Ron Paul

[Tancrisism]

Ron Paul looks like a promising candidate to the 2008 elections. He's a libertarian Republican who voted against the Iraq War in the first place and against the Patriot Act.

Here are his political positions.

I know most of you have a shit fit when Wikipedia is used, so feel free to use the references where the positions were first vocalized or put in print.

To make Republicans happy: He is "pro-life".
To make Democrats happy: He feels it's up to the state governments to decide whether or not it's legal.

To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Anyway, discuss.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

To make Democrats happy: He feels it's up to the state governments to decide whether or not it's legal.

Typical...But in this case, the so called "states rights" and "small government" republicans will claim that abortion should be regulated by federal law. Regardless, if he's really honest about this, he wouldn't be SO SO SO terrible...

To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

[JakeHero]

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

[uhnoesanoob]

Anyone who is a 9-11 theorist should be shot.

[Tancrisism]

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Typical...But in this case, the so called "states rights" and "small government" republicans will claim that abortion should be regulated by federal law. Regardless, if he's really honest about this, he wouldn't be SO SO SO terrible...

He's been extremely consistent with his views for ages, so I doubt he's lying.

Oh by the way, he's against the drug war as well.

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

I agree. Social Security is fucking bullshit too, we need to do away with that before it turns worse.

The only things I am not against when it comes to socialist doctrines are welfare (as it helped my family get back on our feet again; not everybody abuses it believe it or not) and limitation of monopolies. And of course the FCC and so on.

At 6/3/07 08:45 PM, Tal-con wrote: The last thing we need is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist in the White House. There's enough morons in politics, we don't need one leading our country, okay?

And where did you get this notion?

And no, I wasn't referring to Bush you retards.

It would have been all the same if you did.

[HighlyIllogical]

At 6/3/07 08:51 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Typical...But in this case, the so called "states rights" and "small government" republicans will claim that abortion should be regulated by federal law. Regardless, if he's really honest about this, he wouldn't be SO SO SO terrible...

He's been extremely consistent with his views for ages, so I doubt he's lying.

Oh by the way, he's against the drug war as well.

That makes me very happy – The drug war is too expensive and it's not working.

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

If you call protecting people a "nanny-state," then you're gravely mistaken.

[HighlyIllogical]

I like his "marque and reprisal" idea, but wouldn't that really just be inviting mercenary action?

I mean, it could be good, but that'd be like hiring, say, Blackwater, to take out Osama.

[MortifiedPenguins]

To abstract, has almost zero chance to win the primary or even his party ticket.

Ralph Nader has a better chance to win President then him.

[Tancrisism]

At 6/3/07 09:08 PM, Tal-con wrote: Well considering he went on Alex Jones' radio show, a man who runs the anti-American, anti-honesty website infowars.com, I would have to say he's pretty kooky.

Just because someone goes on a show doesn't mean they necessarily agree with what's said, although he is wary of what the government puts forth as truth.

Also, watch this video

This didn't say that he was a conspiracy theorist, it just said that he would like a new investigation to be put into it.

You see, this comment was directed at retards who irresponsibly believe the president is stupid w/o any reason for thinking so. Pity you didn't realize that.

I did realize that. It appears you didn't understand my statement. Pity.

[troubles1]

At 6/3/07 08:49 PM, uhnoesanoob wrote: Anyone who is a 9-11 theorist should be shot.

agreed

[JakeHero]

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

If you call protecting people a "nanny-state," then you're gravely mistaken.

Now that all depends on one's definition of protection.

[homor]

fuck ron paul.

leftist conspriscy assmunch.

[Elfer]

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote: Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

Yeah, we need to stop babying citizens with spoonfed luxuries like roads and education.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 6/4/07 10:18 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Yeah, we need to stop babying citizens with spoonfed luxuries like roads and education.

Actually, those are State powers and not Federal powers.

[Elfer]

At 6/4/07 03:29 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 6/4/07 10:18 AM, Elfer wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

Yeah, we need to stop babying citizens with spoonfed luxuries like roads and education.

Actually, those are State powers and not Federal powers.

Right, but states get their money by levying taxes. My point was that it's ridiculous to use a term like "nanny-state" when someone says that taxes are important for revenue.

[Dragon-Smaug]

I agree with Highly Illogical; taxes are important.

I was going to respond to the “nanny state” comment, but Elfer already did.

[JakeHero]

At 6/5/07 03:00 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but states get their money by levying taxes. My point was that it's ridiculous to use a term like "nanny-state" when someone says that taxes are important for revenue.

And like I said before, it all depends on what Higly consider protecting the citizens.

[Elfer]

At 6/5/07 03:28 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/5/07 03:00 PM, Elfer wrote: Right, but states get their money by levying taxes. My point was that it's ridiculous to use a term like "nanny-state" when someone says that taxes are important for revenue.

And like I said before, it all depends on what Higly consider protecting the citizens.

Well, this is just me talking here, but I don't think we could move the police and military to the private sector with no government control, you could get up to some seriously funny business, i.e. who's watchbugging the watchbugs and all that.

[JakeHero]

At 6/5/07 03:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Well, this is just me talking here, but I don't think we could move the police and military to the private sector with no government control, you could get up to some seriously funny business, i.e. who's watchbugging the watchbugs and all that.

Okay, I was vague before and should of specified.

I have no problem with local governments buildings roads and projects, or the government financing the military, what I do is the government subsidizing someone for a papercut. 51% of what the government spends is on entitlements, with less taxes, the government would be forced to re-evaluate what it finances(wishful thinking on my part), that's why I'm in favor of Ron Paul's economics. Highly argued these without these tax revenues the government would not be as effective to protect its people(correct me if I'm wrong), which is why I replied it depends on what you consider "protecting." To me protecting is maintaining the military and shielding us from foreign threat, whereas he might consider it providing welfare among other things.

[SirXVII]

I love Ron Paul.

I know I've only heard of his positions on Iraq at the moment and that might get him going forward. Some of his stuff is slightly questionable, but as far as I can see he is the best canidate out there.

I love Ron Paul and I hope to see him as president.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 6/3/07 08:35 PM, JakeHero wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:29 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/3/07 08:22 PM, Tancrisism wrote: To make anyone who works legally: He wants to get rid of the IRS and wanted to abolish the income tax.

Uh, that's bad. Bad, very, very bad.

Taxes are important for revenue, people!

Yeah, if you're maintaining a nanny-state.

Yeah, don't you hate it when those liberals try to make the government our nanny? You know, when they take away drugs away from you because "they're bad for you" (we're not kids reaching in a cookie jar after all), and then they spend money making sure that men aren't marrying men and women aren't marrying women while we have a national deficit and a crisis in a foreign country! Then they want to spend all this money monitoring us to make sure we're good little boys and girls with that darned Patriot Act! Then down here in Georgia they make sure we don't buy alcohol on Sundays, because they think gawd said so! It's like we're children that have to be dragged to church! And then when we're bad they say they're tough on crime so they spend more money executing people and sending them to jail for longer periods of time! The nanny is giving us a time-out! Jeez! They ARE maintaining a nanny-state!

Wait, what? You mean those positions are more often expressed by conservatives!? Oh... Yeah, small government my ass, conservatives.

P.S. Yes, I know the alcohol on sundays may seem like a stretch for some of you conservatives, but down here in the deep red south it isn't; our governor is in SUPPORT of the "Blue laws". I am aware that the Dems are not nearly all legalization, but you'll be even harder pressed to find republicans in support of legalization of pot and such. Cept for Ron Paul, he's more of a libertarian than the others. Most Republicans are only libertarian when it comes to economic issues. They have no problem suppressing individual social rights, but when it comes to economic rights, well they better not take their money! At least they have the anti-gun control thing right.

[Narusegawa]

Yeah, I think I like this guy. BUT GODDAMNIT I WON'T BE ABLE TO VOTE IN 2008!