Ron Paul 2008
Created on: December 22nd, 2007
ron paul 2008 vote in primary elections
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macai | $14.26 | amped | $10.38 |
| anonymous | $10.08 | elwackyone | $9.41 |
| Rudehealth | $0.18 | Ralynxi | $0.00 |
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $44.31 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2.92) | 275 | 13 | 478 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 20,483 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 50 | https://www.bing.com |
| 8 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
| 4 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | https://www.google.com/ |
| 3 | http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/ |
I know, lets vote for Ron Paul because some guy on the internet said to vote for him! Also, people keep talking about a revolution, and that sounds kind of cool, so yes, I think I'll vote for Ron Paul, because I'm too dumb to understand the problems with libertarianism, and I like the idea of living in a world owned by Wal-Mart.
I don't really know about comparing the United States to Europe, especially when looking at Capitalism vs. Socialism. European nations are fairly homogeneous in population and small; the United States is large and much more diverse. The immigration policies of Denmark and Norway are pretty strict, yet the US is getting a ton of flack for not letting people hop across the border at will to see their families
I think Ron Paul is a douche because: 1. He wants to eliminate public institutions of higher learning by privatizing the entire system 2. Destroy free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond 3. Oppose a national health insurance 4. Worsen the student debt crisis by further gutting programs like Pell Grants and Stafford Loans 5. Voting to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, allowing new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 6. For being against the graduated income tax which heavily disenfranchises the middle-class and poor 7. Being a racist and making ton of racist remarks (easy to do a web search on this cause he has made so many) 8. Being anti-choice laws and stripping women of reproductive rights (using the "states rights" argument to defend this position probably leans to why he's such a racist
). 9. Opposing NAFTA, WTO, the United Nations and all other neoliberal institutions and treaties (show how much of a "libertarian" he is) 10. Opposing Church-State Separation (wow, what a "liberterian"!) 11. Supporting xenophobic anti-immigrant positions. 12. Opposing worker's rights, workplace democracy and virulently against workers organizing themselves against exploitative employers 13. Fervently opposes raising the minimum wage and wanting to abolishing it 14. Wanting to abolishing Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare 15. Being content with genocide in Sudan by voting against a bill that would have required the Federal Government to divest from corporations doing business with mass murders in Sudan. Ron Paul (R-TX) has voted with the Republican party nearly 80% of the time. He's no independent-minded creature.
Finally, someone who attempts to argue like an adult. 1.) Wrong. He only wants to get the federal government out of public education, and leave the states and the towns/cities to run their own systems. 2.) Wrong, explained with answer to 1. 3.) Nationalizing things leads to artificial scarcities. People end up waiting in lines. Our current problems with healthcare come from artificial scarcities, including doctors (set by AMA), overly bureaucratic paperwork, various protectionist schemes, etc.
4.) If he were to do such a thing, which I could not find any claim of him doing, I highly doubt that it would be much of a crisis. You have to take into consideration that doling out such things artificially increases demand, which in turn, increases price. What would effectively happen is that the price of college could potentially come DOWN, in order to deal with reduced demand as a result. In other words, the market would stabilize.
5.) The price of oil is rising. You might not think drilling there was so bad if you had to pay $10 per gallon of gas. But shielding them from lawsuits? Wrong. Ron Paul has explicitly said he would go against polluters. Regarding royalties, do you have some more information on this? A very bright side is that the oil companies would receive fewer subsidies from the government. They would have to make their money legitimately. This would also save the taxpayers some serious money.
6.) How does going against the income tax disenfranchise the middle class and poor? By letting them keep more of their money? That's the most idiotic argument I have ever heard. Hey, if you hate your money so much, why don't you throw it down a toilet? 7.) Wrong. 8.) 'Anti-choice'? Are you saying that it is okay to murder babies? Why is it wrong to pull out a gun and smoke some baby in a carriage, but perfectly okay to throw some 8 month old, almost born into a dumpster?
Abortion is a complex issue. It is wrong to simply dismiss one side or the other. This is why he wants to delegate it to the states, and not outlaw it. By the way, the correct slur against pro-life people is 'sexist', not 'racist'. 10.) Since when did YOU care about whether someone is a libertarian, looking at your complaints on other issues from above? But anyway, he IS a libertarian. Those institutions are no more libertarian or free market than the Dutch East India Company.
11.) Oh, you mean like 'enforcing current laws'? THAT MONSTER! Besides, even with the laws currently on the books, America has the most liberal immigration policy in the world. 12.) Ron Paul is actually anti-workplace bureaucracy. Many of the workplace laws have a net effect of hurting employees. 13.) The minimum wage is nothing but feel good legislation which increases unemployment. Countries with higher minimum wages also have higher unemployment rates. The REAL minimum wage is ZERO.
14.) You heard wrong. Ron Paul wants to give people THE CHOICE of being a part of social security or not. Big damn difference. While you're at it, why don't you say that he is against ice cream, because he does not want to shove it down your throat? Besides, Ron Paul is actually one of the few politicians who would actually RESCUE social security from being mismanaged. If he doesn't win, you probably won't get benefits until you're like 130. Same thing with medicare and medicaid.
15.) Being content with genocide? No. This bill would effectively be just another economic sanction. Do sanctions stop Castro from abusing his people. Did North Korea turn into Disneyland after sanctions were applied? How about Iraq? Did it all of a sudden become a lovely tourist attraction when the sanctions were applied, or did it in reality become WORSE? Economic sanctions have a long track record of failure, from a humanitarian point of view, as well as foreign policy.
'Ron Paul is for conspiracy theorists and he also won't lead us forward'
He will send us light years ahead of where we are. Just bringing the troops home and ending the war on drugs alone would launch us.
'I prefer ... fascist everywhere else'
If you think lack of progress is bad, your ideas will send us back to the stone age.
No see a Fascist government can enforce any sort of value and fix society even for a temporary amount of time. If you can enforce a set of liberal values your set. Personally I like a 100% corporatist approach to economics Capitalism is un-unified and Communists are scum, though I'd choose the former over the latter. Granted I do not hate Ron Paul I just think hes not 100% right for me, though to be honest I'll be at least cheering in one aspect if -anyone- is elected other than Huckabee.
No there were about 4 or 5. The first was Fascist Italy, which was not inherently racist. Mussolini was in control from 1922 to 1943, and racist laws were adopted in 1938 to appease Hitler because of political reasons. Mussolini did not enforce any form of racism until then, and even when he did it did not come directly from him, he was reluctant, and was almost a slave to Hitler's will at that point. There were even members of the Blackshirts (Squadristi, AKA, Fascist Soldiers) who were Jewish.
Mussolini even criticized Hitler early on for his racial policies, saying they were delusional and fairly stupid. He thought they were nonsensical. He never liked Hitler on a personal level, despite appearances. Oh, and get this; at one point, he had a Jewish lover, not kidding. Margherita Sarfatti, look her up. The other Fascist governments were, yes, Nazi Germany; Hitler copied Mussolini's economic policies though in many ways his economics were socialistic, making it ambiguous whether he was a>
>true Fascist or not. The other Fascist governments were Francisco Franco's Spain, which wasn't racist, in fact one of the reasons Franco did not ally with Hitler is because he thought racism was immoral, or at least antisemitism. He was also a devoted Roman Catholic and was turned off by the rampant occultism in the Nazi regime. Also he didn't have much to give the Axis in the war, having just come out of a resource-consuming civil war, and despite being the victors, had nothing to give to the war.
The other Fascist government was Greece's 4th of August regime, which lasted from 1936 to 1941. It was established by Ioannis Metaxas, who actually repealed anti-semitic laws, and oddly enough despite copying Mussolini, ended up going to war with him, and the rest of the axis. They beat Italy due to Italy's army being, sorry to say, utterly poor, but were then invaded by the Nazis and lost to them.
The final regime was Romania's Iron Guard, which...I don't know much about them, I know they hated Jews, but I'm not sure if it was for racist reasons or simply because it was probably the most theocratic Fascist regime, as it was heavily Orthodox Christian and they hated anything that wasn't. Regardless I don't approve of religious bigotry ether way. Anyway one thing I should clarify is that being a dictator does NOT equal being a Fascist. Example: Augusto Pinochet was not a Fascist>
>he was a dictator that enforced Capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, Fascists do not like Capitalism, for different reasons than Communists. They dislike Capitalism because it enforces individual gain over the needs of the state. They believe in full Corporatism. Fact is, Capitalists can benefit from a Corporatist government, if they are Capitalists for the simple sake of making money and not Capitalists because of Libertarian principles. To a communist though, Corporatism is basically Capitalism>
>on steroids; it's essentially a communists worst nightmare, for that reason and of course for the obvious fact that a Fascist regime generally condones the imprisoning/torture/killing of communists. Also another example: Saddam Hussein wasn't a Fascist, he was a dictator who enforced Socialistic economics. And I don't even want to go into people calling their political opponents Fascists (or Communists) just because they don't agree with them, that's f*cking pathetic.
Well see understand this it would depend on what say Fascist government enforces. And the only thing I do not agree with in Fascism would be extreme nationalism, personally, I think it's somewhat redundant. Patriotism is alright, but thinking your better than everyone else based on where you live has never helped the world in any way, shape, or form. A Fascist government can theoretically, social-issue wise, enforce anything.
Well, see, fact of the matter is, Facism was never meant to be spread, it was Mussolini's unique idea that he used to save his country from communists and anarchists. So, by conservative definitions, there was only one Fascist country: Fascist Italy. Other people simply copied him, not usually 100% fully, and used it to enforce slightly different things, but as a rule they were all barriers against communism and it's not like Marxism in the sense it was meant to be a worldwide revolutionary idea.
Franco's regime called themselves Fascists. Mussolini, Italy and Germany thought of them as fascists. In fact, during the Spanish revolution, they sent over troops to help Franco defeat the communists and the anarchists. And it was not just in name either. Just like Mussolini, Franco had organized a coalition of state, church, military, big business and aristocracy/royalty. Just like Mussolini, Franco was anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-secular, anti-democracy.
Mussolini actually was secretly an atheist. The entire reason the Vatican is it's own country is because Mussolini made it it's own country. And yes, your right, Spain was built on Catholicism, but Mussolini didn't like religion being put before the state. He knew most of Italy was Catholic and they wouldn't support him being openly atheist, so he got baptized shortly after he became dictator, in public, to appeal to the public, since he was never as a child (he actually was raised socialist).
I'm a DEMOCRAT and I want Ron Paul to win!
Ron Paul is the only hope for our country! Right now the U.S. is an empire. and all empires are destined to crumble. Ron Paul will prevent this. We need to get rid of income tax and the IRS, which are evil. the U.S.A. was a free country before 1913 - before the IRS.
I've always disliked both the Bush and Clinton family. I don't think I can handle another one being president. bush, clinton, bush clinton. see the pattern? The Bush's want Hilary to win. It's not always about republicans vs democrats. They are just names to divide the country in two so that we can't think on our own. I would love to have an independent president but that will never happen with this system we have. Ron Paul is really an independent but he knows he can't win if he registers as one
I wonder how many people have changed or molded their political views around Ron Paul just so they can agree with him every step of they way? Also, his plan to let the free market solve the health care crisis is a joke. Major drug companies have grown too powerful. If you open up the free market, who in their right mind would even try to compete? It would be a failed enterprise.
Not necessarily. Coca Cola has been around forever, and you can buy cheap knockoff soda anyplace. Even nowadays, you can buy all kinds of cheap(er) generic drugs. The only reason why the effect is not amplified with the drug industry is due to the extensive patents that seem to last for an eternity, not to mention the FDA, which takes like twice that long to approve a new drug. Factoring these in, it becomes easier to understand why drugs are expensive as they are and that there are fewer competitors.
Soft drinks were always in the free market. This will be new for health care, and I honestly don't see a glut of new competitors moving in and thriving. Most knock-off soda brands make several other products to keep themselves afloat. Unless there's some business that starts selling cheap medicine, trail mix, knock-off cheez-its, and a bunch of other crap, I don't see new competitors lasting very long against these multi-billion dollar drug companies. I can see a lot of buy-outs, though.
Also, how the hell is this country going to get out of debt without the income tax? You're telling me "cutting wasteful government spending" is going to do the trick? The deficit is far too large. Even if he were to succeed in getting rid of the IRS, the Dept. of Education, and everything else, who's to say that every single state has the competence and ability to run everything for themselves? Some states will thrive, some won't. And the ones who won't are going to get awfully pissed.
Ron Paul is an expert with economics. He has already planned for it. If you bring the troops home, there goes a large percentage of the budget. Same thing if you shut down the useless department of education, shut down the useless war on drugs, the list goes on. FUN FACT: If you raise taxes, you will hurt the economy, slow it down. Ironically, what will happen is that less revenue will be generated. When Bush lowered taxes, revenue was increased.
Also, if states' rights were to be expanded as much as he wants them to be, imagine the confusion of different states having different laws. If you wanted to move, you'd have to look at every state in the nation just to make sure everything you want to do is still legal. There's bound to be state on state conflicts stemming from something that is considered legal in one and illegal in another. Divisions would be created. Before anyone says "constitution," I don't care what the constitution says.
Hah, that's an awfully rosy outlook. I wish this idea that Ron Paul supporters are God's gift to earth would die already. They aren't all geniuses. Anyway, my point is this would cause a trend of regionalism. You would start seeing pretty big differences between west coast states and southern states, for example.
Doesn't matter if they are geniuses or homeless schizos who live with rats. What matters is that if Ron Paul is popular enough to be president, then liberty itself would be popular. If that is the case, then there is plenty good reason to assure some crazy fascist wave won't take over the country (unless Kacen manages to get his hands on mind control devices).
I'm only interested in what works best...a sensible set of national laws that don't invade our privacy and protect our basic freedoms, while allowing everyone to live in the way they wish to live, as long as they don't directly prevent someone else from doing the same. There'll probably never be a front-runner with whom I agree with completely. I like Kucinich, but he's not going to win. I'll probably support Obama...I don't agree with him on everything, but for the most part he seems solid.
"I'm only interested in what works best...a sensible set of national laws that don't invade our privacy and protect our basic freedoms, while allowing everyone to live in the way they wish to live, as long as they don't directly prevent someone else from doing the same..." run far, far away from Obama then.
Well, Obama did go against the Iraq War in the beginning, but he doesn't seem to think we can get out until at least 2013. In reference to Iran, he was asked if Nuclear Weapons were appropriate. He then said that no options should be taken off the table. He also seems like he is considering sending our troops to other places around the world. He also supported the patriot act. To me, he sounds more and more like a Neocon, except uses enough smoke and mirrors to make it look like he is a humanitarian.
Well, if you don't take foreign policy seriously, that's your issue. However, the patriot act is most certainly not just foreign policy. It is a civil liberties issue. If you don't take that seriously, hey, good boys like you never get arrested or go to jail, do they?
Tell me, what is so special about Obama's domestic policies?
"That's why I was behind Kucinich, but unfortunately, that's not going to happen."
I am so sick of this "Lets elect someone who can win mentality". This is how Ralph Nader lost, this is how Howard Dean lost and John Kerry won, etc. This kind of attitude is destroying the country. I find it unfortunate that you feel unwilling to stand behind your favorite candidate, just so the other party can be beaten. The fact is, that many democrats are like republicans and many republicans are like democrats.
It's getting to the point where it's just one big party. It's just not good enough anymore to say that all you have to do is select someone who will beat the republicans (if you happen to be a democrat) or all you have to do is select someone who will beat the democrats (if you happen to be a republican). What you need to do is select candidates who you have personally analyzed and THOROUGHLY compared to the others. One can no longer be lazily partisan.
Every human being on earth who isnt an evangelical Christian knows how dangerous they are.Progressive nations combated them with quality education, social revolutions and government changes. In order to destroy them as a political force of evil, you need to understand why they are empowered. They take advantage of paranoia, poor education and nationalism to push destructive and repressive policy. Christianity all but died in the rest of the west, and few there are complaining.
You dont need to persecute them, just make sure that future generations don't fall under their spell. When parts of the country get disconnected from the world, this backwoods thinking arises, whether it be evangelical christianity in the US or extreme islam in the middle east. Disempower them politically and educate children to be wary of the problems religious fanaticism causes.
Yeah, that kind of thinking is the same as these Evangelical Christians you're talking about. What we need is understanding between all religious groups. Basically, not agreement, but at least respect, which I would say many Evangelical Christians lack. Then again, every religion has these kind of people. It's not really fair to single out Christians, even though I agree that the attitudes of many Evangelical Christians contribute a great deal to global and national discord.
You know what, what the hell is a liberal anymore, or a conservative, anyway? The definitions are so f*cking misconstrued. Things like classical liberalism and modern liberalism are completely different on economics and apparently the former is also Libertarianism. The definition and semantics of politics are utterly confusing and are loosing their sensibilities.
Sadly, I've been listening to the man for ten years because I live in his district. I was talking about his plans for privatization, federal spending and how the income tax helps to fund our highways. I continue to get his letters that he sends to constituents talking about he's not raising taxes and saving babies. That's why this past election they had to put a pro-war, pro-Bush Democrat up against him. He makes more sense than any other Republican but I really detest the man.
"He makes more sense than any other Republican but I really detest the man."
Oh, I see. You're more interested in a politician that makes you FEEL good, rather than someone who makes sense in the real world.
"Ron Paul said things that makes sense to my head, but Mike Huckabee said things that make sense to the heart" -- Steve Colbert
I don't really see how you "destroyed" a single passing example I had about this little toad. The only place where you conflicted what I had to say was about funding for the highway. State highways are indeed mostly paid from the gas tax. However, interstate highways are primarily funded through the income tax.
I WAS talking about federal highway funds and appropriations. There is an 18.4 cent gasoline tax imposed by the federal government. Now, please read carefully. That money, not the money that the states collect with their state gasoline taxes, is what pays for the roads that the federal government pays for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax#United_States_of_America
if ron paul became president by the end of his second term we would be completely bankrupt (even more so than now), the economy crashed, and ww3 already started
seriously he wants to get rid of the national bank and irs, anyone who has ever taken a history class or know anything about economics knows this is a sh*tty idea
oh and
hes already phailed iowa primaries, this guy it not gonna be president.
Seriously its funny on the internet and all, but he wuld make a terrible president
Yeah, even the racial issue is truly an individualist vs collectivist mentality. If you don't believe me, MLK said "I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of FREEDOM and justice.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER."
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link