Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

1) I favor no taxes at all because taxation requires government, and it requires that government taking something that isn't rightfully theirs. Higher taxes usually corresponds to more government, always promising to fix the problems it created in the first place, when really only robbing you of the money YOU earned to make themselves more powerful while the people have increasingly less and less. Once you understand (which you don't) money is fake, it begins to make more sense. You don't even talk about the hidden tax of inflation because you don't really understand how money works and how you're being conned.

You talk about poverty and people suffering, but you never address the fact that this is caused because of the economic system that creates money (and inflation) out of nothing. The government and the monetary system that runs it is what is responsible for poverty -- then it promises to make things better while really only giving itself more power and creating even more poverty and more dependence.

2) I already answered the question about regulation. The government and the corporations are one and the same, so I don't see how you can talk about regulations when the people doing the regulating are in the pockets of the people they're supposed to be regulating. Regulations help big business while hurting small business, because the biggest corporations have the money to pay off the politicians. Regulations are GREAT for the elite because they eliminate competition under the guise of protecting the little guy at the bottom, which could not be further from the truth.

THE REASON SO MANY CORPORATIONS ATTAIN AS MUCH POWER AS THEY DO IS BECAUSE THEY'RE SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT WITH TAXPAYER MONEY!!!!! THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS ALSO PAY NO TAXES WHILE THE PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM DO.

3) I don't think it should be the responsibility of those who work to pay the way of those who don't work. As far as job shortages and people out of work, most of that can be blamed on government and the money system, which causes such artificial instability. I don't think anyone should be left to starve or die of a condition without treatment. This is the reason MONEY itself is at the root of the problem. But I don't think people who work for a living should have to pay for others when money is fake and printed out of thin air anyway. Because of this, I don't think people should have to suffer and die either because they cannot afford something.

4) Education doesn't need to be scrapped, but get the government the fuck out of it so it works. It's funny that when education actually did what it is supposed to, it didn't need tons of money to work. It doesn't cost much to educate people, if educating and not indoctrinating is what you're doing. I don't believe in government-funded brainwashing that teaches kids to accept tyranny and to love big brother.

5) I shouldn't have to pay for other people's health care so mine can suffer. But if we didn't have the monetary system we do, this would not even be an issue. People wouldn't need to go without, much less depend on the government to take care of them.

The issue isn't about wealth when wealth is artificially created by banksters who own entire governments, which serve ONLY as vehicles of control and always have. So the very root of what you're arguing I believe to be extremely flawed, because it's all in terms of what the system has taught you to think is normal and natural.

 

Rat

The problem is that wealth has too much power and influence in US society and therefore its governance.

And in practice your ideas would be more advantageous to wealth and are not that different from the neoliberal and right wing libertarian wish list.

1) low or no tax
2) deregulation
3) Little or no welfare
4) Free market (Social Darwinist) education, healthcare etc.

*

Oh I know you are telling people you can’t be a right wing libertarian because you don’t believe in money, but I’m taking that unsubstantiated and rather glib assertion with a large measure of salt, since it seems like just another wheeze to try and claim you are not pushing right wing libertarian ideas when you actually are.

 

*




I’ll ask again - of those that have come here and said they either support Ron Paul’s ideas or could vote for him – do you actually understand the extreme right wing and neo-liberal nature of those ideas and what kind of society they’d create?





*

 

Yet you REFUSE to address fractional reserve banking that creates economic instability and the need for people to depend on government in the first place. Why should the government tax people on money they earned, when that money has no real wealth and is already taxed enough through inflation?

INFLATION IS A HIDDEN TAX -- GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!

Ron Paul's views are completely antithetical to neoliberalism.

Name ONE neoliberal who is against corporatism and for ending the Federal Reserve.

Obama, Bush, Clinton.... those are neoliberals. More so, they're puppets, so it really doesn't matter what they are since the banking and corporate elite are the ones calling the shots.

I am not a fan of RP, but your claim that he is a neoliberal is false. Libertarianism is CLASSICAL liberalism, or classical conservatism today.

 

As I’ve said Ron Paul is a right wing libertarian and that is just one group among many that are basically neo-liberal in character. It is a free market ideology that has spreads in one form or another across a wide swath of politics.

And as I’ve said – Free market = plutocratic tyranny.
http://www.hipforums.com/modules/News/showarticle.php?threadid=353336

 

I dont think Ron Paul is the man for washington, He would be wasted. Washington will bend towards legalization when enough Top administrative Predudices or plain BS becomes to absurd for the public to swallow.

 

Hey most people i know are choking on BS right now...

 

I voted no, because I won't vote for anyone who wants to take away my rights as a woman, I don't care how badly they want to make drugs legal.

 

i wish there were not so many people thinking that abortion is a right. You have a right to prevent pregnancy and take responsibility for your actions too. you have a right to learn enough about your body to know when you are ovulating but that would take some serious awareness.

I bet there are a lot of women on anti depressants who have had abortions and cannot admit to themselves they were wrong.

Everyone of you are here because someone decided for whatever reason not to kill you when you were the most vulnerable. Many of whom never even considered it to be an option.

 

Though Ron Paul's belief is that abortion is wrong.. He is still does not want the federal government to intervene with such things as health care.. it would be a state matter.. if your state allows abortions... it will continue to do so unless YOUR state says otherwise.. He's still understands that it may be needed in the case of rape..

 

Look kids theres big ben... theres parliament ..

sorry habit..

 

I have a Question, it may be dumb but..if Ron Paul Did make it to office:
1. what would he have for a cabinet ?
2. He wouldnt necessarily have either side of the house with him wtha hey is up with that?

 

If Ron Paul wins.. technically he'd only have 9 seats to fill...

Secretary Of state: ?
Secretary of the Treasury: ?
Secretary of Defense: ?
Attorney General: ?
Secretary interior: ABOLISHED
Secretary agriculture: ABOLISHED
Secretary commerce: ABOLISHED
Secretary labor: ABOLISHED
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development: ABOLISHED
Secretary of Transportation: ABOLISHED
Secretary of Energy: ABOLISHED
Secretary of Education: ABOLISHED
Secretary of Veterans Affairs: ?
Secretary of Homeland Security: ABOLISHED

Officers:
VP: ?
White House Chief of Staff: ?
Press Secretary: ?
Director of the Office of Management and Budget: ?
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency: ABOLISHED
Trade Representative: ABOLISHED
Ambassador to the United Nations: ABOLISHED
Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers: ABOLISHED

 

A near clean sweep of things..I like that.

 

Er, wrong. He never said anything about outlawing abortion, but rather keeping it a states' right, as it should be.

I know this was already stated above, but I am saying it again.

 

If Ron Paul is truly the real deal and not just put in the race to throw people off, then I don't see him ever being allowed to win. Apparently RP and his fans don't quite understand this. One person cannot change anything with such a huge power structure in control. They would simply do to Paul what they did to Kennedy, except they wouldn't let RP get as far.

 

I dunno.. people are starting to question.. protest.. why not elect RP and then take him down.. only to be able to lay down more oppression on the masses by initiating some new form of marshal law

 

No....

I'll vote for the best option. Even it's obama, like last time, lying douchebag that he is.

And RP looks like a great guy, but a very bad president. A great governor, maybe, a great lots of things, but not a president.

 

I think a discussion of abortion should have its own thread (we haven’t had one for awhile)

Yomama I’ll use your post to start it off.

 

So I’m presuming they do know he’s an extreme right wing libertarian who’d give much greater power and influence to wealth – but they still support him – but why would you want that?