Okay, guys. Originally I supported Obama, but he's starting to look like another Edwards, Kerry, or the other generic, fluffy candidates from the 2004 election. I can't get behind that. I want someone who will say exactly what it is he's going to do, someone who knows what the job of President means and won't make vague legislative promises.
Ron Paul is a sane candidate. You could not ask for someone with a more sensible view of how government works and what needs to be fixed. Check out some of his positions:
Ron Paul is the candidate for America. He thinks with his head and lets his actions speak for themselves. He is the sensible choice for liberals and conservatives alike. Now, I know the Democratic race is going to end with Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. Do you really care which of those wins? Or do you want to see Ron Paul triumph over the "compassionate conservatives" currently leading in the polls? We can make this happen. The Web did it for Dean and we can do it for Ron Paul.
Good links
http://wonkette.com/politics/ron-paul/save-america-ron-paul-for-president-228158.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,252847,00.html
http://thelibertarian.wordpress.com/2007/03/22/even-more-on-ron-paul/
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/23/ron-paul-for-president-what-is-free-republic-afraid-of/
I was also a Obama guy until I found out about Ron Paul. He seemed very inexperienced and as you said, "fluffy."
I just love how libertarians like him focus on the economy so much. The man also really knows what he's talking about.
I'll be sure to vote for him if he becomes the representative for the republican party. It's unlikely, but possible.
A youtube comment said it best:
"He is to smart to be president."
forget Ron Paul - we need Rupaul!
Ron Paul and Mike Gravel: filling up your favorite internet sites with presidential candidates nobody really cares about.
Obviously people care about them if they're posting about them. You have revealed yourself to be a crybaby.
I wager there are about 15 people (maybe) that spam this site with random garbage.
That number of people is quite small, but the spam is still noticeable.
And annoying.
>>8
You mean this website? There is only one annoying spammer here, he just keeps coming back with different IPs. Ron Paul on the other hand has thousands of supporters.
RON PAUL FUCK YEAH!
I dont trust a foxnews post....
I hadn't been reading /politics/, so I just found out about this guy. Awesome. I agree with almost everything he says, he has a long record of showing he means it, and there's a chance he might even win. I never thought I'd register as a Republican, but now I just might (to vote in the primary).
the shortest way of stating why i dislike ron paul is that he cares more strongly about states' rights than individual rights. i don't see how anyone can come to any different conclusion after reading the speech regarding flag burning he gave a couple years back (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul99.html).
>>15
Definitely true. However, I find the prospect of states oppressing individuals less disconcerting than the reality of the federal government oppressing individuals. This may be because I live in California.
>>16
i agree with this man.
at currently, i think leaving power to the state is a good middle ground. we can work our way up from there.
you shouldn't have to choose either, that's a false dichotomy. Every part of government can be limited. What Ron Paul has proposed in the past and likely will continue to propose into the future is the unwarranted and irrational expansion of power of the state.
>>18
So, pray tell, what presidential candidate proposes to curtail the unwarranted and irrational expansion of power of the state? Probably the Libertarian one, but whoever that is must be even more unelectable than people complain Paul is. Yeah, our voting system is a travesty.
From what I've observed, most candidates for both the Democrat and the Republican Party both want to wield the federal-executive sledgehammer that's been forged in the last few decades, merely towards different aims. Paul is the only one espousing a view remotely related to limiting the power of government. While it's not ideal from an anarcho-libertarian perspective, the odds are high that at least one state government (for you, I'm thinking New Hampshire) given as much sovereignty as possible will be more to your liking than our current heavy-handed federal government. At the very least, it's a little more accountable to you as a citizen and voter.
It's folly to think a man would just give up absolute power, when he could instead use it to further cement his status and push his ideology.
>>19
Though a weekend anarchist, I don't imagine that all actions of the state are inherently evil. While all candidates certainly would use this "federal-executive sledgehammer" with greater abandon than Ron Paul, several among them would use it more wisely. The ideas Ron Paul believes regarding the role of the states in freedom of individual expression and personal privacy are the worst excesses of tyranny. Some strange new tumors elsewhere in the aparatus of government can be let grow in order to stop this cancer.
And no one should ever have to uproot themselves from their home and all they know in order to secure their livelihood.
>>1 Ron Paul is a sane canidate.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
Some of us beg to differ.
> After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories...
Two sentences in, and two unjustified shouting words. I don't especially feel like reading further, and I doubt that I'm missing much.
>>23
Here's what I got from it:
Part 1 - A racist article appeared in Paul's journal in 1992, and although he claimed in 2001 that it was an unauthorized contribution by a staffer and that he regrets its publication deeply, the author thinks he's lying
Part 2 - A lot of anti-semites, white supremacists and other such fringe groups love Ron Paul, and he doesn't take enough issue with it
Part 3 - Paul thinks there's a conspiracy to create a world government, supports the gold standard, and printed baseless smears about the Clintons in 1993
Part 4 - Ron Paul is not a liberal socialist and is therefore evil
I dunno, there may be points worth examining further in there, but it's just too much of a hate-mongering diatribe for me to accept at face value.
I agree with getting rid of the WTO, NAFTA, and CATFA, but going back to the industrial revolution is not worth it.
>Presidents from both parties have entered into trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO promising that they would create new jobs. Instead, in recent years we've lost millions of manufacturing jobs, seen wages stagnate, and run up larger and larger trade deficits.
(http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071027-peru-trade/index.html)
John Edwards also disagree with those trade agreements. The differences between John Edwards and Ron Paul is that John Edwards ideas would boost the standard of living and not fuck it up.
Hell, read John Edwards issues page if you want to be fair and look into both sides.
I supported Ron Paul for a short time, now I feel like a dumb ass for it.
Under libertarian rule big businesses own almost everything. I can't believe a lot of you would trust big businesses running your schools, paving your roads, ect. over the State. I agree that government is full of a bunch of corrupt fuckers but they are corrupt because of big business.
>>26
I like this website. Although its "VoteMatch" thing told me to vote for Al Sharpton. w
The only thing that seems inconsistent and irks me about his voting record is this: "Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)"
Anyone know the story behind H.R. 2587?
in b4 NAFTA conspiracy theories.
And what is the USA's fear of supra-national government? It has worked incredibly well in the EU. I can be treated equally, work, travel and move freely across an entire continent.
>>28
I really don't get the sovereignty thing either. In the US Constitution itself, it states that treaties made are the supreme law of the land, equal to the laws of the Congress and the constitution.
I haven't read all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the secret diaries of the founding fathers &c., but I don't see any reason to hold a stronger faith in the nebulous concept of "the United States of America" than in the ideas of limited government, freedom of expression and association and religion and possession, equality in the face of the law, and representation in governance. If a supra-national organization supports these ideas, I don't see any problem in the US being a member.
>>28
No need for conspiracy theories about NAFTA.
http://shii.org/knows/NAFTA
> nebulous
This is your favourite word, isn't it?
It's an okay word. If I caught aspergers and were to arrange every word I knew in order of preference, I guess it would be slightly above the median.
Ron Paul wants the decline and fall of America - simply because he wants to decommission the government. Why? b/c America is supported by the work done by our government, with income redistribution and defense of freedom and the works.
Paul has at least one good idea in his noggin, though - punishments are currently too harsh (and unneccessary) for some crimes.
California has a three-strikes law - if you convicted for 3 felonies, you get to spend the rest of your life in a cage.
And then there's child pr0n. Yes, it's sick, yes, it should be illegal, yes, it IS illegal, but 5 YEARS for a photo? what's the point? Lawmakers and law enforcers are fond of slapping extra penalties onto crimes without really knowing if that's an actual deterrent or not. Given the nature of lolicon lovers, I'd probably say two months in the slammer would be enough to make people think twice - at least on a first or second offense.
There is also marijuana. It's pretty much like a smokable form of booze. So why is it illegal and smoking and booze legal? idiots. Why not just make pot legal and put all smokers outdoors with the tobacco smokers? what? Camel lovers don't like hippies?
And sentencing people to 219 years behind bars for ANYTHING is plain ridiculous. As of yet, no human has been proven to live past 122 yrs of age, and besides, there are already such things as life sentences for the worst offenses. (The death penalty is also used, in places such as Japan and Texas, and while I have reservations about its use, I believe there is such a thing as a valid capital offense. People who have killed, and want to kill or murder again and again and again, deserve the death penalty, as it would actually save lives (potentially) in the long run.
Oh yeah, one other thing. about pedos - I approve of the idea of putting them on an offender registry, but we should ALSO do the same with violent criminals and habitual burglars and perhaps even arsonists. There's a lot more to crime than sex, folks!
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION.
The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court-- (1) shall not adjudicate-- 1.(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; 2.(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or 3.(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1)>>36
Source:
H.R.300
Title: To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 1/5/2007) Cosponsors (2)
Latest Major Action: 1/5/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R.7955
Title: A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.
Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-22] (introduced 8/19/1980) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 8/19/1980 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to House Committee on Ways and Means.
SUMMARY AS OF:
8/19/1980--Introduced.
Family Protection Act - States as the purpose of this Act the abolition of Federal governmental policies which interfere with the freedom of the American family.
Title I: Education - Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act. Directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to provide for the orderly termination of the affairs of such Department.
Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.
Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow an income tax credit for 100 percent of the amount of tuition paid for the elementary, secondary, or higher education of the taxpayer, spouse, or dependents; (2) allow an income tax deduction for amounts paid into an education savings account established to pay the educational expenses of a dependent child of a taxpayer; and (3) grant tax-exempt status to schools which are controlled by the parents of the children who attend them (parental schools).
Title II: Social Security and Retirement - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow individual taxpayers who support an elderly (age 60 or older) dependent a $1,000 income tax credit or a $5,000 income tax deduction.
Repeals provisions of Title II (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act which require the reduction of benefits under such title if the benefit recipient has regular employment.
Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit individuals and married couples to claim the income tax deduction for contributions to an individual retirement account even if such individuals or couples are participants in tax qualified pension, profitsharing, or stock bonus plans under the Internal Revenue Code.
Specifies that social security benefits are exempt from taxation.
Treats married individuals who receive no compensation or less compensation than their spouses as having received compensation equal to that of their spouses for purposes of computing the maximum allowable income tax deduction for contributions to an individual retirement account.
Allows an income tax deduction from gross income for the payment of social security taxes by employees and self-employed individuals.
Title III: Constitutional Guarantees - Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.
Amends provisions of the United States Code relating to judicial procedure to establish a legal presumption in favor of an expansive interpretation of a parent's role in supervising and determining the religious or moral formation of his or her child, in cases involving such issue.
>>38 cont.
Repeals the Selective Service Act of 1967.
Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion. Extends such denial of jurisdiction to Federal district courts.
Title IV: Taxation - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to permit married individuals to be taxed separately on their income under the same rates as are applicable to unmarried individuals.
Allows an income tax deduction for adoption expenses.
Allows an income tax deduction for contributions paid to a tax-exempt trust fund established for the care of a taxpayer's parents or handicapped relative.
Repeals the estate tax, the gift tax, and the tax on generated-skipping transfers.
Increases the amount of the personal tax exemption for dependents from $1,000 to $3,000.
Provides for the establishment of tax-deferred rollover savings accounts for the exclusive benefit of the taxpayer or beneficiaries.
Title V: Domestic Relations - Prohibits Federal preemption of State laws relating to child or spousal abuse, or juvenile delinquency. Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds for the operation of any programs dealing with such problems.
Defines "child abuse" as physical maltreatment, and psychological or emotional neglect. Excludes from such definition discipline or corporal punishment applied by a responsible parent or an individual authorized to act in the place of such parent.
Grants tax-exempt status to organizations which provide care and treatment for victims of child or spousal abuse and to organizations which care for runaway children.
Requires federally-funded abortion and venereal disease treatment centers to notify parents of unmarried minors that such minors have requested an abortion, contraceptives, or are undergoing treatment for a venereal disease.
Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.
Title VI: Miscellaneous - Grants jurisdiction to U.S. district courts to hear any cases arising under this Act. Prohibits the removal of any case arising under this Act from a State court of competent jurisdiction to a Federal court unless a Federal official or employee in an official capacity is a party. Provides for a six-year statute of limitation for cases arising under this Act.
Provides a civil penalty for persons violating any provision or regulation promulgated pursuant to this Act.
Requires the Secretary of the Treasury to report to Congress on the administration of this Act and the progress of the States in effectuating its provisions.
Oops, forgot to bold this part:
Abolishes the Department of Education and nullifies all regulations, contracts, licenses, or privileges issued by such Department prior to the effective date of this Act
Vote for me in 2008!
Yours forever,
Ron Paul
>>40
what do you think the department of education does?
hint: education funding and policies are the sole property of the state and the government has no control over them
Education is a state matter anyway -- why should there be a federal Department of Education?
Show me where in the Constitution the federal government is given the authority to run a Department of Education.
Every Congressperson and Senator is sworn to uphold the Constitution. Now guys like you are trying to make it sound radical if they actually do. We really need someone who doesn't treat the Constitution as "just a goddamned piece of paper". I think the government is so fucked up you're afraid to fix it.
>>44
To be fair, castrating the judicial branch isn't in the Constitution either.
Meh. I'm probably an asshole for it, but I don't care. If some states desperately wish to become Christian theocracies or otherwise return to the 18th century, I see no reason to stop them, and think that those who live in such states and don't like the change would be doing an overdue favor to themselves and the country by taking themselves- and their tax dollars- to a social climate more in line with their views.
It's better than economic collapse (which seems probable with the election of any big spender, pro-corporate, status-quo candidate) or turning the entire country into a Christian theocracy (electing Huckabee.)
>>44
The constitution is a goddamned piece of paper. It isn't some sort of recieved text from God, it was written by men. Men who fucked up their first opportunity and had to go back to the drawing board. Whether or not it's the best way to do things is open to question. Hell, the people who wrote it realized this and tacked on a bit of a reactionary process to amend it.
Fuck the specific enumerations of powers, fuck the particular delegations of responsibilites to different branches of government. The only parts of the US Consitution that matter to anybody anywhere are the ideas of limited government, democratic republicanism, and individual liberty.
So looking at this education situation from a "fuck the constitution" stance: as far as I can see the two ways to roll are to think of it as a very local thing specific to each community (run by municipalities?), or to think of it as cultural system, effectively a national thing (and if culture's not a national thing, the nation should be broken up so that it is).
Fuck states, they're just half assed arbitrary administrative divisions and they aren't even good at that. What the fuck is South Dakota doing existing? I don't even think these things matter to regional historians.
You're avoiding the many other things mentioned in the legislation. Also,
>>If some states desperately wish to become Christian theocracies or otherwise return to the 18th century, I see no reason to stop them
Because that's a bad thing that's a good reason to stop them. Democracy shouldn't be a mere tyranny of the majority (or merely the most vocal). Also, separation of church and state. Also, mini-theocracies in the US You're an idiot.
>>why should there be a federal Department of Education?
We all agree that having educated neighbors is better than having uneducated neighbors. How do we get that? Guarantee public education. And we want standards, so we have this handled publicly (government). If we stop doing this, we are either having it handled by state governments (many standards, for no good reason other than constitutional literalism) and create a nightmare for law/med/etc. schools, for employers who are looking for specific educations, etc.
Or we can privatize it, and then your education will be based on your income, which in turn is based on education. The rich get richer, the poor poorer. You're an idiot.
> If we stop doing this, we are either having it handled by state governments (many standards, for no good reason other than constitutional literalism) and create a nightmare for law/med/etc. schools, for employers who are looking for specific educations, etc.
This is the system as it currently exists. You are not attacking some libertarian hypothetical but the current way education is handled in the United States.
gg.
Happy Ronpaulmas!
>>50
I didn't say it was perfect, but you've avoided answering anything else put forth. Entirely.
gg
>>52
Um, so here's my answer to your attack: let's keep the current system, it works good despite your abstract attack. yay
and establishment clause is in the constitution.
and... i don't know what else you're trying to say
I actually wasn't attacking the current system, I just got distracted while posting about a hypothetical state of affairs that lacked a federal DoE. That post was poorly worded and does look like more of an attack on the current system.
Also, yes, the establishment clause is in the constitution, which is why I mentioned it Ron Paul is NOT a constitutional literalist, he only claims to be. Probably to please multiple fringe support bases (fundies who want a theocratic state vs. tinfoil militia guys)
Also, a lot of other issues are presented in that proposed legislation that have nothing to do with the Dept of Education, and everything to do with being the most successful attempt by an escaped mental patient to win the US presidency.
right now, http://election.msn.com/ vote for him.