism is just a con game played by wealth to bamboozle the unwary.

 

Hey, sunfighter - do yer homework next time before ya make another statement about somebody that just ain't true. Check this out, for starters then come back and tell me what the other candidates have planned for the environment.

Most important things about Paul is that he will eliminate income tax, bring troops home and save us $4-billion bucks a month that we need to repair our broken economy. Most, most important is he'll run country by Constitution rules which stops government intrusion in our lives, etc. why would any of you not want that stuff? It's nuts to ignore that this is our last chance to regain our freedom - look around you and wake up, sleepyheads. Wake up before the oppression comes knockin' on yer door;
he's a rebel with a cause

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.

It’s 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.

 

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

"Ron and the Paulettes" - I like that, Balbus! Got a good ring to it, thank you so much! I think I'm going to use that on the 'Ron Paul' signs I'm making. And, you're damn right that "He's The Man" - and the only
honest politician in the lot of them - couldn't have said it better myself;
thanks again.

Love that label you spouted out: "right-wing libertarian/neoliberal" -
wow! That's quite a mouthful, dude! Would you define that mouthful for
us, pleeeze? Explain precisely just what your definition is for a "right-wing
libertarian/neoliberal"; won't you?

I suspect it's not going to come anywhere close to what Paul & we Paulettes embrace. Wouldn't it be a whole lot simpler; as well as correct;
to just say that Paul & his Paulettes coincide with the principles as set down in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? (The answer is "yes".)
And, isn't that the foundation upon which our Founding Fathers created our
country? Isn't that the way the country is supposed to be run? (you know, the same country that has gotten so far off the path of what's real, and what's right; to the point where children today don't even know what those documents are.)

Balbus - bottom line - if you can honestly say that: eliminating income tax; audit & end The Fed; bring the troops home and thus save the four billion bucks a month by doing so; protect the freedom, liberties, rights, and privacy of the citizens; prevent government intrusion in our lives - if you can actually say that you would not want these things that Paul will do for our country - then, there's either something very wrong with the way you think; or you are sadly misinformed. Reminder: there is nothing vague about just a few of the components in Paul's platform I just conveyed.

"Right-wing libertarian/neoliberal" my eye! You know, pal; anyone can invent a label for anyone else if they want to make 'em look bad or scary;
but it's not working here. I got a label I could slap on you real quick, but it's not my style; my integrity is intact and non-negotiable.

Get with it and join the rest of us that are dedicated to restoring the America that was founded over 200 years ago; or sit there in your living
room like a sitting duck and wait for the oppression to knock on your door.
You know in your heart that any other candidate will grab the torch and continue driving the car in the downward spiral to our demise. And, it ain't going to be long.

 

sunfighter doesn't need me -- but I think the reasons you listed ,just makes his case about protecting the environment

 

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

Balbus -

"Progression - eg - advancement"? You know damn well what I inferred.
And, the word used was "progressive", not "progression".

But, in actuality, going backwards is precisely what we do need to do; as relating to taxation; which is how the word came up. Do you not recall
that the Founding Fathers deemed not being taxed by the government so
important, that they included the issue in the Constitution? So, I guess I
must agree with you - you're right - we do need to "go backwards" in order
for us to comply with the rules set down by our Founding Fathers.

Your statement: "As pointed out and explained many times now, most right wing libertarian ideas would result in increasing wealth’s power ..."

Well, you've made the statement, but simply making the statement does not in any way whatsoever "explain" the concept - do so. Interesting; your
propensity in identifying an individual by a label you created yourself for them, as opposed to just referring to them by their name. Oh, but if you called them by their name, you couldn't get all those licks in that you're trying so hard to do, could you? You wouldn't be able to call them something they're not then, could you?

You say that the problems in U.S. society and politics for the last 30 years
are the fault of "neo-liberal" ideas - well, don't blame Ron Paul for that.
He is hardly a right winger, either. "Right-wingers" oppose extensive political reform - he is an advocate for drastic change.

So, you're not talking about him, pal; as you so ardently criticize right-wing politicians - you're talking about the ones we don't favor. So I guess you
should consider joining us Paulettes by jumping up on the Ron Paul bandwagon, no?

 

One

LOL – love the hip talk dude - however it doesn’t disguise the fact that you don’t actually address the criticism that right wing libertarianism is likely to make a bad situation worse.

Eliminating income tax – would benefit wealth a lot more than the majority.

As for bringing the troops home I covered that in post 470 where I explained why “Right wing libertarian policies in this area would make many Americans lives at the lower and lower middle class levels more difficult while vastly increasing the wealth power and influence of a few.”

And the problem with right wing libertarian talk of ‘freedom’ ‘liberty’ etc is that when actually looked at it usually turns of that their ideas would mean giving the few the freedom and liberty to exploit the rest.

The one where few men had the vote and fewer had the opportunity to gain office, the one were women didn’t have a vote, where slavery continued and where wealth had even greater power than today.

 

There's no choice for if you're leftist. I'm not a liberal (actually I get offended when people call me one), and I don't have a choice to vote for. Hmph!

 

Uglypuppy

Very true and I’d say that was one of the major problems with American political culture, what they get is basically right and further right, with the ‘pull’ always seeming to come from the right with no ‘pull’ from the left.

 

I'm an anarchist so I wouldn't vote regardless.

 

I agree with him on a lot of things, but there are some topics on which we cannot see eye to eye. I can't, in good faith, support him. He's just another old man running a crusade against women's rights. He doesn't want to talk about abortion and rape because it's too "tricky." Fuck off, bra. You know not of what you speak. You think because you've seen some things that disturb you that you suddenly get to make that call by overturning RvW? If you're going to leave it up to the states to decide, why not leave it up to the individual to decide? Why is that so damn terrible? I'm sure there are plenty of doctors who refuse to do it. We already know there are plenty of people who refuse to go through with it. You won there. You can't regulate morality. It's NOT a black and white issue, and the more you start regulating this shit, the more people will actually start considering these egg personhood bills and investigating miscarriages for signs of "foul play." It's all disgustingly invasive, and I am horrified that someone who seems so forward thinking in so many other areas would push a move that would send us right back to the dark ages in terms of reproductive freedom.

 

How so? It has been said again and again that "the wealthy" pay far too little income tax already. If that is to be believed, then how will eliminating what they do pay provide any further advantage or benefit?

One problematic issue is defining “wealthy”. Many of the standards for being “wealthy” seem too much dependent on one’s possessions rather than on actual income. Many who have, for years, earned a middle of the road income, lived within their means, invested wisely and perhaps managed to save some money for retirement, are now considered wealthy because they own a home and/or some small piece of property which may have appreciated in value due simply to inflation.

Other definitions of “wealthy” include those families having two incomes produced by professional services such as health care professionals, attorneys, engineers… many of whom live in areas with extremely high living costs earning what are considered high incomes. The US tax code does not permit deducting all living costs from one’s gross income to arrive at “net taxable income” – in some cases those with what might be considered high incomes actually realize no more real income than those earning much less in a different part of the country.

What you said in “post 470” was:

“Bringing the troops home” is in no way the same as “cutting military personnel”. Since most military expenditures are the result of deployment, even cutting the US military budget by 50% would not mean “cutting military personnel”. If the US military personnel currently abroad were re-stationed back on their home soil, more income would actually be produced for “many businesses and services” especially those located at or near military bases here in the US. And, military personnel could be tasked with other missions (as constitutionally allowed) providing overall benefit to the nation while still maintaining a state of military readiness.

I can find not even one position supported by Ron Paul that provides the opportunity for exploitation by “wealth”. Contrary to what you continually spout in regard to smaller government being more advantageous to the wealthy; it is larger government that provides for more influence by those possessing wealth by providing more available avenues, i.e. more opportunity for seeking and exercising such influence. History is certainly proof of that – as the size of government has grown so has influence – as influence has increased so has the size of government – one has fed off the other and will continue to do so.

Again, as usual, you distort the facts (I’m being kind) to support what you would have others believe rather than what is known: No one (at least no one nor any group thus far mentioned or named in this thread) has even implied support for removing or impairing the right of anyone to vote or hold office – no one has indicated support of slavery.

If one is to believe that smaller government provides such advantage to the wealthy and that bigger government so supports and benefits the middle class, what is the explanation for the tax advantage now so touted as the great benefit provided the wealthy by the gigantic machine of the current US government?

You can go on and on with your “good governance” rhetoric for an eternity. It will not change the indisputable truth that anything and everything gets more troublesome and prone to problem as it gets bigger and more complicated – government is not and never has been any different.

 

You don't get to redefine words.

Progressive taxation: A tax that takes a larger percentage from the income of high-income earners than it does from low-income individuals.

Read more: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/progressivetax.asp#ixzz1oHWftQnY
​

I'm stating Ron Paul's issues and my disagreement with them. Again, it's about the role of government.

Like about whether or not government should help Tornado victims. I say yes, Ron Paul says "You should have had insurance."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/ron-paul-tornado-fema-aid-_n_1321690.html?ref=politics

That's not freedom which you people bandy , it's just an archaic view of the role of government, and a very cruel one at that.