I am worried about HighTop's well being. Hopefully, he/she has some support around. Those delusions have to be unhealthy.
Because he's not crazy. That's the gist of it, and Paul is. Paul would literally destroy this country - after all, from my perspective that's what his policies would basically accomplish. He's not a true libertarian, after all. Paul's not advocating minimal or no government intervention. He's advocating minimal or no FEDERAL government intervention. If the states want to ban abortion, or do all sorts of things, Paul really doesn't seem to have a problem with it because of how loyal he is to state's rights. The thing about to me is this. Loyalty is something which I value incredibly, incredibly highly. I'll easily it's not a small reason I stay in the Republican Party still. But what Paul's advocating from my perspective, would transfer the loyalties of the people from the Federal government back to the 50 states, like we were before the Civil War when we were these United States and not the United States. If the states after all have all the real power, what do you think most people will end up doing? Libertarianism to me, is basically Marxism of a right-wing variety. The latter advocates that the State is supreme and that the individual only exists to serve the State or the people. Libertarianism, from my perspective, argues the reverse - that the people have utterly no responsibility to the state. I don't believe and frankly refuse to accept that. There's a crap ton more similarities - everyone knows that Communists like to play "The USSR wasn't true Communism" card, but Libertarians like to play "Somalia/The Gilded Age wasn't true libertarianism" thing too.
I thought this too at first but then I realized he was making the point that bigtexxx's contribution to my health care was itself the rebuttal, in that 1,000 points of light kinds of ways, suggesting that texxx's donation was an example of the sort of charity that libertarians like Ron Paul say would take the place of government safety nets. And KC's right: it's an effective rebuttal even if KC had to make it for him. And I was lucky to have texxx's help and I'm grateful for it. My next question is whether or not we want to rely upon that sort of charity and kindness in all things, in combination with market forces, maintaining the basic services we have come to expect as Americans? That is really the core question concerning strict libertarianism. Does the government have a role, whether in making sure our water is safe or in enforcing anti-discrimination laws, or ought we to leave all that to charity and market forces. If you believe the answer is yes, vote Paul. If not, don't. p.s. Thanks again for the help when I needed it, bigtexxx. For real. You're alright.
I don't think the people that would vote Romney because he looks the part are the kind of people who would actually watch the debates.
It probably won't ever happen, but I would love to see Paul and Obama debate it out... I think Paul has knowledge of the how's to the why's that Obama doesn't. I mean take Obama telling the people that he will help college's out who can provide ways to make it easier on the students. Paul's response is that Obama/U.S.A. have no money to help the universities with. What Obama really means, is that he is going to take money from people through taxation to give to college's. He is going to take money probably from alot of people who didn't get to go to college to help pay for someone who did. Obama is sugar coating the financial crisis America is in.
ToyCen, can you list a single piece of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul that has ever become law? Why not?
I think what we are doing right now is crazy. We are 15 Trillion dollars in debt and have a deficit of 1 Trillion every year. None of the other candidates have specified any real cuts to spending. If Romney/Santorum/Gingrich becomes President, we'd have tax cuts and more wars without any real spending cuts. Our debt would spiral out of control. We'd continue to steal from the SS trust fund to pay for more wars and overgrown federal bureaucracies. The Fed will continue to print more money and inflate our currency - stealing wealth from the poor, middle class, people saving for retirement, and retirees on fixed incomes (with that wealth going to Wall-street). Our civil liberties will continue to be crushed. Due process and the right to privacy will continue to be violated. When you give government the power to indefinitely detain (NDAA), spy on (Patriot Act), and assassinate (Obama Adm.) US citizens without any judicial oversight - they will abuse it. The Federal Reserve policies that helped create the housing crisis will continue to be followed. All the other candidates are in the back-pocket of wall-street - to expect them to put real regulations on wall-street is r****ded. Remember: Ron Paul voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagall because he knew what would happen if it was repealed. Paul is the only candidate not in the pockets of big bankers and I would infinitely trust him more than Romney to work with Democrats to regulate Wall-Street. It is ironic, but the effect of a Paul presidency would be to help save SS. This is because as the budget stands right now, we will either have to make massive cuts to defense spending or SS/Medicare. By ending our empire and getting out of the wars, it will be possible to save SS/Medicare for future generations. Romney actually wants to INCREASE defense spending and add an extra 100,000 troops to the military. He isn't living in reality - I mean, how in the world can we afford that? Kojirou, I think you have it backwards - voting for Romney is crazy. His policies would drive our country into a ditch. Although I could understand you supporting Romney if you were behind Bush for 8 years....
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/polls-santorum-leads-romney-in-michigan.php?ref=fpnewsfeed Santorum leads Romney in MI.
oh yikes..... http://pollways.bangordailynews.com...es-for-maine-caucus-complaints-from-ron-paul/ How does this HAPPEN?
lol but this is 2012! Rand Paul informed me recently that it was last year that they found thousands of uncounted ballots stored away in a safe back from the 2008 election. Problem after problem. Is this the process or the people?
Your candidate, who wants to repeal all income taxes, would serve the 1% more than anyone, at the expense of all those folks who rely on the programs that he would be de-funding. Luckily, there's zero chance Mr. Paul could get elected. Even people who are excited about his zero tax rate generally tend to be turned off by his pro-drug legalization ideas, or his isolationist rhetoric.
Have you not heard any of Dr. Paul's interviews lately? He addresses the "isolationist" accusation and points to him wanting to TALK to everyone, not put up sanctions that limits us/them. The war on drugs.... Dr. Paul also throws out that alcohol kills more people each year then mar1juana but most politicians drink alcohol so we can't make that illegal. You should also read the comments of a retired police offer from CPAC who explains how lobbyists spend big money keeping drugs illegal.
Except that in his proposed budget he isn't getting rid of the income tax or cutting SS/Medicare. For example, this is what he says about SS: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yQG2b2g9drA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> A zero income tax may be his ideal goal, but he realizes that it wouldn't be possible to go there anytime soon. Anyone who wants a balanced budget, an end to the empire & the wars and a restoration of civil liberties should really consider voting for the guy....
And if you TALK to a country like Iran or North Korea and they say no to your requests, then what do you do? If a country like Iraq invades Kuwait, do you TALK to them until they decide to relinquish the country? If a country slaughters its own people, do you TALK to them and ask them to stop? On drugs, Paul wants to legalize heroin and cocaine and meth, all of which are far more dangerous than alcohol. You can debate their legalization all you want, but it's a fact that those are much stronger, deadlier drugs. At any rate, that's great if you are on board with Paul's stances on these issues. The fact is, 90-95% of Americans are not, and they're dealbreakers.
I really should cite something more authoritative than Cracked, but no, not with you. Have you paid ANY attention to foreign news within the last five years? Do you seriously think we don't negotiate with our enemies? I notice you left out Medicaid for some reason. And I'll admit, the fact that Paul leaves the entitlements for the elderly who actually vote but takes a chainsaw to the ones for the poor is to me pretty hilarious, and is frankly pretty cynical from my perspective
Paul wants to return these to the states - do you know of any states that want to legalize heroinm, cocaine or meth?...
