Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[vechorik]

You see compassion there, I see manslaughter at the very least.

in reply to my post:
I'm glad life is so simple for you, so black and white without having to think about gray areas.
I once thought as you. After taking care of a dying woman for 6 months, when she was very near the end and screaming in pain, the family removed her from oxygen and shot enough morphine into her to kill her. I only regret we didn't make that decision earlier. I hope someone is around to be so kind to me if I'm ever in that situation (and I hope you are not around).

eduardo89, as you grow in your spirituality and love of God, you will begin to understand something (I hope, because many people never see it).
A mature Christian learns to love God rather than fear God. A mature Christian is released from "the law that you so enjoy preaching to others."
"The rules/laws are NOT the way, the truth, and the light."

You said yourself that a person cannot be saved by their works. The same is true of being saved by following rules/laws.
One has to wonder how so many that claim to be born of the Spirit show no spiritual discernment about anything?

 

[Enforcer]

I disagree with Ron Paul on Immigration. I support an open border policy, which I believe to be more libertarian.

I'm also pro-choice on abortion, and pro-gay marriage.

Most other things I agree with RP on. I believe strongly in evolution, but I don't see how that's a policy issue.

Okay, I have now witnessed two different views. One is that Ron Paul is too harsh on immigration, the other is that he is too lax.

THIS is the Ron Paul I know (or knew in the day):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzZjmZ-1dc

Note that Ron Paul is against criminalizing immigration. Too many people today think immigration is "illegal." Therefore, while they try and tell us of how much they are "for" Ron Paul, it must be understood that the so - called "Patriot Act," The REAL ID Act, warrant less searches, the creation of the TRILLION DOLLAR agencies like the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security, and the repeal of the Bill of Rights were all by - products of anti - immigrant hysteria. The so - called "Patriot Act" is also subtitled Border Security.

At the other end of the spectrum, neither side seems to understand that you simply cannot force every person that passes through America to be required to become a citizen. A simple Guest Worker program with no automatic path to citizenship would resolve this issue once and for all.

 

[otherone]

Note that Ron Paul is against criminalizing immigration. Too many people today think immigration is "illegal."

 

[Jason525]

I don't support what he says on the campaign trail about who committed the 9/11 attacks. Other than that, I'm pretty much lock step with him on everything.

He's probably just being smart about not talking about the real issues concerning the 9/11 attacks.

Not everyone is a 9/11 truther.

 

[walt]

I disagree with Ron Paul on the issue of campaign manager.

 

[Jingles]

Lot's of religious view vs. secular view in the thread. I don't really believe religious beliefs should have anything to do with the state and it's actions, personally.

I understand supporting the death penalty. It's more of the fact that one initiated violence against other and killed them. Something truly just would be if we had a machine that could bring other individual back to life and then kill the aggressor, but we don't have that sort of technology. I don't support the death penalty currently because I don't trust the state with the power to kill me just because of something they may charge/convict me with and I also feel it is carried out unjustly.

Abortion isn't a very big issue to me in the sense that I can understand arguments on both sides. Although I am partial to Walter Block's idea of Evictionism because it deals with both self-ownership and the life of a child. I just feel abortion will become less prevalent in the future as we progress in technology and have greater control of our reproductive processes. I do find abortion rather horrific though and I feel that the problem more lies with people not being responsible with their own bodies and it being viewed as acceptable. No law will charge people viewing it as a legitimate thing to do though. Engaging in a reproductive act can cause reproduction, so I feel if people wish to engage in such acts that they should be responsible and use protection/contraception if they do not wish to have a child.

Assisted suicide and the like I support so long as it is done via a voluntary contract. It kind of needs to be treated the same way Sadomasochism is treated in the sense that it is violence, but it is mutually consented upon violence between individuals.

 

[Jason525]

There aren't any issues I outright disagree on. I'm still neutral on ending the fed because I'm not yet convinced another solution works better (I do want it fully audited though) and I'm also sort of neutral on the death penalty, but definitely see his point.

I think I agree on everything else.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10489

I haven't actually read the whole article yet but it expaines how the Fed isn't a government intitution but a privatley owned one.

It explains how 100% of its shareholders are private banks.

I'm going to read the whole thing later.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

If you support open borders, view this video how global government = global poverty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE




Then let us hear what you think. Education is the key to everything.

That video is incredibly flawed. The guys main points were
1) the US couldn't handle accepting enough immigrants to really make life better for a significant chunk of the rest of the worlds poor, so why bother?
And
2) allowing industrious, hard working people to leave their countries and come to America would make life worse for the poor people of those countries who are left behind so we shouldn't allow it.

So maybe we should build a fence around Michigan to prevent people from moving to Ohio and leaving those others behind.
Better yet, a fence around Detroit to keep the workers there to help rebuild it.

The reality is free trade and open immigration allows people to work and trade where they have maximum comparative advantage and their talents/skills can be put to best use. This makes everyone wealthier overall. The immigrant who leaves his $10,000/yr job in China to come to America and make $20,000/yr not only helps himself and his family out of poverty but also makes goods and services more efficiently (cheaper) for sale to his former countrymen back in China.


One of the core tenets of Austrian economics is that central planning doesn't work and decisions are best left to individuals for maximum effectiveness. The decision of where to live and work is definitely one of those. Restricting immigration is central planning and makes us all poorer by retarding economic growth.

 

[vechorik]

That video is incredibly flawed. The guys main points were
1) the US couldn't handle accepting enough immigrants to really make life better for a significant chunk of the rest of the worlds poor, so why bother?
And
2) allowing industrious, hard working people to leave their countries and come to America would make life worse for the poor people of those countries who are left behind so we shouldn't allow it.

So maybe we should build a fence around Michigan to prevent people from moving to Ohio and leaving those others behind.
Better yet, a fence around Detroit to keep the workers there to help rebuild it.

The reality is free trade and open immigration allows people to work and trade where they have maximum comparative advantage and their talents/skills can be put to best use. This makes everyone wealthier overall. The immigrant who leaves his $10,000/yr job in China to come to America and make $20,000/yr not only helps himself and his family out of poverty but also makes goods and services more efficiently (cheaper) for sale to his former countrymen back in China.


One of the core tenets of Austrian economics is that central planning doesn't work and decisions are best left to individuals for maximum effectiveness. The decision of where to live and work is definitely one of those. Restricting immigration is central planning and makes us all poorer by retarding economic growth.

So you're advocating a world without borders. Better move to the next assignment: United Nations Agenda 21 via the Democrats Against Agenda 21:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

So you're advocating a world without borders. Better move to the next assignment: United Nations Agenda 21 via the Democrats Against Agenda 21:
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

I feel like I pretty much wasted my time watching that last one. Can you sum up? I could probably recommend a few for you as well if you're interested.

 

[vechorik]

I feel like I pretty much wasted my time watching that last one. Can you sum up? I could probably recommend a few for you as well if you're interested.

You wasted your time typing the long repudiation of the video, why not waste a little more of your time to find out exactly what you advocate?
When you can discuss the following issues (as applied by Agenda 21) we can talk more about your perceived utopia of a world without borders.
It AIN'T as pretty as you imagine.

What exactly does a world without borders under the UN look like?
How are the UN mandates currently being implemented in our communities?
What is the computer model and who is already using it?
What zone do you live in?
What is ICELI?
Do you see any relation Bush/Obama's executive orders?
Why didn't Bush II close the border? Why didn't Obama close the border?
Are humans allowed in the zone you live in?
What do future property rights look like.....I could go on, but my time is valuable too.

All the answers are here (no conspiracy, just facts): http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

 

[jonhowe]

I think global warming is debateable and SHOULD BE debated. Both sides have it wrong in that they both seem to try to "silence" the other, rather than having a discussion. If something is happening, we should discuss it.

Also, I agree with the OP when it comes to evolution, it's a fact of science, just like germ theory. Will it be corrected as we learn more? Of course, that's the point of science! But the basics are there.
However, the president has nothing to do with evolution or public school teachings (ESPECIALLY a President Paul), so it really doesn't matter.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

What exactly does a world without borders under the UN look like?

]

Well your answer saved me a bunch of time. I'm not talking about what would happen living under the UN. That needs to be beat back the same way the US government needs to be beat back. I'm talking about freedom and private property rights.

And just tossing in jabs like "perceived utopia" doesn't make you're argument any stronger or mine any weaker. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time but I wrote out a response and you haven't yet replied to my points about Austrian economics and individual decision making rights/efficiencies.

 

[Liberty74]

How is Global warming religious based. Is there not actual data to show it or prove the theory.

No, there is no evidence to suggest there is "man made" global warming. All the scientific studies and evidence prove we humans are not the cause of global warming nor global cooling cycles, hence there is no such thing as "man made" global warming. We humans could not heat the earth if we tried. CO2 is a natural gas representing not 5% but .054% of the many gases in the air, hence not a pollutant as you have been lied to. Humans only emit maybe 2% of that .054%. Do the math. The sun and the solar system have been completely responsible for cooling and warming cycles and CO2 is not the cause. Rather CO2 is a by product of warming as proven with the scientific data. This have been proven and "conveniently" left out of Gore's charts. The famous "hockey stick" is a proven LIE. Climate Gate a few years ago exposed the lies and threats by the global warming movement.

Global warming is a new elitist religion designed to unite the world (NWO) behind. That has been admitted already.

I suggest you deprogram yourself with this factual video below...

Humans Are Not Causing Global Warming

Blaming global warming on humans allows greedy, anti-human collectivists like rapist Al Gore to force you into his carbon cap and trade scheme that will become a $16 trillion industry creating mass property, hence more welfare programs.

 

[Sam I am]

There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Although I do not want the US to to withdraw from NATO or the UN.

I do not share his dogma that "government is always less efficient than private enterprise".

and on that note, I am not completely opposed to public healthcare.

 

[vechorik]

Well your answer saved me a bunch of time. I'm not talking about what would happen living under the UN. That needs to be beat back the same way the US government needs to be beat back. I'm talking about freedom and private property rights.

And just tossing in jabs like "perceived utopia" doesn't make you're argument any stronger or mine any weaker. I'm certainly not trying to waste your time but I wrote out a response and you haven't yet replied to my points about Austrian economics and individual decision making rights/efficiencies.

What does a world without borders (with the UN and the US government "beat back") look like?

I can envision a world with everyone living in peace and prosperity, but that doesn't mean it will happen.
As long as humans are on earth, there will be ownership, fighting and all the same problems we face today.

If you believe the UN and the US government should be "beat back" then isn't closing the borders part of that?
Open borders is part of the UN agenda -- world wide redistribution of wealth, etc.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Ron never even advocated ending public schooling when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. His stance has always been eliminating the mandate to attend public schools.

If you believe the UN and the US government should be "beat back" then isn't closing the borders part of that?
Open borders is part of the UN agenda -- world wide redistribution of wealth, etc.

How else can you create and close borders than with a government? You can't beat back a government when you empower it.

"Open borders" is NOT synonymous with the UN/progressive agenda, anymore than being anti-war or pro-drugs is synonymous with the progressive agenda, or anti-tax exclusive to the conservative agenda.

 

[eduardo89]

Ron never even advocated ending public schooling when he ran on the Libertarian ticket in 1988. His stance has always been eliminating the mandate to attend public schools.

And returning education to the state and local level.

 

[cstarace]

Anyway, the only thing I disagree with Ron Paul on is incorporation. I do realize this is why he gets so many evangelical Christian votes.

 

[papitosabe]

There are multiple issues where I disagree with Ron Paul on.

I am opposed to cutting taxes during a deficit

I do not want to eliminate public schooling.

Although I do not want the US to to withdraw from NATO or the UN.

I do not share his dogma that "government is always less efficient than private enterprise".

and on that note, I am not completely opposed to public healthcare.

I think you mistyped the website... This Ron Paul Forums.