Ron Paul census

I am not going to say if i am for or against Ron Paul as i do not want this to become about my political view point. I would just like it if you are anti Ron Paul then say why and what policies of his made you dislike him and if these policies were implemented how would they affect you. The same goes for if you are pro Ron Paul. I am really interested in what you all think will happen IF Ron Paul won,what would be implemented,what he would stick to and how life would change from the bottom class to upper class,economy,law,health care,jobs every aspect of the american way of live. We all know that every politician promises a lot in there manifestos and in every case have come up short in implementing them. I would like to be able to compare every thing he has promised in one thread and see the ramifications for pro an anti Ron Paul voters what you all think will really happen to the promises if he won.

reply to post by indisputable


I was just going to start this same thread! I'm very interested in the policies and issues that Paul supporters hope he will be effective enacting in office. I'd like specifics, but all I have seen is that he is a good guy... What are people expecting him to achieve?

As of right now, I'm neither a supporter nor am I "against" him... He is one of the people I am considering voting for. I LOVE his foreign policy, but his domestic policy has some issues, IMO. I think it's hypocritical that he would support the 2nd amendment federally, but would allow states to discriminate against minorities if they wished... If he's going to federally support the Constitution on some issues, I think he should do it across the board.

Well if it is left to the state you can just leave the state. If a state wants to piss everyone off that they leave I'm sure they'll reverse their decision quick smart if it is federal no one can get away from it and that blows. I only worry about him going back to the gold standard that saw the money changers corner the market and screw America out of all their gold

I've serious doubts he is a racist? Afterall, he hates the fact his country is bombing Arabic countries. And the people being bombed are the Muslim people who's skin colour is dark skinned! White Racists in the majority hate all races that are not white, so i find it odd Paul, if he is a racist, would defend a people who are essentially black skinned.

The 'Newsletters. Well obviously somebody wrote what what was written. Who was it? shouldn't that be person be questioned by now and what was that person take on it?

I for one think that this thread will not get the views to get a full understanding of peoples conception of Ron Paul and what to expect due to it being Christmas If mods will let me i will probably redo thread after Christmas

Originally posted by vkturbo
Well if it is left to the state you can just leave the state. If a state wants to piss everyone off that they leave I'm sure they'll reverse their decision quick smart if it is federal no one can get away from it and that blows. I only worry about him going back to the gold standard that saw the money changers corner the market and screw America out of all their gold

The money changers have already done it. It was a lot easier to do with fiat currency.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by indisputable

 

I was just going to start this same thread! I'm very interested in the policies and issues that Paul supporters hope he will be effective enacting in office. I'd like specifics, but all I have seen is that he is a good guy... What are people expecting him to achieve?

As of right now, I'm neither a supporter nor am I "against" him... He is one of the people I am considering voting for. I LOVE his foreign policy, but his domestic policy has some issues, IMO. I think it's hypocritical that he would support the 2nd amendment federally, but would allow states to discriminate against minorities if they wished... If he's going to federally support the Constitution on some issues, I think he should do it across the board.

Not sure where he ever supported discrimination. The Constitution is clear about gun rights (and for those that don't understand "the militia" means you and I, do some research before your try to refute that fact). Ron Paul never said that the 14th or 15th amendments should not be supported, which would be the only piece of the Constitution (still effective anyway) that would concern race or ethnicity.
The race "controversy" is textbook propaganda. Find something from a candidate's past that can be easily twisted and used against them. Preferably on an issue that is very emotional and controversial which will easily sway people who don't do their own research.

An announcement for this thread: I won't respond to further posts that restate my words to change the meaning and then ask me to account for the new position...

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Not sure where he ever supported discrimination.

I didn't say Ron Paul supported discrimination. I said he "would allow states to discriminate". He would (according to his stated positions) turn 'some' issues over to the states, like gay marriage and possibly abortion. Also, he seems to be VERY opposed to government-regulations of any kind and that leaves room for mass discrimination for any reason, by individual states.

The Constitution is clear about gun rights (and for those that don't understand "the militia" means you and I, do some research before your try to refute that fact).

Once again, you have assumed something that I didn't say. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. I support them all, in fact. Next time you want to argue with me, please make sure you argue with positions I actually have. Thanks.

Ron Paul is SCARY

I am not even going to make a intelligent reply, as it goes over the cults head...

OK
He wants to return to the gold standard. OK, I guess knowing history is not a requirement for being president. There is so much misinfo about gold right now, its funny.

He wants a FREE MARKET. Excuse me while I hide in a hole like Sadaam... Once again, I guess knowing history is not a requirement to be president...

He wants to get rid of the DoE... I guess my kids are not entitled to an education, since I cannot afford to send them to school out of pocket.. Its all good though, with a free market, they can start working mining jobs once they turn 7.. That will keep them busy...

Damn that minimum wage... I mean, really, who can blame companies outsourcing them to china when we require the companies to pay employees at least $7.25 an hour... Its clearly the government fault that we loose these jobs, it has nothing to do with cooperate greed... OMG, damned environmental agencies... If a company wants to pollute our drinking water, and our breathing air, they should be able to... If it wasn't for them, we would have no jobs for workin'....

lol, this is starting to be fun actually....

Boooo, NAFTA, its EVIL!!!!!!!!! we should have no interest in trade with our neighbors... NAFTA NEEDS TO GO!!!!!!!!

lol....
i better stop before I get a deleted thread and/or a warning...

Originally posted by baphomet420
Ron Paul is SCARY

I am not even going to make a intelligent reply, as it goes over the cults head...

OK
He wants to return to the gold standard. OK, I guess knowing history is not a requirement for being president. There is so much misinfo about gold right now, its funny.

Haha, one swing, one miss. Go do your research. He does NOT propose we go back to the gold standard. But nice try.

As for the question of the OP, I vote for freedom rather than shackles. It's really that simple.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
An announcement for this thread: I won't respond to further posts that restate my words to change the meaning and then ask me to account for the new position...

Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
Not sure where he ever supported discrimination.

I didn't say Ron Paul supported discrimination. I said he "would allow states to discriminate". He would (according to his stated positions) turn 'some' issues over to the states, like gay marriage and possibly abortion. Also, he seems to be VERY opposed to government-regulations of any kind and that leaves room for mass discrimination for any reason, by individual states.

The Constitution is clear about gun rights (and for those that don't understand "the militia" means you and I, do some research before your try to refute that fact).

Once again, you have assumed something that I didn't say. I am a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment. I support them all, in fact. Next time you want to argue with me, please make sure you argue with positions I actually have. Thanks.

Just clarifying, man. Can't be testy on online forums. Need thick skin or to get in the kiddie pool. The sentences stated as such can leave an impression different from one you didn't intend to convey.

The Constitution doesn't address abortion or gay marriage rights anywhere that I can see. They fall under the 10th amendment which puts anything not explicitly addressed into the hands of the states or to the people. The federal government should not have a say until a Constitutional amendment is added dealing with it. Otherwise, the states and individuals in those states should have their own say as to how they govern themselves. For the record, Paul does not think the individual states should ban gay marriage. Just that the federal government does not have the power to forbid it or enforce it. Same with abortion, which he opposes, but does not believe the federal government legally has a say either way.
The states whose majorities oppose it would have the option of banning while those who support it would not. That would at least give people the option to vote with their feet instead of having a central government impose laws on them that are against their core values (ie tyranny).

My position would be that Ron Paul's platforms on those issues you brought up would be very Constitutionally consistent.

Originally posted by baphomet420
Ron Paul is SCARY

I am not even going to make a intelligent reply...

And you are correct, sir.

reply to post by baphomet420


I think it's about time some of these things are being said.

Here's something else on my mind: It's been like a Ron Paul church service around here lately and it's getting pretty weird. The strength of conviction, seemingly blind faith, and resistance to ANY negative or critical comment about Paul is beginning to spook me. It almost feels like a Storm approaching...

I am frankly a little creeped out by his 'followers'. I know people said the same thing about Obama's followers - and there were a good number of people with their heads in the clouds, hopped up on hope and change, but I was easily able to remain fairly objective and look at O's positions on the issues and make an assessment. But every time I try to find out what SPECIFICALLY the supporters think Ron Paul will do, I haven't gotten an answer... Some of these ardent Paul devotees are far scarier to me than a woman who was so happy because Obama was going to pay her rent. It's honestly one of the reasons I am hesitant to support Paul. There's a fanaticism around him that makes me uncomfortable.

Ron Paul is certainly not perfect - but he is to me anyway clearly the only one with a shot of winning that at least half way gets it on the economy. Whether you realize it or not that is by far the most important issue affecting every citizen and basically no other position will matter if it is not solved because the federal government will cease to exist as we know it if it is not tackled and very soon.

I don't agree with his obsession that a gold backed dollar with fix anything - the problem is not that the dollar must be backed by anything - the problem is inflation must not be allowed. The charter of the fed still says they are not to allow inflation - but they ignore it. Therefore the problem is really enforcement, having a law on the books that says each dollar must have backing means nothing if that law is not followed either. The same can be said for the whole banking crisis, most of the problem is not the laws on the books (some is though from laws that are outrageous and passed specifically on the banks behalf's) - but the fact the laws are not being enforced to punish the banks that have violated them.

What he does understand though is spending must be cut drastically and fast. Can he actually accomplish it fast enough, well maybe not because congress will definitely be fighting him, and by the time he takes office it may already be to late. But he is the only chance we've got even it's a small one.

Originally posted by Linkamoto

Originally posted by baphomet420
Ron Paul is SCARY

I am not even going to make a intelligent reply, as it goes over the cults head...

OK
He wants to return to the gold standard. OK, I guess knowing history is not a requirement for being president. There is so much misinfo about gold right now, its funny.

Haha, one swing, one miss. Go do your research. He does NOT propose we go back to the gold standard. But nice try.

As for the question of the OP, I vote for freedom rather than shackles. It's really that simple.

hmmm, I am pretty sure, I have heard Ron Paul talking about returning to the gold standard on more than 23 occasions... are we talking about the same Ron Paul????

and FYI,
the government is supposed to protect us from the shackles, its not the government that wants to put us in shackles, but its the very people that Ron Paul would like to see have free reign over society that wants to put us in shackles... you know, the plantation owners....

Originally posted by baphomet420
Ron Paul is SCARY

I am not even going to make a intelligent reply, as it goes over the cults head...

Thanks for dumbing it down for us, although I am sure you did not need to try real hard...

OK
He wants to return to the gold standard. OK, I guess knowing history is not a requirement for being president. There is so much misinfo about gold right now, its funny.

Making sure our currency is accepted worldwide is a problem?

He wants a FREE MARKET. Excuse me while I hide in a hole like Sadaam... Once again, I guess knowing history is not a requirement to be president...

Free markets allow a vote with a dollar...if you do not like a business, you vote with your dollar and do not support the business...Since government is no longer in the business of propping up FAILED industries like Solara or banks, those unable to compete will fall by the wayside and our tax dollars will no longer support oligarchy...

He wants to get rid of the DoE... I guess my kids are not entitled to an education, since I cannot afford to send them to school out of pocket.. Its all good though, with a free market, they can start working mining jobs once they turn 7.. That will keep them busy...

The DoE does ZERO to ensure your kids are getting an education...Look at their failure with you...You have ZERO clue as to the workings of economics...

Damn that minimum wage... I mean, really, who can blame companies outsourcing them to china when we require the companies to pay employees at least $7.25 an hour... Its clearly the government fault that we loose these jobs, it has nothing to do with cooperate greed...

If bread was a quarter and everyone made 5 bucks a hour, there would be no problem...however, I suggest you start looking at issues entitled "wage/price spiraling," and when you look it up, see when the issue became a problem...Everyone wants to be rich, but at the expense of their EMPLOYER...in other words, they could not make it on their own...

OMG, damned environmental agencies... If a company wants to pollute our drinking water, and our breathing air, they should be able to... If it wasn't for them, we would have no jobs for workin'....

Again, in a free market, if you believe a company is POLLUTING the environment, vote with your dollar and do not support the company...

lol, this is starting to be fun actually....

I am not surprised you find ignorance of vital issues to be funny...

Boooo, NAFTA, its EVIL!!!!!!!!! we should have no interest in trade with our neighbors... NAFTA NEEDS TO GO!!!!!!!!

You are a hypocrite with this statement alone...

lol....
i better stop before I get a deleted thread and/or a warning...

Go study somewhere and get a clue...

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ron Paul would eliminate government intrusion into the private lives of people...He would eliminate our current state of Prohibition...He would eliminate oligarchy in the auto industry, oil industry, and farms...He would truly make the economy free by eliminating government subsidies of failed systems...He would eliminate the need of the government mammaries...He would return government to its sole purpose..."Protecting the citizenry from threats to their safety."

reply to post by jeichelberg


That is something i agree with. I dont see how going back to gold standard is bad. I know it had its flaws, and now it seems the gold is flawed as well so maybe thats why its bad? Also the only thing i see changing is the federal burden will be lightened maybe.

He says he will cut the Federal power, not the State so as bh says it can and will most likely result in greater state intrusion to modify for the cuts.

Another little known fact it seems is you can vote with you dollar right now. While the fedgov will keep alive a non company for their friends, you dont have to. There are many options out there whether you will like the consequences or not.

example: if you dont like wal-mart eating up your local stores and putting mom-and-pop's out of business.... dont shop at walmart


so basically look for state- sponsored war on drugs or ban on gay marriage or department of educations.

I was going to put out some
Vote For Ron Paul
signs in my neighborhood.
But then it dawned on me, it should read,

Has the Media Told You Who To Vote For Yet?

reply to post by jeichelberg

Originally posted by jeichelberg
Ron Paul would eliminate government intrusion into the private lives of people...

Isn't this "government intrusion into the private lives of people"???

Ron Paul on Abortion

And as President, Ron Paul will continue to fight for the same pro-life solutions he has upheld in Congress, including:

* Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade

* Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

As I have said before, people don't REALLY want to live in a free society, else they would support the freedoms with which they disagree... And Mr. Paul is no exception. Yeah, he's all "Mr. Freedom" until it comes to women... They don't need freedom. They're too stupid.

This is from his website... Maybe he's going to claim he didn't write that, but if he believed in FREEDOM, he would not allow this government intrusion into a woman's womb...