Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Who is Ron Paul?
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
Let me first kick it off by saying I'm new to this board and this is going to be my first in a series of threads (3-5). I hope this isn't seen as spam and just simply, food for thought. Lets say I'm trying to bring more life into this forum.

Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate who takes The Constitution into consideration every time he votes in Congress. He believes our government is too big and too centralized. When and if he becomes president he will (slowly) abolish the income tax which is totally unconstitutional (i.e. illegal). To better explain what he is all about I will leave you with a youtube video.

Ron Paul, a TRUE patriot

Please, stand up for your rights.
Abolish income tax? Tosh and piffle. How long would he take to do this? Who would provide medical cover for the most vulnerable members of society?

He states on the video that he would withdraw immediately from Iraq. That might have been fine a few years ago, but to do so now would be grossly irresponsible. Anyone who is prepared to see things in simple terms of 'good' and 'bad' is always someone to be worried about (mostly).

The world has far too many patriots, we need more people who are prepared to accept the responsibility for the whole of their society and their own influence on other societies. An American patriot will always put America first - and usually fails to see that in the long-term it is often useful to help the world so everyone benefits.
First off, I will admit (unlike many people I've encountered) I'm not fully informed on all these topics. So (for now) I will mostly rely on links explaining his positions. I know this looks bad but I will try my best.

On healthcare... He would allow people to claim tax credits for the rising cost of healthcare premiums [link]

On Iraq... We should have never been there in the first place. The longer we stay there the worse it gets. Either way it is a mess. Not getting involved in another country's government and politics is the safest and most logical policy nearly all of the time. [link]
QUOTE (Mata @ Jun 27 2007, 07:04 PM) *
Who would provide medical cover for the most vulnerable members of society?

You are assuming that is a concern of most American voters, when I can tell you that it is most certainly not. Considering even the average-income folks among us get reamed by the current healthcare system, I can't say the middle class cares about the "vulnerable" more than they care about themselves. Health care isn't exactly affordable for much of anyone.
What Ron Paul is trying to propose is something so conservative it really takes awhile to grasp. He's proposing the government should ONLY take care of policing, defense, courts, corruption, education (on a state level though) and a few other smaller issues (mail for example). That is it. Democrats and neo-conservatives both seem to be going towards socialism. Why? Because politicians have power and the only people (for the most part) who are attracted to such positions are power hungry. And they always want more power. The only thing that seperates them is what they want from you. The Democrats want your money (i.e. taxes) and the neo-cons want your rights (i.e. patriot act and such).
ugh, I have a few theoretical problems to discuss... but ill leave that to a point in time in which i have more energy to write them all out.

I would like to say, however, that the democrates and neo-conservatives... arn't makeing a move towards socialism.
Hardcore Libertarianism does not work.

It has been tried before in the US and it ended up with the super-rich exploiting the lower stratas of society to such a degree that there were widespread riots. Regulation is needed.

And why do people hold the Constitution up as some kind of revealed knowledge? It's been amended for a reason: Laws made 200 years ago are often no longer relevant. Hell, laws made 10 years ago can be irrelevant.
Because, Cal, it's our official document deciding on what is lawful and what isn't? tongue.gif Of course there are irrelevant laws and of course it's amended. But I think the point is that many people don't take our official document into consideration at all when legislative decisions or court rulings are made.
In fairness, most of the British legal system is based on the magna carta, and that's from 1215! Then again, most of American law is influenced by the magna carta too...
Vanfullofidiots, are you like involved with Ron Paul's campaign or something and trying to get us all to vote for him? tongue.gif
I've been downloading and watching the televised Presidential Candidate debates because American politics is actually really interesting. Way more so than politics over here. And I've been saying for a while - though not to anyone who's actually interested - that Ron Paul is Da Man.

No seriously, he's totally cool.

And yes, I'm biased. Ron Paul is the only republican saying that America should mind it's own business and stop bothering the rest of the world. And I'm part of the rest of the world and I don't want America minding my business. But Ron Paul has plenty of qualities that make him attractive to the American voter as well. For example, he doesn't want to be illegally listening in on your conversations, and nor does he want to send you to die in a desert for some oil. Granted, he's not totally cool with the gay marriage and the abortion* but he does think states should be able to decide that for themselves, not have some government decide the whole country has to stay straight. And yeah, I get that he loves the consitution, but does he have to be so generous with the right to bear arms?

I'm still hoping Obama gets elected, but an Obama vs. Paul election - while never going to happen - would be the closest thing to a win-win situation for pretty much everyone.

*he does at least have a consistent life policy, meaning that while he won't let you kill your unborn child, he also won't let the government kill criminals.
Nov highlights my problem with US politics (and often politics in general): the two party system means that you never really get a party that you feel matches you on all of the significant issues. Personally I could never vote for anyone who was against a person's right to abortion. I don't see that as being anything to do with politics and most politicians are not likely to come from families where an unexpected child is going to cause major problems - until they can relate to some parent's feeling towards abortion then they should shut up on the topic and stop trying to impose their own views.

... But anyway, this is my point precisely. Politics in such a limited range of choices makes a mockery of democracy. It's like the episode of The Simpsons where Krang and Karg (or whatever their names are) invade and take over the election: no-one wants to vote for either of them, but you have to chose one of the unhuman options or you might as well burn your vote for all the difference it will make. Is that defeatist or realist? People need to have a real choice and politicians need to understand their people more and spend less time trying impose their own morality onto a social order where it is inappropriate.

All these things said, Mr Paul does appear to be better than many American politicians, but I still have strong disagreements with him and the realism of his ideas.
To Izzy--- No, I only wish I was. I'm just some young punk trying to get a truly good message out there.

I dont tend to write paragraphs like alot of people on here like to do. So heres a (nother) link... biggrin.gif

John Stossel on the free market and libertarianism

I would like to hear responses from anti-libertarians on this video...
QUOTE (Novander @ Jun 29 2007, 12:42 AM) *
Ron Paul is Da Man.

I will second this.

Although not as cool as Mike Gravel. THAT man should be president.
QUOTE (Calantyr @ Jun 28 2007, 02:41 AM) *
Hardcore Libertarianism does not work.

It has been tried before in the US and it ended up with the super-rich exploiting the lower stratas of society to such a degree that there were widespread riots. Regulation is needed.

I find this statement to be untrue. From what I know of American History, the rich tended to exploit the poor with the help of the government. A textbook example of this would be Sherman Anti-trust, which was supposed to help the people from monopolies, but was used mostly to crush unions.
I agree that hardcore libertarian policies would not work in a nation like the United States, yet, to a lesser extent, they could be the cure to some of the more gratuitous, intrusive aspects of the government.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.