Convince me not to Vote for Ron Paul

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
So you're keeping in mind the US policy now, and trying to connect that with achieving peace, rather than trying to assess Ron Paul's foreign policy with peace.

Well I wouldn't connected Ron foreign policy or the US current foreign policy with peace. There are other factors involved in global security rather then just US foreign policy.

And because we entered World War II, we can't be forgiven? Is Germany still looked down upon because of what Hitler did?

WTF ?
People don't hold anything against the US for entering the War they do however take an issue with the amount of time the US stayed out of the fight.

I mean, Hitler ran across Europe and STARTED World War II, and they've seemed to take on a more peaceful foreign policy.

Huh ?

Simply because we entered World War II doesn't mean we should have a war driven foreign policy the rest of our existence

I never said US foreign policy should be driven by war .
All I am saying is that a so called non intervention foreign policy is no better then starting dumb wars in the Middle East. Also it doesn't to keep tabs on those around you.

[edit on 22-10-2007 by xpert11]

Originally posted by xpert11
There are other factors involved in global security rather then just US foreign policy.

US foreign policy is at the root of a lot of the world's problems, though.

Originally posted by xpert11
they do however take an issue with the amount of time the US stayed out of the fight.

Please explain what you're getting at

Originally posted by xpert11
All I am saying is that a so called non intervention foreign policy is no better then starting dumb wars in the Middle East.

I don't get how that is no better.

You don't screw with nations, and instead, trade with them and talk with them. Help each other out.

How does that leave you more vulnerable or the world more unstable than bombing everyone?



[edit on 10/22/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

US foreign policy has backfired in some cases but it isnt responseible for the fact that Islamic extremists lack human decency. For the US WW2 began on December 7th 1941 for the rest of us our grandparents had been fighting the war for two years but that's another topic. If someone or some country wants to attack there going they wont care that the US has tried to stay out of world affairs. The key is to ensure that when the US does intervene in world affairs there is a net gain.

reply to post by xpert11


So our blind support for Israel, who bombs and threatens it's neighbors, and who sits on land that was handed to them and taken from Palestine, and the fact that we invade nations, bomb nations, threaten nations, steal their resources, stage coups, and sponsor uprisings, all of that isn't enough to convince you that maybe, just maybe, they're fighting back?

Human decency? We're constantly killing their people. But you're ok with that. We're doing it for our national security, right? It's ok to kill them for no reason, but the second they fire back, it's terrorism.

I bet you see nothing wrong with that line of thinking.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Schools are funded by the states. Schools are run by the states. Basically, the Education Department determines how the funds are used and what the kids are learning.

No they also hand out money to school system that lack funding, and scolorships and the like.

We don't need the federal government running every single thing in this country. The state governments are more than capable of doing so.

The fed does not run the school systems, they set guide lines.

And you say that the federal government dishes out money? Even if that's true, you know where they get that money? We the people. Our income tax.

And the money gets spent on they the little people the hopefully will grow to be educated adults.

Guess what more money to spend means? It means that people will go buy things in stores and local businesses, boosting the states economies, and giving those states more money to cover these schools that you say will fail if the federal government doesn't have control.

First off, replacing the income tax with a sales tax is a very dumb idea. The way income tax works is the more money you make the more you can spare to contribute to society as a whole, people that make under a certain amount don’t pay while the rich pay more what exactly is wrong about that?
Secondly the areas where the federal government does doll out the funds are states that are poor and could not raise the money to pay for their school even if all the taxes raised in the state remained there, with out federal assistance they will fail.

should we pay income taxes, allow the government to control one more aspect of this nation, and not vote for Ron Paul? Or should we elect him, not have to pay income taxes, and take away powers from the federal government, which will secure our freedom at least a little while longer?

Powers? Control? WTF are you talking about?

Keyword: attempt

Wrong! Keyword: place to talk.

The problem is they don't solve anything.

They have had their successes, failures to. But hay it’s better then nothing.

The UN is being set up to be the world government of this planet.

And this is a bad thing how?

Or saving your national sovereignty from world government?

National sovereignty is a thing of the past the world is far to integrated to go back to such a quaint world model.

To slowly gain the rights to land and resources. They're already trying to control international waters.

mmm.. I wonder who should police international waters, oh I know an international government.

You basically contradict yourself with this. You mention we should have an interventionist government, and then you mention 9/11 in the same paragraph.

No I made the point that overall the pros out weigh the cons, I just like to show the fact that I don’t cherry pick the data that only shows the good side of my thoughts. To evert decision there pros and cons.

If we trade and talk with all nations rather than screwing nations over, as Ron Paul advocates, then we will have better relations with everyone, and we will be less likely to go to war. Better relations will mean we won't have to be an interventionist government. Better relations will mean we won't get screwed over on prices.

Think about it. If we increase trade with nations, we're helping out their economy. If we have better relations with nations, we're offering them protection in case of war. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. They won't sky rocket prices on us.

The problem is that other nation rather hate each other, think about it China is giving the US government crap right now just because the Dali Lama is visiting, when you try to please every one you end up pleasing no one.

Besides, we don't need to be so dependent on foreign oil anyway. We can easily make a conversion to an alternative energy source.

Good luck with that under Ron Paul, he’s made it vary clear that under him it’s a total free market, and in a free market you can only buy what companies sell, and car companies are bribed into not making alternative energy vehicles by the oil industry.

First of all, what is your proof that Congress wouldn't pass his bills?

Many of his bills would take money out of the hands of the congress, would you vote to make your self irrelevant?

Second of all, we don't need to give money to Israel. We need to keep the money HERE. Help AMERICA FIRST! The rest of the world second.

Of this we are of one mind but alas Israel has a little more lobbing power then me.

Well I think you're wrong on what you consider wrong, but I guess we have to agree to disagree.

And that is what makes politics fun, with out disagreements and debate this forum would be pretty boring.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No they also hand out money to school system that lack funding, and scolorships and the like.

The funding would be fine if our income tax was taken away. Local economies would grow.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The fed does not run the school systems, they set guide lines.

And that's not necessary. The states can set guide lines.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And the money gets spent on they the little people the hopefully will grow to be educated adults.

Can you re-word this? I don't understand it.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
First off, replacing the income tax with a sales tax is a very dumb idea.

???

There's already sales taxes. The income tax is illegal anyway. So it needs to go.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The way income tax works is the more money you make the more you can spare to contribute to society as a whole, people that make under a certain amount don’t pay while the rich pay more what exactly is wrong about that?

What is wrong with it is it's used to cover war costs and the interest on our government's mass spending.

Also, tax on labor is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say labor can be taxed.

It's called the income tax, but it's not really taxing of income.

Income is profit. Doing work for money is not profit. You set a value on a job, I do the job, you pay me that value. I get money, you get the job done. That's a fair trade and neither of us profit.

Now a corporation selling a product, that's income. They produce a product for, let's say, two dollars, and they sell it off to a store/distributor for, let's say, five dollars. That's a three dollar profit. THAT is income, and THAT is taxable.

Labor is not. There is no law, and the IRS has never shown one.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Secondly the areas where the federal government does doll out the funds are states that are poor and could not raise the money to pay for their school even if all the taxes raised in the state remained there, with out federal assistance they will fail.

Again, if the "income tax" is eliminated, then local economies will grow.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Powers? Control? WTF are you talking about?

Was saying "WTF" really necessary there? Let's just keep this discussion civil and not use words that may spark a defensive response. We're discussing some sensitive issues and it has the potential to get out of control quick.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
They have had their successes, failures to. But hay it’s better then nothing.

No UN is better than world government

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And this is a bad thing how?

*sigh*

Ok dude

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
National sovereignty is a thing of the past the world is far to integrated to go back to such a quaint world model.

Wow. Alright, man.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
mmm.. I wonder who should police international waters, oh I know an international government.

Or maybe the waters can just be an international body open to everyone and nobody polices it?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No I made the point that overall the pros out weigh the cons, I just like to show the fact that I don’t cherry pick the data that only shows the good side of my thoughts. To evert decision there pros and cons.

You contradicted yourself. You think we should have an interventionist government but then you blame people in the Middle East for wanting to attack us.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The problem is that other nation rather hate each other, think about it China is giving the US government crap right now just because the Dali Lama is visiting, when you try to please every one you end up pleasing no one.

Again, trade and talk will better relations with all nations.

This isn't a hard concept and it would work.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Good luck with that under Ron Paul, he’s made it vary clear that under him it’s a total free market, and in a free market you can only buy what companies sell, and car companies are bribed into not making alternative energy vehicles by the oil industry.

He has made it clear we need to end our dependency on foreign oil.

Have you looked at his stances?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Many of his bills would take money out of the hands of the congress, would you vote to make your self irrelevant?

Show me proof

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
The funding would be fine if our income tax was taken away. Local economies would grow.

Unfortunately under your model the ecconimies would totally fail before local taxes could make up for the loss, some states would thrive e.g. New York and California while others would fall into a depression e.g. Alabama and Mississippi.

And that's not necessary. The states can set guide lines.

And that would result in states passing things like banning the teaching of evolution.

Can you re-word this? I don't understand it.

I’m saying that the money is being spent on children to receive educations so that they can get better paying jobs.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
First off, replacing the income tax with a sales tax is a very dumb idea.

???

There's already sales taxes. The income tax is illegal anyway. So it needs to go.
The are special sales taxes but it sounds as though you only want there to be sales taxes and that is it.

What is wrong with it is it's used to cover war costs and the interest on our government's mass spending.

That is not the fault of income tax its self.

Also, tax on labor is unconstitutional. Nowhere in the constitution does it say labor can be taxed.

And nowhere does it say that it can’t

It's called the income tax, but it's not really taxing of income.

Income is profit. Doing work for money is not profit. You set a value on a job, I do the job, you pay me that value. I get money, you get the job done. That's a fair trade and neither of us profit.

The company will not keep you if your time working for them is not profitable. Your time worthless, in that you don’t have to work, you choose to work so that you can make a profit of your time and enjoy the luxuries of life. The barter system that you refer to would be different in that it would not be taxable if I did work for you and for that work you gave me food or lodging, but you get more then food and lodging from working don’t you? We are speaking over the internet which one could call a luxury for it is not a necessity.

Labor is not. There is no law, and the IRS has never shown one.

How about the sixteenth amendment?

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Powers? Control? WTF are you talking about?

Was saying "WTF" really necessary there? Let's just keep this discussion civil and not use words that may spark a defensive response. We're discussing some sensitive issues and it has the potential to get out of control quick.

Yeah my bad, sorry.

No UN is better than world government

Can you go into detail on this please.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And this is a bad thing how?

*sigh*

Ok dude

And on this to.

Wow. Alright, man.

What can I say, I consider my self a global citizen.

Or maybe the waters can just be an international body open to everyone and nobody polices it?

Problem is they need policeing. There are pirates, disputes over who own certain areas and wild life protection.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
No I made the point that overall the pros out weigh the cons, I just like to show the fact that I don’t cherry pick the data that only shows the good side of my thoughts. To evert decision there pros and cons.

You contradicted yourself. You think we should have an interventionist government but then you blame people in the Middle East for wanting to attack us.

As I said I did not contradict myself and I certainly did not “blame” the Middle East for attacking us, they’ve already admitted it. Any how as I said there are pros and cons 9/11 was one hell of a con, but because of one loss do you pack your bags and leave the game?

Again, trade and talk will better relations with all nations.

This isn't a hard concept and it would work.

Okay who do we trade and talk with China or Taiwan, Israel or Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, Greece or Turkey? You forget there are countries out there that have hated each other for a very long time and you stir up a lot of controversy just by talking to one or the other never mind working out trade agreements.

He has made it clear we need to end our dependency on foreign oil.

Have you looked at his stances?

And I explained how in conjuction with his other policies this would not work.

Show me proof

You your self said that the government has to much power, and that Ron Paul wishes to negate that, so come up with the powers that Ron Paul wishes to curtail and that will be the list of thing the congress would not want to be removed

reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi


While I don't support Israel blindly I am amazed our lopsided people can be on either side of the debate but particularly when it comes to defending the actions of Palestine terrorists . Look when the US and its allies take military action they don't use such methods as suicide bombing.
Who is we ?
Anybody who thinks that New Zealand is responseible for the killing of the Palestine people is a fruit cake.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Unfortunately under your model the ecconimies would totally fail before local taxes could make up for the loss, some states would thrive e.g. New York and California while others would fall into a depression e.g. Alabama and Mississippi.

No they wouldn't. The income tax doesn't benefit these places even now. It goes to covering our military and the costs of war.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And that would result in states passing things like banning the teaching of evolution.

Then parents could force votes on city councils. We don't need the federal government controlling it for something stupid like that.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
I’m saying that the money is being spent on children to receive educations so that they can get better paying jobs.

We don't need federal oversight nor do we need income taxes to do this.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The are special sales taxes but it sounds as though you only want there to be sales taxes and that is it.

I only have a problem with the income tax and stupid things like taxing people for using the internet or taxing people to help combat "global warming".

Tax goods and services. That's fine with me.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And nowhere does it say that it can’t

That's true, but the constitution does not grant them the right to tax our labor.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The company will not keep you if your time working for them is not profitable. Your time worthless, in that you don’t have to work, you choose to work so that you can make a profit of your time and enjoy the luxuries of life.

No, we don't have to work. You're right.

However, if we do, our labor deserves pay. The company puts a price on that work, and if we accept, we do their work for them, and we get that value.

That's how it works. That's a fair exchange. That is WAY different than making a product and selling it for a higher price than you made it.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
How about the sixteenth amendment?

It doesn't specifically name labor, nor does the IRS tax code. It has to be clearly defined by law to be considered legal. You can't make assumptions with law. It has to be very clearly defined and laid out. With the income tax, it is not.

That's without mentioning the controversy surrounding the passing of the federal reserve act. Many states didn't ratify it, and it was done when many congressman were on Christmas vacation.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Can you go into detail on this please.

World government would be an awful thing. The UN is being set up as world government. I'm saying that I would rather there be no place for small countries to talk than be enslaved on a global scale.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And on this to.

There just can't be world government. Unless you want human enslavement, then you should be against world government.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Problem is they need policeing. There are pirates, disputes over who own certain areas and wild life protection.

Countries can own islands, and countries can deal with minor problems like pirates. There are international disputes over island claims and will always be. There are some that have been going on for hundreds of years, and the UN hasn't resolved it.

The international waters do not need policing.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
As I said I did not contradict myself and I certainly did not “blame” the Middle East for attacking us, they’ve already admitted it. Any how as I said there are pros and cons 9/11 was one hell of a con, but because of one loss do you pack your bags and leave the game?

You talk and trade with nations. You don't boss them around. That's wrong. We wouldn't want another nation bossing us around and overthrowing a government that wasn't valuable to them.

How would we like it if China invaded because they didn't like our President and they replaced him with a president who would enslave us and make us adjust to communism?

We get involved in other nations the same way. We don't spread communism, but we overthrow people that don't bow down to our power.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Okay who do we trade and talk with China or Taiwan, Israel or Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia, Greece or Turkey? You forget there are countries out there that have hated each other for a very long time and you stir up a lot of controversy just by talking to one or the other never mind working out trade agreements.

Of course there are countries who hate us and hate each other but you don't get rid of that hate by continuing to bomb them and kill their people. You start the process towards peace and make a full commitment to it.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
And I explained how in conjuction with his other policies this would not work.

Yeah you explained it but I fail to see how you think it would not work.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
You your self said that the government has to much power, and that Ron Paul wishes to negate that, so come up with the powers that Ron Paul wishes to curtail and that will be the list of thing the congress would not want to be removed

The only thing he would negate are these extra-constitutional powers that have been granted during the past few administrations.

He would restore the government to it's original power limits.

In the past few years, the executive branch has gained large amounts of power, while congress and the supreme court have lost powers. He would restore their powers and take away powers of the executive branch.

I doubt Congress would disapprove. He is very open about his disapproval of congressional power being ignored or taken away.

reply to post by xpert11


The US and Israel can be considered terrorists given the definition of "terrorist" as well, so don't label Palestinians as terrorists without labeling the US and Israel as terrorists as well.

Also, you have to suicide bomb to be a terrorist? That's a delusional interpretation of the word.

And what does New Zealand have to do with this?

I don't understand the purpose of this thread. I, at least, am not trying to tell anyone not to vote for Ron Paul. I, for example, disagree with his isolationist policies and I question the soundness of his monetary policy. But I agree with a lot of his other policies. But if you agree, why should I or anyone else try to discourage you?

Originally posted by Togetic
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. I, at least, am not trying to tell anyone not to vote for Ron Paul. I, for example, disagree with his isolationist policies and I question the soundness of his monetary policy. But I agree with a lot of his other policies. But if you agree, why should I or anyone else try to discourage you?

Can you lay out his 'isolationist' stances? He's hardly a protectionist when it comes to trade, and he is for open dialogue with all nations, even enemies. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist which IMO is the foriegn policy the U.S. needs to undertake. We need to get our domestic priorities handled otherwise our system is going to implode. Each American household is already over 500k in debt because of our governments lack of fiscal discipline

What are your issues with austrian economics? I think Pauls monetary policy is much more sound than our current one. I really don't fancy having my retirement savings accounts devalued due to currency maniupulation / devaluation.



[edit on 23-10-2007 by ape]

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
The US and Israel can be considered terrorists given the definition of "terrorist" as well, so don't label Palestinians as terrorists without labeling the US and Israel as terrorists as well.

So Israel is a terrorist nation because it excise its right to security ?

Also, you have to suicide bomb to be a terrorist? That's a delusional interpretation of the word.

WTF ?
Terrorists can also behead people and fly planes into buildings and so on.

And what does New Zealand have to do with this?

Do you even read what you post ?

We're constantly killing their people

I live in NZ so you should be able to understand where I am coming from.
Like I said who is we ?
Since were going off topic why don't you post your beefs on another thread ?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Unfortunately under your model the ecconimies would totally fail before local taxes could make up for the loss, some states would thrive e.g. New York and California while others would fall into a depression e.g. Alabama and Mississippi.

No they wouldn't. The income tax doesn't benefit these places even now. It goes to covering our military and the costs of war.

The federal budget covers a little more then that, or should I say a lot more. And yet again the misuse of the funds is not the fault of the tax, it is the fault of the people that use it.

Then parents could force votes on city councils. We don't need the federal government controlling it for something stupid like that.

What you call stupid many people find of grate importance.

We don't need federal oversight nor do we need income taxes to do this.

Many districts and states do not have the money to pay for many programs of which schooling is one, and eliminating income tax will severely curtail the income of the government.

I only have a problem with the income tax and stupid things like taxing people for using the internet or taxing people to help combat "global warming".

Taxed for use of the internet is pretty dumb but to fight global warming? How can you be against that?

That's true, but the constitution does not grant them the right to tax our labor.

Nor does it forbid them.

However, if we do, our labor deserves pay. The company puts a price on that work, and if we accept, we do their work for them, and we get that value.

And the higher the pay the more profit you make hence a higher income.

That's how it works. That's a fair exchange. That is WAY different than making a product and selling it for a higher price than you made it.

It doesn't specifically name labor, nor does the IRS tax code. It has to be clearly defined by law to be considered legal. You can't make assumptions with law. It has to be very clearly defined and laid out. With the income tax, it is not.

IRC 26 USC 1 and 26 USC 11

That's without mentioning the controversy surrounding the passing of the federal reserve act. Many states didn't ratify it, and it was done when many congressman were on Christmas vacation.

Yes the surroundings of that incident are very suspicious to say the least.

World government would be an awful thing. The UN is being set up as world government. I'm saying that I would rather there be no place for small countries to talk than be enslaved on a global scale.

But we already are, the global market are so intertwined that for the largest economy to try and back of it would be disastrious, and the level of codependency requires a governing body.

There just can't be world government. Unless you want human enslavement, then you should be against world government.

I’m not saying one planet one nation, I think of it more like the EU.

You talk and trade with nations. You don't boss them around. That's wrong. We wouldn't want another nation bossing us around and overthrowing a government that wasn't valuable to them.

How would we like it if China invaded because they didn't like our President and they replaced him with a president who would enslave us and make us adjust to communism?

We get involved in other nations the same way. We don't spread communism, but we overthrow people that don't bow down to our power.

Now you’re putting word in my mouth, just because I say the US has to play a strong role in the world doesn’t mean that I’m for going around invading and overthrowing other governments.

Of course there are countries who hate us and hate each other but you don't get rid of that hate by continuing to bomb them and kill their people. You start the process towards peace and make a full commitment to it.

But by even sitting and talking peace and trade with some nation automaticly cheeses others of, it’s unfortunate but that is the way it is.

The only thing he would negate are these extra-constitutional powers that have been granted during the past few administrations.
He would restore the government to it's original power limits.
In the past few years, the executive branch has gained large amounts of power, while congress and the supreme court have lost powers. He would restore their powers and take away powers of the executive branch.
I doubt Congress would disapprove. He is very open about his disapproval of congressional power being ignored or taken away.

But he wants to eliminate much more, as in the national transportation and safety board, the central intelligence agency and so on, do you really see this happening with congressional consent?

Originally posted by xpert11
So Israel is a terrorist nation because it excise its right to security ?

Iran is exercising it's right to security, and they're considered a "terrorist nation"

Jeez, the hypocrisy

Originally posted by xpert11
Terrorists can also behead people and fly planes into buildings and so on.

If only you did research

NovusOrdoMundi your cracking me up.
A demcratic Iraq poses no threat to Iran and unless you can prove other wise Iran's action can only be considered terrorism and yes the US government can be hypercritical but I deal with such matters on a case by case basis.

It looks like that we are just going to have agree to disagree.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The federal budget covers a little more then that, or should I say a lot more. And yet again the misuse of the funds is not the fault of the tax, it is the fault of the people that use it.

The tax is still illegal

Originally posted by xpert11
Taxed for use of the internet is pretty dumb but to fight global warming? How can you be against that?

Why is it us that should pay a carbon tax? The cars we use pollute, but it is those who MAKE them that should be taxed.

Corporations pollute FAR more than we do.

Originally posted by xpert11
And the higher the pay the more profit you make hence a higher income.

The higher you make the more value your work has. It doesn't matter if you make 2 dollars an hour or 400 dollars an hour. That value of work is set by the person paying you, and if you agree to it, you've agreed to exchange your labor for pay. That's a fair exchange.

Originally posted by xpert11
IRC 26 USC 1 and 26 USC 11

Post the contents

Originally posted by xpert11
But we already are, the global market are so intertwined that for the largest economy to try and back of it would be disastrious, and the level of codependency requires a governing body.

There is no justification for world government or wanting world government, and there is no reason to want if you want to remain free.

So if you're just going to keep saying the same thing, then let's drop this portion of our debate.

Originally posted by xpert11
I’m not saying one planet one nation, I think of it more like the EU.

Unions?

Then what when the unions decide to join together?

That's what will happen.

Originally posted by xpert11
Now you’re putting word in my mouth, just because I say the US has to play a strong role in the world doesn’t mean that I’m for going around invading and overthrowing other governments.

I didn't say you were, but that's an interventionist government.

Originally posted by xpert11
But by even sitting and talking peace and trade with some nation automaticly cheeses others of, it’s unfortunate but that is the way it is.

That's why you talk and trade with all.

Originally posted by xpert11
But he wants to eliminate much more, as in the national transportation and safety board, the central intelligence agency and so on, do you really see this happening with congressional consent?

He has the power to abolish those without congressional consent.

The federal government does not need to control everything anyway. Give more power to the states.

These things aren't being eliminated. They're being given to the states, as they should already be.

[edit on 10/23/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

reply to post by xpert11


How is a "democratic Iraq" involved? When did I ever say that?

My point is, Iran is considered a terrorist nation for building up it's arms to defend against an invasion, and we're considered the good guys when we're in TWO WARS and have large amounts of military firepower to Iran's south, northeast, and west.

THAT is hypocritical.

[edit on 10/23/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by xpert11
Taxed for use of the internet is pretty dumb but to fight global warming? How can you be against that?

Why is it us that should pay a carbon tax? The cars we use pollute, but it is those who MAKE them that should be taxed.

Corporations pollute FAR more than we do.

They are taxed for their pollution.

See, I don't want to get off track and start targeting your debate tactics, but you're actually defending the income tax just to argue with me. You're saying the same things over and over with absolutely no factual bases just to argue.

Um no income tax is a rather important issue both in Ron Paul’s platform and the future of the nation, I’m not arguing just for the sake of arguing.

The Constitution does not grant them the power. End of story. It's illegal. That's how it is. Either the Constitution grants it, or it can't be done. That is how our country has operated, and that's how it should operate.

Well it’s done pretty well for the last century with it.

Originally posted by xpert11
And the higher the pay the more profit you make hence a higher income.

The higher you make the more value your work has. It doesn't matter if you make 2 dollars an hour or 400 dollars an hour. That value of work is set by the person paying you, and if you agree to it, you've agreed to exchange your labor for pay. That's a fair exchange.

Why is this tough to understand?

The hard part of this to understand is the fact that you don’t except the fact that you work for profit.

There is no justification for world government or wanting world government, and there is no reason to want if you want to remain free.

So in an global economy you see no need for a governing body, you know that that is the equivalent of saying that in a town you see no need for a government.

So if you're just going to keep saying the same thing, then let's drop this portion of our debate.

Keep what up? Disagreeing with you? Stating what I believe? I’m saying the same thing as often as you are we just keep tweaking our arguments to respond to what the other person said I see no problem with that.

Unions?

Then what when the unions decide to join together?

That's what will happen.

I know that’s what I was saying, I’m pro UN because it is a global governing body, not a nation, I don’t see that happening for a long time, Ron Paul wants to quit the UN.

I didn't say you were, but that's an interventionist government.

No that’s a interventionist government gone awry.

That's why you talk and trade with all.

Okay I’ve shown you how that can’t work, how about telling me how you think it can. Specifically tell me how you would work out the China Taiwan problem.

He has the power to abolish those without congressional consent.

The federal government does not need to control everything anyway. Give more power to the states.

These things aren't being eliminated. They're being given to the states, as they should already be.

Sorry some thing need to be handled by a larger governing body. Name one power that you would give back to the states and why.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
They are taxed for their pollution.

As they should be. But we shouldn't.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Well it’s done pretty well for the last century with it.

We've been held in economic slavery the last century. So the only thing that's done pretty well are our leaders' bank accounts.

The Federal Reserve prints money, that printed money has interest/debt placed on it, so we need more money printed to pay off that debt, but that new money also has debt on it. Endless cycle.

That's economic slavery.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
The hard part of this to understand is the fact that you don’t except the fact that you work for profit.

I don't. I trade my time and labor for money.

If I find something on the street and sell it, that's profit. If I'm at a baseball game and catch some historic home run ball and sell it, that's profit. I didn't have to work for those things.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
So in an global economy you see no need for a governing body, you know that that is the equivalent of saying that in a town you see no need for a government.

The governing bodies would be the individual nations.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
I know that’s what I was saying, I’m pro UN because it is a global governing body, not a nation, I don’t see that happening for a long time, Ron Paul wants to quit the UN.

You don't see what happening for a long time? World government?

If that's the case, then you should look up just how close we are.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Okay I’ve shown you how that can’t work, how about telling me how you think it can. Specifically tell me how you would work out the China Taiwan problem.

They can work that out. I'm for bettering our relations with other nations, not bettering other nations relations with other nations.

We need to think to help ourselves in this country rather than trying to police the world.

Originally posted by Mr Mxyztplk
Sorry some thing need to be handled by a larger governing body. Name one power that you would give back to the states and why.

The Federal Government deals with foreign policy and is the international representation of we the people.

The states handle the rest.

That's how it should be done. That's how the Constitution sets it up to be. So what ever power falls under the category of federal government, currently, that doesn't involve foreign affairs, then that's the power(s) I'd give to the states.


EDIT: By the way, I just added you as a Respected Foe. Despite our obvious disagreements, and despite my argumentative tone at times, it has been an overall interesting debate.

And I apologize for my argumentative tone earlier - didn't feel too great at the time.

[edit on 10/23/07 by NovusOrdoMundi]