Are there any issues you disagree with Paul on?

[Enforcer]

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.

That video IS INCREDIBLY FLAWED. It's been dissected before on this board and found not to have any merit. The basic reason it's flawed is due to the mere fact that people travel back and forth across borders without wanting to become permanent residents or citizens.

Our history, as a nation, has dis-proven that guy's theory and all while living within "open borders." Then again, I use YOUR term, but what is the alternative? You want a country guarded by machine gun toting federal mercenaries? Do you want drones spying on YOU under the pretext of border protection? You liking those National Identity Cards that were supposed to protect you from the foreigners? As one American asked: Is life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?

I've seen the gumball argument many times. EVERY time, it's proponents were supporters of National Socialism.

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=383&mforum=outcastsandoutl

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

To make this short: I disagree with Ron on two minor things that aren't even worth mentioning. I disagree with eduardo89 more than RP.

I disagree with him on DADT, would be stricter on immigration and I support the death penalty.

Oh and I think $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough

You do not have the right to end your life because your life does not belong to you. It belongs to God and He alone has the power to give and take life.

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

Exactly. There is no right to bear arms if you have to ask the government for permission.

1 Corinthians 3:17
If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple

 

[vechorik]

That video IS INCREDIBLY FLAWED. It's been dissected before on this board and found not to have any merit. The basic reason it's flawed is due to the mere fact that people travel back and forth across borders without wanting to become permanent residents or citizens.

Our history, as a nation, has dis-proven that guy's theory and all while living within "open borders." Then again, I use YOUR term, but what is the alternative? You want a country guarded by machine gun toting federal mercenaries? Do you want drones spying on YOU under the pretext of border protection? You liking those National Identity Cards that were supposed to protect you from the foreigners? As one American asked: Is life so dear or peace so sweet that it should be purchased at the price of chains?

I've seen the gumball argument many times. EVERY time, it's proponents were supporters of National Socialism.

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=383&mforum=outcastsandoutl

I lived with a CLOSED border for about 40 years and none of the extreme measures you mention were necessary.
The extreme border guard measures you mention are because the border was/is OPEN for so long!

What part of world wide redistribution of wealth don't you understand? That's one reason for open borders.
You think you can live off $2 per day? Go for it.
You say the video is flawed? It's just numbers. Come up with your own numbers to repute it then.

If you dislike the idea of socialism, then you better reconsider closing the border -- because an OPEN BORDER IS SOCIALISM.

 

[eduardo89]

To make this short: I disagree with Ron on two minor things that aren't even worth mentioning. I disagree with eduardo89 more than RP.

Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start

 

[jmdrake]

I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

The facts on global warming are in. The earth has not warmed over the past 15 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...A-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Now maybe you say "But 2012 has been rather warm". Sure it has. And those who realize this man made global warming is a farce were able to predict this. We went through a cooling cycle, 2012 is warm because of a solar maximum, and we'll be cooling off again.

 

[DerailingDaTrain]

Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever. <---- I agree. I misunderstood you the first time.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start

I should have left the 1 trillion part out of that quote because it wasn't something I disagree with you on.

 

[Sam I am]

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

To put it into perspective, If you agreed with Ron Paul on all the things I've listed, but disagree with him on everything else, You'd be Rick Sanatorium.

 

[cstarace]

To put it into perspective, If you agreed with Ron Paul on all the things I've listed, but disagree with him on everything else, You'd be Rick Sanatorium.

But if you don't agree with cutting taxes and private-run healthcare, you're a liberal... so...

 

[Enforcer]

Wait, so you disagree with the fact that I said there is no right to bear arms because you need a permit? It's not a right if you need permission! There should be no firearms restrictions whatsoever.

Death penalty we probably do disagree, I support it in theory, but I would not use it in the current broken and corrupt legal system.

I hope you agree that $1 trillion in cuts isn't bold enough, but s good start

eduardo89, I think I found your alter ego:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcast...ght=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcast...ght=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=87&mforum=outcastsandoutl

Since that board mentions this site quite a bit, it was relevant to this discussion.

 

[jeremiahj13]

Well bridges are used largely successfully with low death rates, burgers can also be used in good terms if you don't overdue it. I admit I'm largely ignorant about heroin/crack/LSD, but from my understanding, even a very small amount of uses can have very bad consequences?

 

[eduardo89]

eduardo89, I think I found your alter ego:

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcast...ght=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcast...ght=unalienable+rights&mforum=outcastsandoutl

http://www.freeforum101.com/outcastsandoutl/viewtopic.php?t=87&mforum=outcastsandoutl

Since that board mentions this site quite a bit, it was relevant to this discussion.

I'm my own alter ego

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Well bridges are used largely successfully with low death rates, burgers can also be used in good terms if you don't overdue it. I admit I'm largely ignorant about heroin/crack/LSD, but from my understanding, even a very small amount of uses can have very bad consequences?

Guns can have bad consequences in very small applications. Let's ban those, too.

 

[ZenBowman]

Euthanasia (it should be legal)
Abortion (it is a moral grey area, but government should have no role in it)
States rights (I don't think states have the right to oppress any class of people)
Evolution
Global warming (its clear that it is happening, however I don't believe government should do anything about it, so in that sense I agree with Paul)

 

[eduardo89]

Abortion (it is a moral grey area, but government should have no role in it)

No it's not, it's murder. And the government has the responsibility to protect life.

Global warming (its clear that it is happening, however I don't believe government should do anything about it, so in that sense I agree with Paul)

Show me your data. Even "climate change" alarmists have conceded that the earth hasn't warmed in the past decade. 2012 has slightly because of a solar maximum but next year will again show no signs of global warming.

 

[ZenBowman]

No it's not, it's murder. And the government has the responsibility to protect life.

Show me your data. Even "climate change" alarmists have conceded that the earth hasn't warmed in the past decade. 2012 has slightly because of a solar maximum but next year will again show no signs of global warming.

This is not a thread for argument, we are simply stating where we differ with Dr Paul. There are plenty of threads where the specifics of these issues are being discussed.

 

[Southron]

I want a halt on immigration and I am much more supportive of nation-specific tariffs.

I also have no problem with states administering the death penalty.

 

[tttppp]

I support paul i even voted for him in my state but im wondering what areas people here disagree with him on. For me personally:

1. Doesn't believe in Global warming.
2. Doesn't accept evolution despite it being as factual.

The only real issue I disagree with him on is health care. I think if we switched to Chinese traditional medicine for chronic illnesses, we can save tons of money and dramatically increase service.

As far as everything else is concerned, my main complain with Ron Paul is that I think he can cut far more laws and regulations than he plans on.

I also disagree with him on the structure government should be. I believe one person should be in charge of the government and be held 100% accountable. Ron Paul apparently believes in Congress which is a complete joke. Anyone who has run a business knows its ideal to have only one person in charge of one responsibility. When you have multiple people in charge of one thing, everyone just sits around and points the finger at each other. Which happens to be exactly what congress is doing now.

 

[Chrysamere]

---

 

[Billy_McBong]

His stance on abortion differs greatly from mine. That's the main thing I don't agree with him on.

 

[JJ2]

It does. So does his answer on abortion during the DeMint forum, as does almost every answer he ever gives on the subject. Based on the timing of his introductions of the bill, it's possible he does it as a declaration of his position before running for president.

Although, he doesn't really believe in that position himself, otherwise by his own standards he is a murderer. He endorses and prescribed hormonal birth control and morning after pills, and even said he'd give a woman a shot of estrogen to prevent implantation after a rape. By the conception definition, these are all acts of murder.

Ron is a far better politician than most give him credit for. This subject is proof.

In other words, you are accusing him of being dishonest and a liar and not telling people what he truly believes.

You are taking his comments in that video out of context. If you back it up a couple of minutes, the context is that he does not support a federal law for how to punish the crime of abortion, which is what he always says. Regarding birth control/estrogen, what he said is that there is no legal or scientific or medical proof that conception has occurred at that point, and I don't know if he meant that he personally would do that. He has made it 100% clear that he doesn't just "believe," but that as a medical doctor, he "knows" that life begins at conception. The only question is when conception occurs.

Here is a clear explanation of his belief on this subject, which someone posted on another thread:

Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

http://stevedeace.com/news/iowa-politics/open-letter-from-personhood-usa-to-ron-paul/