Ron Paul For President

Status
Not open for further replies.
Has anyone stopped to think about what Ron Paul would do if he were a dictator (no senate and house)? He would privatize every road (toll booths every stop light maybe?). He would privatize all schools. He would get rid of the CIA. He would take away all checks and balances from the huge corporations that already run this country. Poor people would be turned away from hospitals because they couldn't afford it (though this already happens of course). He'd get rid of food stamps and section 8 housing and we'd have people starving on the streets. The babies that would no longer be allowed to be aborted would live a nice long life of near slavery working for $3 an hour or less (with no minimum wage of course) for Burger King because their mother couldn't afford to send them to private school and they are dumb as a box of rocks. If you think about the innocence of babies, why does the baby have to be punished because the parents are poor? Right now we can at least say we educate everyone, even if in poor neighborhoods the schools are terrible. People hate paying taxes (and believe me I'm one of them) but we can't have no taxes, it just doesn't work like that. If Ron Paul had no checks and balances we'd quickly be like a 3rd world country with all rich and poor, no middle class.

Obviously Ron Paul wouldn't be a dictator, but it's still something to chew on. My vote is going to John Edwards for the sole purpose that he's the most electible person that wants to get lobbying out of government. Think where we'd be in 20 years if greaseball lobbyists like Jack Abramoff weren't around to corrupt the hell out of our politicians.
 


lnissen said:
Has anyone stopped to think about what Ron Paul would do if he were a dictator (no senate and house)? He would privatize every road (toll booths every stop light maybe?). He would privatize all schools. He would get rid of the CIA. He would take away all checks and balances from the huge corporations that already run this country. Poor people would be turned away from hospitals because they couldn't afford it (though this already happens of course). He'd get rid of food stamps and section 8 housing and we'd have people starving on the streets. The babies that would no longer be allowed to be aborted would live a nice long life of near slavery working for $3 an hour or less (with no minimum wage of course) for Burger King because their mother couldn't afford to send them to private school and they are dumb as a box of rocks. If you think about the innocence of babies, why does the baby have to be punished because the parents are poor? Right now we can at least say we educate everyone, even if in poor neighborhoods the schools are terrible. People hate paying taxes (and believe me I'm one of them) but we can't have no taxes, it just doesn't work like that. If Ron Paul had no checks and balances we'd quickly be like a 3rd world country with all rich and poor, no middle class.

Obviously Ron Paul wouldn't be a dictator, but it's still something to chew on. My vote is going to John Edwards for the sole purpose that he's the most electible person that wants to get lobbying out of government. Think where we'd be in 20 years if greaseball lobbyists like Jack Abramoff weren't around to corrupt the hell out of our politicians.
Click to expand...


You, sir, are on crack. Congratulations on creating a totally hypothetical situation that would never happen and has zero reflection on what would happen should Ron Paul get elected. Not to mention you're out of your mind to think that anyone in presidency would let half of that stuff happen.
 
Did you ever stop to read what the right wing said about Nader? The sky would fall if Nader became president! Before attacking someone who actually reads the issues and follows the candidates, maybe you should do a little research. Ron Paul is a through and through libertarian, and he openly admits it. Go read about what a libertarian is: Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I think you're missing the point of my post completely, so I'll explain myself. I'm not even necessarily against Ron Paul, the guy just scares me a little. IF he were given full power, I think it would be a huge disaster. That said, he wouldn't be given full power. However, people questioned Hitler and his antisemitism, no one thought he would mass murder people. Just because someone wouldn't have the power to do what they want, doesn't mean they don't want to do it or won't try to find a way to do it. My suggestion is, do a little research on this guy before you throw your weight behind him.
 
lnissen said:
Has anyone stopped to think about what Ron Paul would do if he were a dictator (no senate and house)? He would privatize every road (toll booths every stop light maybe?). He would privatize all schools. He would get rid of the CIA. He would take away all checks and balances from the huge corporations that already run this country. Poor people would be turned away from hospitals because they couldn't afford it (though this already happens of course). He'd get rid of food stamps and section 8 housing and we'd have people starving on the streets. The babies that would no longer be allowed to be aborted would live a nice long life of near slavery working for $3 an hour or less (with no minimum wage of course) for Burger King because their mother couldn't afford to send them to private school and they are dumb as a box of rocks. If you think about the innocence of babies, why does the baby have to be punished because the parents are poor? Right now we can at least say we educate everyone, even if in poor neighborhoods the schools are terrible. People hate paying taxes (and believe me I'm one of them) but we can't have no taxes, it just doesn't work like that. If Ron Paul had no checks and balances we'd quickly be like a 3rd world country with all rich and poor, no middle class.

Obviously Ron Paul wouldn't be a dictator, but it's still something to chew on. My vote is going to John Edwards for the sole purpose that he's the most electible person that wants to get lobbying out of government. Think where we'd be in 20 years if greaseball lobbyists like Jack Abramoff weren't around to corrupt the hell out of our politicians.
Click to expand...

I suggest reading a bit more about libertarianism. It doesn't mean no government regulation at all. That's called anarchy. It means having only as much government as we need. Enough to protect everyones life, liberty, and property. That means in some cases you would have to restrict powerful corporations from taking away the life, liberty, and property of individuals.

Oh and things like Roads, Police, Firemen, etc are payed for by State and Local taxes. Ron Paul is for getting rid of the Federal Income Tax.

And why are you bringing up abortion again? That decision would not be left up to the Federal government as said before.
 
lnissen said:
I think you're missing the point of my post completely, so I'll explain myself. I'm not even necessarily against Ron Paul, the guy just scares me a little. IF he were given full power, I think it would be a huge disaster. That said, he wouldn't be given full power. However, people questioned Hitler and his antisemitism, no one thought he would mass murder people. Just because someone wouldn't have the power to do what they want, doesn't mean they don't want to do it or won't try to find a way to do it. My suggestion is, do a little research on this guy before you throw your weight behind him.
Click to expand...


WTF? So you think having a big central (federal!) government doesn't create a huge power grab for the President in office??? Ron Paul is about cutting down the Federal government as small as needed. And granting more rights to State government, local government, and individuals. You know, kinda like our Founding Fathers envisioned...That means LESS power for him. Alot less.
 
DruSam said:
And why are you bringing up abortion again? That decision would not be left up to the Federal government as said before.
Click to expand...

I'm from the UK and I find it hard to understand why letting individual states make a decision about abortion is somehow an acceptable way of doing things in regards to this issue. The great thing about freedom is you can do what you want. No one is forced to have an abortion currently but if you let individual states decide on the matter then lots of women would lose the right to have a legal, safe abortion. To me, taking away women's right to control their own reproductive choices seems wrong whether its done by the federal government or by state government.

It really is bizarre to watch the debate though as it is a complete non issue in the UK. We simply don't have a 'pro life' movement.
 
Big federal government isn't the answer, I couldn't agree more. But cutting it and privatizing it isn't the answer either imo. He wants to privatize the FAA, watch his Bill Maher interview. He wants to privatize federal highways, sell them to private corporations that can ream us when we drive across the country. How do you think you cut federal spending? You do it by privatizing it.

Privatizing our army in Iraq is doing wonders for us so far:

A Pentagon audit finds that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government by as much as $61 million for gasoline delivered to Iraq. We go to Basra to speak with CorpWatch’s Pratap Chatterjee about Iraqi reconstruction and the more than 10,000 private military contractors on the ground in Iraq.


WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Halliburton cannot justify why it billed the Pentagon for $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait, the Wall Street Journal reported today, citing a new Pentagon report. Pentagon accountants said they are uncertain as to why Halliburton's KBR unit billed the Pentagon $1.8 billion for the expenses, which represent 43 percent of the $4.18 billion the company billed the Pentagon for logistics work in the Middle East, the Journal said. The Pentagon's audit report obtained by the Journal, dated Aug. 4, has not officially been released to the public. It found KBR's "internal control policies" are "inadequate for providing verifiable, supportable, and documented cost estimates that are acceptable for negotiating a fair and reasonable price." Pentagon officials told the Journal that no defense contractor has had its estimating system ruled "inadequate" in years.

There's a site dedicated to Halliburton scumming away our tax money: Halliburton Watch Sure you can ignore it and call it liberal bias, or you can read it and learn something.

Etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and I love the idea of less government, less taxes, etc. But look into HOW he wants to do it. I'll say it again, I'm not necessarily against the guy, but he scares me a little. FYI, more of my own personal political views lean consersvative than liberal, but I still like to read and know the facts.
 
lnissen said:
I think you're missing the point of my post completely, so I'll explain myself. I'm not even necessarily against Ron Paul, the guy just scares me a little. IF he were given full power, I think it would be a huge disaster. That said, he wouldn't be given full power. However, people questioned Hitler and his antisemitism, no one thought he would mass murder people. Just because someone wouldn't have the power to do what they want, doesn't mean they don't want to do it or won't try to find a way to do it. My suggestion is, do a little research on this guy before you throw your weight behind him.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? Anyone given full power would completely fuck up the nation. Depending on who they are they'd fuck it up in different ways. Look what's happening with the power the Bush Administration has grabbed over the past few years.

Even if Paul was elected for 2 terms he still wouldn't accomplish half of what he says. Even so, these days the government bureaucracy is HUGE. All of these organizations, branches, departments and everything are HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars. He would put the rein on it, hopefully letting people keep more of their hard earned money.
 
Kier said:
I'm from the UK and I find it hard to understand why letting individual states make a decision about abortion is somehow an acceptable way of doing things in regards to this issue. The great thing about freedom is you can do what you want. No one is forced to have an abortion currently but if you let individual states decide on the matter then lots of women would lose the right to have a legal, safe abortion. To me, taking away women's right to control their own reproductive choices seems wrong whether its done by the federal government or by state government.

It really is bizarre to watch the debate though as it is a complete non issue in the UK. We simply don't have a 'pro life' movement.
Click to expand...


Some people here feel that, after conception, the fetus is 'living'. Its been shown that it can feel things and hear things and even see things.

Theres some pretty gruesome literature out there about abortions, especially in late trimesters. They look damn near alive to me. Hell, there was once an abortionist that was supposed to abort a baby but, once the baby made it to the trash can, it was still alive! :eek:

As for why the states should choose, thats how our government was SUPPOSED to be setup. The crazy, religious, bible wielding rednecks in the south (Bible Belt) are alot more religious and may be more against abortion than the square, 9-5 workaholics in the Northern metropolis..es.. So, ultimately, we felt that each region and culture of people (broken down to the state level) should hold the power to their rights. Also, it makes things easier and more accessible when people are pissed off about a law they can go downtown as opposed to having to travel to washington.
 
I agree Barman, there hasn't ever really been a president I was a fan of. You can't really get to be president unless you are corrupt. Ron Paul will either have to sell out, or he'll never be president anyway. I just saw so much pro Ron Paul stuff I felt the need to post some of the consequences we might face if he were actually became president.

I live in Florida and they privatized getting your driver's license. I pay 3x as much as I did when I lived in Indiana and it takes about twice as long. The only person winning in this situation is the company that was given the government monopoly of selling me my driver's license at a profit.
 
Kier said:
To me, taking away women's right to control their own reproductive choices seems wrong whether its done by the federal government or by state government.
Click to expand...


But if you believe abortion is murder, you wouldn't be able to make that statement because murder is never the right of the person who committed it. It then wouldn't be about her body at all - it would be about the child's life.

Abortion is not a "reproductive choice." A reproductive choice would be keeping her legs shut in the first place, or putting the child up for adoption once it's born.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Romestar
lnissen said:
I agree Barman, there hasn't ever really been a president I was a fan of. You can't really get to be president unless you are corrupt. Ron Paul will either have to sell out, or he'll never be president anyway. I just saw so much pro Ron Paul stuff I felt the need to post some of the consequences we might face if he were actually became president.

I live in Florida and they privatized getting your driver's license. I pay 3x as much as I did when I lived in Indiana and it takes about twice as long. The only person winning in this situation is the company that was given the government monopoly of selling me my driver's license at a profit.
Click to expand...

There's no difference between a gov't provided service and a private comapny's service through goverment awarded monopoly. Without competition, there is no need optimize and innovate, basic Economics 101. Assuming competition is present in the things Paul wants to privatize, we'd all benefit in the long run. But then you have to get into patent reform and reform of gov't award monopolies and so on. I love Paul, but he does have his work cut out for him.
 
lnissen said:
Big federal government isn't the answer, I couldn't agree more. But cutting it and privatizing it isn't the answer either imo. He wants to privatize the FAA, watch his Bill Maher interview. He wants to privatize federal highways, sell them to private corporations that can ream us when we drive across the country. How do you think you cut federal spending? You do it by privatizing it.

Privatizing our army in Iraq is doing wonders for us so far:

A Pentagon audit finds that Halliburton overcharged the U.S. government by as much as $61 million for gasoline delivered to Iraq. We go to Basra to speak with CorpWatch’s Pratap Chatterjee about Iraqi reconstruction and the more than 10,000 private military contractors on the ground in Iraq.


WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 -- Halliburton cannot justify why it billed the Pentagon for $1.8 billion of work in Iraq and Kuwait, the Wall Street Journal reported today, citing a new Pentagon report. Pentagon accountants said they are uncertain as to why Halliburton's KBR unit billed the Pentagon $1.8 billion for the expenses, which represent 43 percent of the $4.18 billion the company billed the Pentagon for logistics work in the Middle East, the Journal said. The Pentagon's audit report obtained by the Journal, dated Aug. 4, has not officially been released to the public. It found KBR's "internal control policies" are "inadequate for providing verifiable, supportable, and documented cost estimates that are acceptable for negotiating a fair and reasonable price." Pentagon officials told the Journal that no defense contractor has had its estimating system ruled "inadequate" in years.

There's a site dedicated to Halliburton scumming away our tax money: Halliburton Watch Sure you can ignore it and call it liberal bias, or you can read it and learn something.

Etc. etc. etc. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat, and I love the idea of less government, less taxes, etc. But look into HOW he wants to do it. I'll say it again, I'm not necessarily against the guy, but he scares me a little. FYI, more of my own personal political views lean consersvative than liberal, but I still like to read and know the facts.
Click to expand...

The Iraq example is mute point, considering we won't be going to war over neo-conservative ideology or corporate profit, but rather the actual defense of America. And pretty sure Ron Paul didn't say anything about further privatizing our military.

I find it simply amazing that so many people believe Uncle Sam knows what better to do with their money than what they know what to do with it...absolutely mind boggling.

But really, is our government really so different from a corporation? Last I checked the second most powerful office in the United States besides the White House, is hands down the Federal Reserve. And the Federal Reserve is...tada...a private corporation...
 
DruSam I agree with everything you're saying, and I especially applaud Ron Paul for always standing his ground on the Iraq war. I read an article that said the Iraq war will cost us over 2 trillion by the time it's over. Most people can't even wrap their brain around a number like 2 trillion, that's 2,000 billion for God's sake.

As far as the government knowing how to spend money, I agree also. Though if you compare government waste vs. corporate waste on a lot of matters you'll see the same trends. And in my small amount of experience on privatizing, it just doesn't work. Maybe he has ideas in his head that would curb waste and corruption while privatizing, I don't know.

I think the question the future president should be asking themselves is, how can we cut spending without fucking over a huge amount of the population and without severe long-term consequences. Does Ron Paul have an answer to that? Somewhat I'm sure, and more so than other candidates. But do his solutions scare me some? Yep.

In order for business and the population as a whole to grow, there need to be laws and infrastructure. If you take some of those away, you don't know what you'll end up with.
 
My general view is that the way things are going now, we are moving too steep into a direction where the federal government has dangerous control over the people. Not only for monetary purposes, but also invading privacy. From what I can see, Ron Paul is the most aggressive towards people's rights, including those regarding privacy.

By placing Ron Paul in a hypothetical scenario of a dictatorship, that contradicts the ideology of the American form of government as well as what Ron Paul stands for. From what he is saying, I conclude that he is pro-people and individuality. I don't see where he wants to take a firm grip on the people of America, let alone play the part of a modern day American Hitler.

Sure, there may be a few things that he stands for that we don't agree on, however, judging from the current candidates, I would feel the most comfortable with him in office.....in comparison to the others. I get a gut feeling with most of the current candidates in that the other republicans give off an impression of being power hungry and vengeful. The democrats seem as though most would be willing to pull out of Iraq, but there's no telling what they'll get America into with their future decision making, including those in foreign policy.

Ron Paul has made a point to uphold America as its own "private" nation, not getting involved in foreign affairs. That America should no longer be the world police, and it sounds to me like he's the logical choice for people who would like to take a moment to focus on America and being instrumental to the growth of the country as a whole, the way it was meant to be. In my opinion, I just feel as though Ron Paul will lead America back to a pro-privacy, pro-individual, pro-capitalist nation, while most other candidates just seem to want power over the people.
 
DruSam said:
I find it simply amazing that so many people believe Uncle Sam knows what better to do with their money than what they know what to do with it...absolutely mind boggling.
Click to expand...

I *totally* agree. Well said. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom