One Ron Paul Thread to Rule Them All, one thread to find him

[North Calaveras]

ughh i just wish were back to the 1950's economic style

(obviously minus the discrimination)

[Wikkiwallana]

Where is it defined as such? And why should it be limited to that definition. Also, his position on gay marriage is the same as his position on several other highly important civil rights, ones that affect even more people. It's a useful shorthand if nothing else.


And sometimes they aren't enough. That's why the system doesn't end there.

I never said it didn't or it shouldn't. Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

He'd decrease into near meaninglessness, except when it came to banning things that conflicted with his religion. Seriously, read up on his legislation attempts.

[Sailsia]

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades. Why would I want to go back to that, when almost any other choice means I don't?

so.. 2008-now isn't happening?

fix'd

[Sibirsky]

Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

How do you propose getting the debt under control without shrinking government?

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

I am a fan of a modified Nordic model as well, but I feel the difference between say, Norway, and the US is size. In my view, it would be easier to implement such a model from a state by state basis versus delegating it to one entity.

The size issue does always seem to be the big question. We'd have to try it and see, and I'm sure that people much more versed in tax policy could explain why a progressive federal income tax set at much higher numbers for all brackets could or could not manage to support a federal scale system.

[The Aryan Nations]

ughh i just wish were back to the 1950's economic style

(obviously minus the discrimination)

Batman for president!!! [/joke]

drop the top tax bracket being 90% and Eisenhower essentially shitting in Khrushchev's' face, and i agree.

[Galloism]

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

How do you propose getting the debt under control without shrinking government?

Well, if you need to balance your P&L, and you can't shrink expenses... how do you do it?

[Wikkiwallana]

Let's not get into semantics here. The laws of the USA recognize things that they are forbidden from taking away, and calls them "rights". Marriage is one of them.

So is due process, but apparently it doesn't bother you Obama took that one away

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

[Death Metal]

Okay, give me one that doesn't wipe his ass with the Constitution.

Because Ron Paul does.

Did he sign the NDAA? Nope. As I said before, Obama completely waved any entitlement he had to a second term when he signed that.

Ron would have, with a smile.

[Wikkiwallana]

Ron would decrease the Federal government's role, not dissolve the Federal government entirely.

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

I like you.

[The Aryan Nations]

Did he sign the NDAA? Nope. As I said before, Obama completely waved any entitlement he had to a second term when he signed that.

Ron would have, with a smile.

he loudly complains about the military. regularly.

[Dempublicents1]

I'll be voting for him in the primaries.

Me too. I'm not 100% sure if I'll vote for a president in the general election or not. But I think Paul serves as a great counterbalance to the authoritarian assumptions that are present in most all political discussion.

Paul is one of the most authoritarian candidates running. He would simply move the authority, not do away with it. Meanwhile, he would expand the authority of state governments to include things currently denied to all levels of government.

[Sailsia]

I am a fan of a modified Nordic model as well, but I feel the difference between say, Norway, and the US is size. In my view, it would be easier to implement such a model from a state by state basis versus delegating it to one entity.

The size issue does always seem to be the big question. We'd have to try it and see, and I'm sure that people much more versed in tax policy could explain why a progressive federal income tax set at much higher numbers for all brackets could or could not manage to support a federal scale system.

That would be nice, but at the same time, there is not currently a candidate which is touting a Nordic system. We do, however, have Ron Paul, who would allow us to see what a smaller Federal government would be like. In my opinion, if it doesn't work out, at least Ron Paul will secure us the right to elect centralist politicians, and THEN see what a Nordic system would be like at a Federal level.

[The Aryan Nations]

Me too. I'm not 100% sure if I'll vote for a president in the general election or not. But I think Paul serves as a great counterbalance to the authoritarian assumptions that are present in most all political discussion.

Paul is one of the most authoritarian candidates running. He would simply move the authority, not do away with it. Meanwhile, he would expand the authority of state governments to include things currently denied to all levels of government.

Authoritarian implies power is held by one.
dividing power by 50.
paul isnt authoritarian.

[Sibirsky]

He's got my vote on March 6, or whenever Super Tuesday is.

and mine for the Texas Primary! (you dont even need to register in any party to vote in primaries in Texas. this should be universal)

Same here.

Although this year the stupid GOP in my state is now going to make us sign a pledge to vote for the GOP nominee in the general election regardless of who it is.

But they cannot enforce it. So I'll sign, and vote for Paul. If he doesn't win the nomination, I'm not voting GOP.

[Wikkiwallana]

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades. Why would I want to go back to that, when almost any other choice means I don't?

so.. 2008-2010 never happened?

Some crashes is not the same as boom and bust, which expects regular crashes. Not to mention said crash was caused by deregulation, pushed through by people who want to go back to the days of boom and bust.

[Socialdemokraterne]

Yes, but this is why I oppose him. I feel the federal government's agencies, policies, etc. need to be restructured to be more efficient, but that's because I feel the federal government has an even bigger role to play (I'm a big supporter of the Nordic model). But before we can do any of that, we've got to get the national debt under control. He's too small government for me.

How do you propose getting the debt under control without shrinking government?

I think I've been unclear again. I actually would shrink government through targeted spending cuts, using the added revenue to pay down the debt. What I mean is that certain institutions should be brought in after the debt is brought back to reasonable levels, institutions that are indeed very big-government in nature. These institutions would require careful budgeting for their continued maintenance. Things such as a national healthcare system, publicly-funded higher education, and so on. That's the "bigger role" that the federal government has to play. But such things cannot be instituted until later.

[*]I fixed a very, very poorly assembled sentence.

[Sailsia]

Me too. I'm not 100% sure if I'll vote for a president in the general election or not. But I think Paul serves as a great counterbalance to the authoritarian assumptions that are present in most all political discussion.

Paul is one of the most authoritarian candidates running. He would simply move the authority, not do away with it. Meanwhile, he would expand the authority of state governments to include things currently denied to all levels of government.

Hardly. He would give the state citizens the right to choose whether or not they want an authoritarian government. Let's face it, if you live in a small 3 electoral state, your vote doesn't count in a federal election anyway, so there isn't much to lose for someone who lives in my state for example, which is rather liberal, and if it weren't for the federal government, would be doing great. (we would have legal gay marriage and medical marijuana)

[Galloism]

Paul is one of the most authoritarian candidates running. He would simply move the authority, not do away with it. Meanwhile, he would expand the authority of state governments to include things currently denied to all levels of government.

Authoritarian implies power is held by one.
dividing power by 50.
paul isnt authoritarian.

Oh good, there's never been an authoritarian ruler then.

After all, the power is divided by 196.

[The Aryan Nations]

so.. 2008-2010 never happened?

Some crashes is not the same as boom and bust, which expects regular crashes. Not to mention said crash was caused by deregulation, pushed through by people who want to go back to the days of boom and bust.

So making it harder for businesses to do business makes it easier for them to turn a profit?

and you said that we haven't had a crash in decades; atleast, heavily implied it.

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades.

[Sibirsky]

We're already doing better than boom and bust, and have been for decades. Why would I want to go back to that, when almost any other choice means I don't?

so.. 2008-2010 never happened?

Nope. No housing bubble either. No 2001 recession. No tech bubble. No 90s boom. No 91 recession. No 80s boom. No early 80s double dip recession. No 70s stagflation.

None of that ever happened.

[Dallsiph]

This is gonna be my first election. I would like Ron Paul if he weren't so pro-free market, because his economic views would destroy America, and Obama's current foreign policy will bankrupt us and injure our foreign relations more than improving them. In America we need a lot more regulation in the free market, and we need to be less agressive when it comes to our foreign policy (get rid of at least 500 of our worldwide bases). We also need to lighten up on Iran and let go of some support for Israel.... if we don't, we will have another world war. When it comes down to everyone who's running, I'm leaning towards Obama. Why can't America have any decent people running for president?

[Wikkiwallana]

ughh i just wish were back to the 1950's economic style

(obviously minus the discrimination)

You want us to have 80 something percent taxes on the highest income margin? Because the Fed was around back then too.

[Hereticland]

Obama has done a lot of good things and he's done a lot of bad things. With the NDAA and the extension of the Patriot Act and not closing Guantanamo, I'm guessing at some point in the early days of his presidency one of the secret agencies we have in this country gave him a report that scared the living shit out of him. He killed that one guy for something he would have the right to do in America. He sold out on the US health care system. However he has killed off Osama which is a good thing and he ended the Iraq war which is also a good thing.

Obama is not a good president, but the republicans are worse. And the vomitous psycho-shit that Wrong Paul is spewing makes me feel that those that support him should be lobotomized... if they aren't already.

Regardless, unless Wrong Paul or Santorum gets the nomination, I'll be writing in Dennis Kucinich for president.

[The Aryan Nations]

Authoritarian implies power is held by one.
dividing power by 50.
paul isnt authoritarian.

Oh good, there's never been an authoritarian ruler then.

After all, the power is divided by 196.

Hitler, Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-il, Stalin. authoritarians.

Paul? wants to take power from the fed and give it to the 50 states.