What the Hell Ron Paul?

[WilliamC]

You don't support a strong national defense? That's ridiculous if we didn't have an Army at 300,000 strong, a Navy with 9 Carrier Groups (plus subs), an 100,000 manned Marine Corps, and an Air Force with tens of thousands of planes, forget about asking to borrow money from China, we'll have to pay them tribute.

Yep.

Non-intervention. Armed Neutrality. Peace and Goodwill towards all Nations.

And of course, the strongest military in the world to back it up with, bar none.

In fact with a change from being an occupying global empire to a defense oriented mind-our-own-business country, we could have a much stronger military for far less money.

The USA should maintain the largest Naval Fleet in the world, and the ability to establish domination over the worlds oceans if need be.

The USA should maintain the largest Air Force in the world, and the ability to establish domination over the worlds skies if need be.

The USA should develop and maintain the most advanced Space Force in the world, and the ability to dominate low Earth orbit if need be.

We should also seek to peacefully involve others in the further exploration of Space, although not necessarily through taxpayer subsidized spending without much debate and appropriate Constitutional amendments.

The world is not enough. As long as we humans are contained on one planet we will eventually become extinct.

Government can't solve our problems and lead us into the solar system, but it can create the conditions of peace and prosperity that will allow us to do so.

 

[snaFU]

Well I was going to make a really rude joke about snaFU being changed to stFU, but I'll pull a Huckabee and just say I was going to but not really do it while doing it anyway.

If someone wants to make legitimate points they can, but since you seem to think Ron Paul is a "messiah" to folks who just want to live in a good ole fashion Constitutional Republic, then I think you've got more in common with the OP than with Ron Paul.

I am willing to be proven wrong though.

Yah, blah blah blah

Many of you make him out to be a messiah. You fucking spam troll in every thread whenever someone disagrees with you or brings up the slightest negative views. In real life many of you go around and attack media personalities and say vulgar things to them because of your devotion to a man not a cause..

If you cared so much about the cause which is freedom you wouldn't be tainting it with such vulgar behavior and language. Of course since its just about electing a man to you guys it doesn't matter. I know for sure when RP drops out many of you will probably vote for one of the "top" candidates and some of you will go back to partisan bickering as usual. But anyways I'm ranting now so whatever.

 

[CountryboyRonPaul]

I have been a RP supporter for a long while, and a libertarian for much longer.

But i have some issues with him.

First, he promises to get rid of the income tax. First, does he also mean the corporate income tax? If not, i would accuse him of merely pandering to the taxpayers, and stiffing corporations with the tax burden. ie, taxing the producers but not the workers.

He has to replace it with something if he wants to maintain current entitlement spending for those on entitlements, and have a strong defense, and not borrow/inflate the money supply.

So he supports federal excise taxes, which while constitutional, are morally reprehensible and an offront to libertarianism. This is because they target a specific market, and punish the producers, consumers, and workers in that market. They tax thier market substantially, to the point where these few individuals support a disproportionate tax on them, while others dont pay for that tax at all. Excise taxes are disgusting, a threat to individual liberty and equality. No libertarian can honestly support excise taxes, how does ron paul do it? It is a respect for personal decisions, individual property rights and individual freedom which comprises the heart of libertarianism. It is a respect for all acts and all markets which do not infringe on anothers liberty. Excise taxes are 100% non libertarian, how does Paul support them????????

Also, it seems paul is pandering. He supports a strong military, but also non interventionism and ending the military industrial complex. There could easily be a conflict of interests here, and it just seems RP is trying save face with the warhawks. RP also says we should abolish the income tax, with no replacement, yet fails to point out the massive spending cuts this would entail. His ideas are good and all, but he needs to level with people. Sure, they dont deserve income taxes or inflation or war, but they also dont deserve government handouts. And that is as important an issue as any other.

Finally, pork barrel spending. In the face of criticism, he says he adds in earmarks, but votes agaisnt the bill. This is deception on the highest level. The fact is, these bills pass, and RON PAUL is the one responsible for the earmarks going to his district. THis flies in the face of his support of individual rights and property rights. Evidently, nobody should pay taxes to finance another person's unconstitutional pork, unless that pork is for RP's district. This is by far my biggest issue with him. He talks about the constitution, wasteful spending, etc, but then turns around and supports pork. And in the worst way, he decieves people about it. He knowingly writes in pork, but then saves himself the guilt and face by voting against it. What the hell ron paul?

Also, to all RP supporters, dont get too caught up in the rhetoric. Keep an eye on Paul. ALso, dont be so damn optimistic. Limited government isnt about the easy stuff, ending war/inflation/corportate welfare. It is also about ending welfare to very poor people, it is about letting people make mistakes, sometimes very bad ones that will lead them into a life of poverty. Realize also the repeal of drug laws wont make everything magical. There will still be drug users, they will be sick and suffering and poor, and the libertarian still cannot justify government action. My words to libertarians, face it, limited government isnt all candy and prosperity, bad shit will still happen, and you have to be willing to stomach that. You cant promise perfection, just keep that in mind.

Sometimes we simply have to throw out some of the idealogies to fit the Constitution, or to have real solutions for the real world.

We can't get rid of the Income tax without sacrificing other things.

And We can't get rid of Entitlements without Congress. So our answers to these issues DO need to work within the realities of our system.

I think Paul does an excellent job of coming up with realistic policy goals.

 

[JS4Pat]

Your points are quite valid, but the funny thing is while Dr. Paul may have a few faults, the other candidates certainly have much, much more.

But if you think about it, Dr. Paul's faults are not really faults, rather, they are practicalities. Libertarianism, Conservativism, Liberalism, and other ideologies have many different related ideas, some practical, some not.

So let's go through each of your issues one by one...

Dr. Paul supports cutting the income tax but not the corporate tax or the excise tax. In the ideal libertarian world we could cut all taxes and let the states take care of anything, unfortunately the US has amassed 65 trillion dollars in debt and we will still need some taxes to pay off the debt. However, we could certainly get a major headstart by reducing the biggest one, the income tax, to 0, and replacing it with nothing.

A non-interventionist is by no means a pacifist. Dr. Paul supports the army, supports having a strong national defense. The Constitution calls for it, and it is definitely necessary. What he doesn't support is unnecessarily intervening in other countries' affairs.

As a result of this policy, if we were to withdraw all our troops, we could save 1 trillion each year, while the income tax only accounts for 800 billion of the government's profit. So yes, it is quite possible to terminate the income tax, but only if we change our idea about our foreign policy ought to be.

The pork barrel issue is an interesting one, and this once again goes into the practicality of Dr. Paul's libertarian views. If Dr. Paul was a perfect libertarian, he would absolutely not propose any pork legislation. However, as a Congressman Dr. Paul takes the interests of the people first, and his own views second. If the federal government is being robbed by corporations and special interests daily, while the ordinary people you represent receive none of the taxes they pay, if you were in Dr. Paul's position, would you let the corporations and special interests continue to steal money from your constituents, or would you fight and try to at least win some of the money back for them?

It's a dilemma for any libertarian. In a perfect libertarian world, there would be no taxes, therefore there would be no need for pork. Unfortunately, in our welfare big-government society, it is both impossible and impractical to be a complete libertarian, with our system as messed up as it is. Dr. Paul is strongly against pork, but he also recognizes that unless you completely change the system around, playing the system is the only way to get the money back to the people. So while his actions are contrast to a small section of his beliefs, they coincide well with the larger, overall theme of Libertarianism - that is, returning the power and the money to the people, even if some early sacrifices have to be made, simply because the system is the way it is.

Finally, about the enthusiasm about Dr. Paul's supporters. Dr. Paul does not promise us a perfect world, 100% not. Maybe some supporters think that, but surely not anyone level-headed enough to really consider his policies. However, compare and contrast his views with the rest of the rat pack in the presidential race. Is there ANYONE who understands economics, reality, and foreign policy as well as Dr. Paul? And is there ANYONE who believes in the Constitution as much as Dr. Paul does?

I disagree with Dr. Paul on many issues. All of us do. But Dr. Paul isn't running to become the dictator of the United States. He's running to become the President. And being a president, you have to follow the Constitution. In the end, all of Dr. Paul's views go back to the Constitution, and that is what makes him special, and what binds us together.

Dr. Paul is not perfect, but he's our best hope for freedom. So stop being a naysayer, and realize that not all positions are perfect, and not every person is perfect (in fact, nobody is.)

Great response.

I must say - we not only have the best candidate in the election - we have the best supporters - thoughtful and articulate.

 

[TSOL]

Your points are quite valid, but the funny thing is while Dr. Paul may have a few faults, the other candidates certainly have much, much more.

But if you think about it, Dr. Paul's faults are not really faults, rather, they are practicalities. Libertarianism, Conservativism, Liberalism, and other ideologies have many different related ideas, some practical, some not.

So let's go through each of your issues one by one...

Dr. Paul supports cutting the income tax but not the corporate tax or the excise tax. In the ideal libertarian world we could cut all taxes and let the states take care of anything, unfortunately the US has amassed 65 trillion dollars in debt and we will still need some taxes to pay off the debt. However, we could certainly get a major headstart by reducing the biggest one, the income tax, to 0, and replacing it with nothing.

A non-interventionist is by no means a pacifist. Dr. Paul supports the army, supports having a strong national defense. The Constitution calls for it, and it is definitely necessary. What he doesn't support is unnecessarily intervening in other countries' affairs.

As a result of this policy, if we were to withdraw all our troops, we could save 1 trillion each year, while the income tax only accounts for 800 billion of the government's profit. So yes, it is quite possible to terminate the income tax, but only if we change our idea about our foreign policy ought to be.

The pork barrel issue is an interesting one, and this once again goes into the practicality of Dr. Paul's libertarian views. If Dr. Paul was a perfect libertarian, he would absolutely not propose any pork legislation. However, as a Congressman Dr. Paul takes the interests of the people first, and his own views second. If the federal government is being robbed by corporations and special interests daily, while the ordinary people you represent receive none of the taxes they pay, if you were in Dr. Paul's position, would you let the corporations and special interests continue to steal money from your constituents, or would you fight and try to at least win some of the money back for them?

It's a dilemma for any libertarian. In a perfect libertarian world, there would be no taxes, therefore there would be no need for pork. Unfortunately, in our welfare big-government society, it is both impossible and impractical to be a complete libertarian, with our system as messed up as it is. Dr. Paul is strongly against pork, but he also recognizes that unless you completely change the system around, playing the system is the only way to get the money back to the people. So while his actions are contrast to a small section of his beliefs, they coincide well with the larger, overall theme of Libertarianism - that is, returning the power and the money to the people, even if some early sacrifices have to be made, simply because the system is the way it is.

Finally, about the enthusiasm about Dr. Paul's supporters. Dr. Paul does not promise us a perfect world, 100% not. Maybe some supporters think that, but surely not anyone level-headed enough to really consider his policies. However, compare and contrast his views with the rest of the rat pack in the presidential race. Is there ANYONE who understands economics, reality, and foreign policy as well as Dr. Paul? And is there ANYONE who believes in the Constitution as much as Dr. Paul does?

I disagree with Dr. Paul on many issues. All of us do. But Dr. Paul isn't running to become the dictator of the United States. He's running to become the President. And being a president, you have to follow the Constitution. In the end, all of Dr. Paul's views go back to the Constitution, and that is what makes him special, and what binds us together.

Dr. Paul is not perfect, but he's our best hope for freedom. So stop being a naysayer, and realize that not all positions are perfect, and not every person is perfect (in fact, nobody is.)

Great post !

 

[JS4Pat]

You fucking spam troll in every thread...

You attack media personalities and say vulgar things to them...

If you cared so much about the cause which is freedom you wouldn't be tainting it with such vulgar behavior and language.

Yes, I can see we could all learn a thing or two about civilty from you.

Of course since its just about electing a man to you guys it doesn't matter. I know for sure when RP drops out many of you will probably vote for one of the "top" candidates and some of you will go back to partisan bickering as usual. But anyways I'm ranting now so whatever.

Not me. I stopped doing that back in 2000. I'll hope for a third party alternative but will certainly not support/vote for any of the other Republicrats or Demoncrats.

 

[snaFU]

Yes, I can see we could all learn a thing or two about civilty from you.


Not me. I stopped doing that back in 2000. I'll hope for a third party alternative but will certainly not support/vote for any of the other Republicrats or Demoncrats.

Hilarious! I guess pointing out that many of you are vulgar is uncivil. Oh dear me I'm so sorry heres a tissue. Also if you look at most posts you will see a ton of fanatics posting troll on anything even close to negative.

 

[WilliamC]

Yah, blah blah blah

Many of you make him out to be a messiah. You fucking spam troll in every thread whenever someone disagrees with you or brings up the slightest negative views. In real life many of you go around and attack media personalities and say vulgar things to them because of your devotion to a man not a cause..

You paint with a broad brush. Ron Paul is not a messiah. While I do post sometimes for entertainment value I do not "fucking spam troll in every thread whenever someone disagrees with (me)". There are plenty of things I read and disagree with that I ignore.

I have made my share of criticisms of the campaign, and Ron Paul leaves much desired in terms of a messenger for the cause of restoring to our Republic a Federal government strictly limited to following the Constitution.

I have never attacked media personalities in real life, indeed when talking to media personalities on the radio I am always polite and respectful.

Unlike you, I do not use vulgarity or profane language in my posts.

And were it not for his near impeccable voting record Ron Paul would be just another politician, worthy of no more respect than the rest of them.

If you cared so much about the cause which is freedom you wouldn't be tainting it with such vulgar behavior and language. Of course since its just about electing a man to you guys it doesn't matter. I know for sure when RP drops out many of you will probably vote for one of the "top" candidates and some of you will go back to partisan bickering as usual. But anyways I'm ranting now so whatever.

Please direct us to any post in which I've used vulgar language, oh one who goes by the acronym snaFU. Of course that is not vulgar in and of itself, but most of the people reading it knows what it means oh dropper of F-bombs.

The Ron Paul movement will outlast Ron Paul, as did the Goldwater and Reagan movements outlast the men they were named for before it. Check out the Liberty Candidates subforum for a good start of where it should go.

As for claiming to know "for sure when RP drops out many of you will probably vote for one of the 'top' candidates" well your mind reading skills must be better than my own. Made any money off of them lately? I know you haven't, and I don't need to read minds to know this. That statement alone pretty much defines you as a troll, since the only reason to make it is if you wish for those reading it to be unsure of others support of Ron Paul.

I don't mind if people rant, but the OP of this thread is almost certainly a troll, and of course good trolls will make valid points in their attempt to sway others to having doubts about the topic at hand, which for this forum is getting Ron Paul elected President. For you to come out with a statement implying you think the normal Ron Paul supporter sees Ron Paul as a "messiah" is, to me, also a trollish thing to say in and of itself, and to make such a statement in support of another post which is trolling merely reinforces the impression that the respondent is as well.

Fortunately for me I finally received information which will allow me to target and directly interact with local voters in the real world, so I will not be spending nearly as much time arguing meaningless debates in cyberspace. However I have enjoyed the community that has developed here in ronpaulforums and I am saddened to see it being so overrun with trolls and moles. I take it as a sign of the success Ron Paul is having in getting his message out that so many come here and attempt to discredit it.

To be honest I haven't examined your posting record, snaFU, to make a really informed decision, so I apologize if you are a genuine Ron Paul supporter. If so, donate, sign up as precinct leader, canvass, and work to get Ron Paul elected. That's the point of being here, yes?

Finally, blah blah blah blah is not a very intelligent response and indicates you have no interest in reaching a common understanding or coming to some sort of mutual consensus. If that is the case you then must have some other reason for being here.

 

[WilliamC]

Hilarious! I guess pointing out that many of you are vulgar is uncivil. Oh dear me I'm so sorry heres a tissue. Also if you look at most posts you will see a ton of fanatics posting troll on anything even close to negative.

That's because the number of trolls and moles is increasing to the point where constructive dialog is becoming more and more difficult. Alas this is often the fate of popular online public forums, especially for worthy causes.

 

[BreakYourChains]

Corporate income taxes and individual income taxes are two completely different animals. Corporations are only taxed on profits. Individual employees are taxed on all of their revenue. That is an injustice that would be equivalent to taxing corporations on gross receipts, not allowing them to write off their costs and expenses.

Furthermore, corporations are NOT "the producers". The employees that work within a corporation are the producers. A corporation cannot produce anything. It is a state-granted legal shell designed for asset protection and limited liability. Under a system where corporations are taxed but individuals are not all a corporation would have to do not to pay taxes on net income would be to distribute it to shareholders, employees or invest it back into the business. Most corporations try to claim zero profit at the end of the year in our current system to avoid double taxation. In a no income tax system they would do the same thing to avoid single taxation.

If you want to get picky about what is truly libertarian and what is not, the entire concept of a corporation is anti-libertarian since it is a privilege granted by the state to a certain group of people (business owners) to give them an upper hand over their peers through tax breaks and immunity to prosecution. Its a form of state subsidy that would not exist in a truly libertarian society.

However, a truly libertarian society will never exist in our lifetimes. Ron Paul understands that. He has never promised to do away with the income tax or anything else. He has stated clearly that these are his goals and dreams, but that he cannot achieve them by himself as president. They will require the cooperation of Congress and other branches of government along with a corresponding shift in public opinion regarding the goal of government in our lives. The most we can hope for under president Paul is fewer taxes, smaller government and less war. This is fine with me.

Excellent response! Agree completely!

 

[angrydragon]

Useless thread, lock!

 

[KommanderWill]

Im Just saying, Ron Paul's positions on pork and excise taxes are contradictory to the rest of his libertarian platform.

As a libertarian, I believe taxation ought to be equal, and low. THus, I reject excise taxes. They are unfair to the participants in the taxed market, disproportionate to other sales taxes, and overall non-libertarian. I figured Ron Paul would also be in opposition to such taxes. It is the belief in individual liberty and limited government that makes up the heart of libertarianism. It is the ultamite libertarian fear of the state jeopardizing the life, liberty, or property of an individual. I am disappointed Ron Paul doesnt share such views.

ON Pork:
For the longest time, I thought Ron Paul didnt bring pork home to his district. I thought he leveled with his people. I thought he must have told them, pork barrel spending is wrong, I will not engage in it, and will try to get rid of it in all states. Hell, if McCain can do it, why cant Paul?
I thought Ron Paul was the exception. I thought he didnt play to the game of DC, I didnt think he thought "everyones doing it, why not me".
Truly disappointing


And while the personal income tax is bad, so is the corporate. IN the end, wealth is not held by companies, it is held by individuals, so a corporations profits will always to to individuals, or be invested. Thus, corporate income taxes do take money away from some individual, be it a shareholder, worker, or consumer(though indirectly).


I am a Ron Paul support, have been for a while. I dont visit this site often, but I talk politics constantly, with my friends and such. They know me as a Ron Paul supporter, and at a political study program i went on, more than half the people didnt know my name, but knew me as, and called me, Ron Paul. Ron Paul is by far the best candidate, and he has my vote, but still. We are all libertarians, cant we criticize Paul when he deviates from his libertarianism?

 

[johngr]

You don't support a strong national defense? That's ridiculous if we didn't have an Army at 300,000 strong, a Navy with 9 Carrier Groups (plus subs), an 100,000 manned Marine Corps, and an Air Force with tens of thousands of planes, forget about asking to borrow money from China, we'll have to pay them tribute.

Madison and Jefferson warned of the dangers of standing armies. The constitution authorizes raising armies (pl.) not having a standing army.

 

[Brian in Maryland]

Remember to donate on MLK day Monday 1/21.
http://freeatlast2008.com/
https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/

Things are going well, Ron Paul is gaining name recognition and educating people and the other candidates are running out of money.

 

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I have been a RP supporter for a long while, and a libertarian for much longer.

Then why haven't you done the slightest bit of research? We'd love to have your support, but you clearly haven't researched many of his positions. Start there, then decide if you're a supporter or not.

And while the personal income tax is bad, so is the corporate. IN the end, wealth is not held by companies, it is held by individuals, so a corporations profits will always to to individuals, or be invested. Thus, corporate income taxes do take money away from some individual, be it a shareholder, worker, or consumer(though indirectly).

Getting rid of any tax is good. It's not a tax obligation transfer. It's a removal.

 

[losinglife]

trolls are fun

 

[DAFTEK]

Perfect comment.

I've never said this before . . . Go away Troll!

+1 TROLL

 

[angelatc]

Im Just saying, Ron Paul's positions on pork and excise taxes are contradictory to the rest of his libertarian platform.

Because he's not running on a libertarian platform. He's running on a Republican platform. When the Constitution is at odds with Libertarianism, the Constitution wins in Paul's world.

 

[Srg1]

Yah, blah blah blah

Many of you make him out to be a messiah. You fucking spam troll in every thread whenever someone disagrees with you or brings up the slightest negative views. In real life many of you go around and attack media personalities and say vulgar things to them because of your devotion to a man not a cause..

If you cared so much about the cause which is freedom you wouldn't be tainting it with such vulgar behavior and language. Of course since its just about electing a man to you guys it doesn't matter. I know for sure when RP drops out many of you will probably vote for one of the "top" candidates and some of you will go back to partisan bickering as usual. But anyways I'm ranting now so whatever.

911

I find your language vulgar,i have seen it in alot of your other post too.You seem to never have nothing nice or constructive to say and always putting people down.Why dont u just go back to eating your mommy cookies and playing world of warcraft.goodboy!!!

 

[christagious]

Your points are quite valid, but the funny thing is while Dr. Paul may have a few faults, the other candidates certainly have much, much more.

But if you think about it, Dr. Paul's faults are not really faults, rather, they are practicalities. Libertarianism, Conservativism, Liberalism, and other ideologies have many different related ideas, some practical, some not.

So let's go through each of your issues one by one...

Dr. Paul supports cutting the income tax but not the corporate tax or the excise tax. In the ideal libertarian world we could cut all taxes and let the states take care of anything, unfortunately the US has amassed 65 trillion dollars in debt and we will still need some taxes to pay off the debt. However, we could certainly get a major headstart by reducing the biggest one, the income tax, to 0, and replacing it with nothing.

A non-interventionist is by no means a pacifist. Dr. Paul supports the army, supports having a strong national defense. The Constitution calls for it, and it is definitely necessary. What he doesn't support is unnecessarily intervening in other countries' affairs.

As a result of this policy, if we were to withdraw all our troops, we could save 1 trillion each year, while the income tax only accounts for 800 billion of the government's profit. So yes, it is quite possible to terminate the income tax, but only if we change our idea about our foreign policy ought to be.

The pork barrel issue is an interesting one, and this once again goes into the practicality of Dr. Paul's libertarian views. If Dr. Paul was a perfect libertarian, he would absolutely not propose any pork legislation. However, as a Congressman Dr. Paul takes the interests of the people first, and his own views second. If the federal government is being robbed by corporations and special interests daily, while the ordinary people you represent receive none of the taxes they pay, if you were in Dr. Paul's position, would you let the corporations and special interests continue to steal money from your constituents, or would you fight and try to at least win some of the money back for them?

It's a dilemma for any libertarian. In a perfect libertarian world, there would be no taxes, therefore there would be no need for pork. Unfortunately, in our welfare big-government society, it is both impossible and impractical to be a complete libertarian, with our system as messed up as it is. Dr. Paul is strongly against pork, but he also recognizes that unless you completely change the system around, playing the system is the only way to get the money back to the people. So while his actions are contrast to a small section of his beliefs, they coincide well with the larger, overall theme of Libertarianism - that is, returning the power and the money to the people, even if some early sacrifices have to be made, simply because the system is the way it is.

Finally, about the enthusiasm about Dr. Paul's supporters. Dr. Paul does not promise us a perfect world, 100% not. Maybe some supporters think that, but surely not anyone level-headed enough to really consider his policies. However, compare and contrast his views with the rest of the rat pack in the presidential race. Is there ANYONE who understands economics, reality, and foreign policy as well as Dr. Paul? And is there ANYONE who believes in the Constitution as much as Dr. Paul does?

I disagree with Dr. Paul on many issues. All of us do. But Dr. Paul isn't running to become the dictator of the United States. He's running to become the President. And being a president, you have to follow the Constitution. In the end, all of Dr. Paul's views go back to the Constitution, and that is what makes him special, and what binds us together.

Dr. Paul is not perfect, but he's our best hope for freedom. So stop being a naysayer, and realize that not all positions are perfect, and not every person is perfect (in fact, nobody is.)

EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENT. Thank you very much, I was almost fooled by this thread for a second, when it said that there would be still be a whole lot of poverty and problems. I know that there will be poverty still, but under Dr. Paul's administration I'm convinced that the people who are willing to work hard will be able to achieve the American Dream. I thank you for debunking each of this thread's criticisms