Why ron paul should not be president

[layoutshooter]

OK I hope this explains the impression I get;

I own 80 acres which I bought to build a home and farm. I don't really care about harvesting wildlife that resides on my property nor care much for that stinky marsh that was created by the builders of the freeway two miles away.

So I rip down the trees that sit in the field that I intend to farm, I have a few hundred yards of dirt to fill in the marsh and start to build my home.

Do you agree that it is my land and I can do what ever I want as long as it doesn't harm my neighbor

or I need to be prevented in doing so by having to deal with a law that prevents me

or do I have to have an environmental impact study done and get permits to fulfill the need of the DNR and so on?

Every one has the right to do with their land as they chose. As I have always said.

I understand the need for better land usage. I believe that this earth was a gift from God and that Man has a sacred responsibility to preserve it. It is MORE than possible to accomplish both. One has to want too. It is a personal choice.


Well...



Now that may not be a great example but it shows me a couple things, not bashing you by the way. The first thing is that you have not been in the situation (I understand many won't let them be in the situation) but it is the common position of those who feel it is a hand out to many. The second thing is the tax thing. I understand the point but this is another common conservative speaking point.

Yes, I was in that position. When I first got married. We waited to have kids until I was settled in a job. When that happened we started. The same day we found out my wife was expecting our first I got laid off. I paid for health insurance for her and the baby. I worked odd jobs where I could. Hunted and fished for food. Filled out job applications daily. ETC ETC. The, unlike many today, when I had a chance at a job, I TOOK IT even though it meant moving over 3000 miles across an ocean to another country. If we end up without work again, I will cope, again. Strong people do.





Well I do believe in leadership, I can tell you who would be a great president but it would be so far fetched to you. I also know that leadership isn't just acquired, it is earned and learned. As the uniform doesn't make a soldier, being a leader doesn't mean being in the forefront of people.

Now back to my question - which Ron Paul's ideas do you like and/or agree with?

Let's take a few;

His position on Taxes - As President, Ron Paul will support a Liberty Amendment to the Constitution to abolish the income and death taxes.

OK that's all fine but I believe that we need taxes in some form to actually run any federal government. So he says the following - While a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax would each be a better alternative to the income tax system, Congressman Paul believes we would have to guarantee the 16th Amendment is repealed to avoid having both the income tax and one of these systems as an additional tax.
[/COLOR]
And But there is a better way. Restraining federal spending by enforcing the Constitution’s strict limits on the federal government’s power would help result in a 0% income tax rate for Americans.

So What do you think? agree with this crazy old coot?

Abolish the income tax, repeal the the 16th. Put in a 15% National sales tax. Abolish the IRS. Slash spending. Live on what comes in.

Let's try another;

National Defense -

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

So I think this is a better solution than say "bomb the p*ss out of those who disagree with our demands"

Think about what his position is, and then think about things being said about Iran. Say Iran does let loose, what would our being there help out when they may strike first our bases and wipe out our troops?

This is a VERY complicated problem. I believe we need to start to "disengage". I also believe that it requires a slow, measured plan. Someday we can sit down and I will go into it deeper.

Here's another one;

With our gun rights under constant attack from our own government and the anti-gun United Nations, as well as the threat of rising crime due to our country’s economic woes, Congressman Paul believes it has never been more important that our President be 100% committed to defending our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Wow, guns and God in the same statement.

Actually I think that if someone wants to count on someone to protect our rights, maybe counting on Gingrich or a governor from a liberal state could be the biggest mistake we make.

So take a look for yourself and tell me what you think, I'm not trying to bash you or set you up but rather see if you are thinking the way many of us are thinking.

Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

It is not always the basic idea of Paul's that I disagree with, it is the idea that this can all happen overnight. It has taken 500 years to get into the mess we are in. It cannot be fixed in 2. It is exactly that sort of short term thinking that got us here. Unless we do this right, this time, it will never happen.

I don't believe Paul can pull it off, unless I start writing his speeches for him.

I don't know if this is the questions you wanted answered. It has been a VERY strange day.

 

[layoutshooter]

Ask one question at a time please. I have trouble keeping up. LOL! These are complicated issues that are impossible to go into in short little ditties.

 

[layoutshooter]

.
.
.
.

..... it's not impossible .....

(the above text is a link - click it )​

.
.
.
.

I listened to it. It finally ended. The message is very simplistic. The music is a style I cannot stand, nor could I understand most of the words. The video was again a style I cannot stand. Flashing all over the place. Sorry, it does not inspire me to vote for him if that was the intent. In fact, a video like that would have the opposite affect for me. It would likely make me not vote for him.

 

[RLENT]

I listened to it. It finally ended.

LOL ..... it's only 5:40 long .... which is a bit on the longer side perhaps for a music vid .... but it sure ain't "Inna-gadda-da-vida" .....

The message is very simplistic. The music is a style I cannot stand, nor could I understand most of the words.

Uhhhh ... help me out here will ya ....... how would you know what the message is ..... if you can't understand the words ?

But leaving that aside for a moment, what was the message for you ?

(Like any art form, there is likely a message there from the originator ..... but it always open to interpretation by the recipient )

And at any rate, some messages, even though simple, contain great eternal truths do they not ?

For example:

"20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you."​

The above is a very simple message (some would say a profound truth) .... but perhaps also a very powerful one ....

The video was again a style I cannot stand.

Yeah - I got it the first time ... really

Flashing all over the place.

Jump cuts - I'm not all that big a fan of them myself, simply because when too many images are run at too fast a pace it can be somewhat disorienting ....

Having said that, the ones in the video were pretty tame, as compared to some anyways.

But it is kind of the current fad (from everything from music video to openers for tv programs) of them youngin's ...

Sorry, it does not inspire me to vote for him if that was the intent.

Nooooooo ...... that wasn't the intent at all.

The intent was to get you to understand that the man certainly does greatly inspire others ..... even if he doesn't inspire you ....

In fact, a video like that would have the opposite affect for me. It would likely make me not vote for him.

Wow ...... hafta tell ya here LOS ..... that I find ..... kinda odd ....

A music video - not made by the candidate, or the candidate's campaign for that matter - but by some supporters, who found the man to inspire them, and go from perhaps being apathetic spectators (I understand that's very popular with some) ..... to the point of actually becoming politically and civically active participants ..... to take some responsibility for their country ....

.... that would make you not vote for him .... really ?

What does the style of this video have to do with the character of the man himself, or the principles and philosophy that he espouses ?

.... assuming that (character, principles, philosophy) is what determines who merits your support ....

Perhaps a straight solo performance by Jordan Page that has a little bit of a country/folk flavor is something you'd find somewhat more tolerable :

The Light of Revolution

 

[layoutshooter]

Ron Paul cannot ever "end the war". What ever that means. As C-N-C of U.S. forces the only thing he would be able to do is temporarily end U.S. involvement. Nothing more.

If we pulled 100% of our troops back within our borders the world would not suddenly be at peace. Nothing would change.

If Ron Paul believes, and I doubt that he does, that ending U.S. involvement will end "the war" he would be insane and not fit for office. I don't believe he is insane.

It is my personal belief that an instant withdrawing of U.S. forces back within our borders will cause far more problems for us than it would solve. It is also my personal belief that , in the long term, it would likely create a much larger conflict for the U.S.

Disengagement is needed, BUT it is going to take several more years. We started that process decades ago and it continues today. The current conflicts has slowed the efforts to be sure but it will, and should, continue at a measured and responsible rate.

Mr. Paul, if elected, will get a similar lesson that Obama got right after he was elected. When he sits down for his first security and threat briefing he is going to learn that the U.S. is not faced with "sound bites" and "news clip" threats. He will learn that we are faced with real threats. Threats that should not nor cannot be ignored.

Looking at another "entertainers" take on Mr. Paul will not help. It is my belief that the more entertainers in a candidates camp the less I trust that candidate.

We will never see eye to eye on these subjects nor on Mr. Paul's fitness for the office he seeks. Our lives, backgrounds and experiences are far too different. There is little common ground between us and likely never will be.

The best we can hope for is to remain civil and pray that neither of us is right.

 

[greg334]

We will never see eye to eye on these subjects nor on Mr. Paul's fitness for the office he seeks.

But the problem is not with the disagreement, it is with finding someone who is fit for the office over Paul.

Not saying he is some one who can be the country's white knight but no one is any better at this point in the republican camp.

I also don't believe for a second that he believes that the world would become a peaceful place once we left the scene, it has zero to do with that and more to do with OUR need to protect ourself by focusing on our borders and our crimes within caused by an invasion. But it seems no one wants to face the reality that our open border is more of a threat compared to Iran, North Korea, Serbia and Al Quieda combined.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Anyone watch the GOP debate last night?..
I like Pauls stance on Israel...Literally We should shut up and let them do what they do best...defend themselves...and we should just be there as a friend....

 

[layoutshooter]

"I also don't believe for a second that he believes that the world would become a peaceful place once we left the scene, it has zero to do with that and more to do with OUR need to protect ourself by focusing on our borders and our crimes within caused by an invasion. But it seems no one wants to face the reality that our open border is more of a threat compared to Iran, North Korea, Serbia and Al Quieda combined."

Mr. Paul can do nothing to control our border(s) either. It will take a congress that agrees and is willing to work with the president on the problem. He would not have that.

We do need to control the border better but I doubt that will ever solve the problem completely. The military cannot defend us by sitting on that border playing defense. The threat will continue to grow until it boils over. Defending the borders will also not deal with those who have already invaded us and congress will also not deal with that problem.

He has little power to control the crimes committed by those invaders. Those crimes take place in the States where the Federal government has no authority nor should they have.

 

[RLENT]

Ron Paul cannot ever "end the war".

..... precisely ........

Do you know what that means ? (avoid being too literal if you wish to find the answer)

What ever that means.

What do you think it means ?

As C-N-C of U.S. forces the only thing he would be able to do is temporarily end U.S. involvement.

Well ...... that would be a good start.

Nothing more.

Oh, I'd venture a guess that he could do quite a bit more ...

If we pulled 100% of our troops back within our borders the world would not suddenly be at peace.

I don't think anyone ever said that it would be ....

Certainly, it could be argued that the world might be a somewhat more peaceful place .... since we currently account for a good deal of the armed conflict that is presently occurring ....

Nothing would change

Au contraire, many things would change - for starters, one thing that would change is we'd stop ****ing off of bunches of folks whose innocent goat herder relatives end up as "collateral damage" of ...... us ....

There's got to be at least some small positive upside to that dontcha think ?

It couldn't be all bad could it ?

I've always been of the opinion that if one wishes to actually solve problems, the last people one wants to go to are apathetic defeatists who always seem claim "nothing can be done" .... "it can't be done" .... etc. ....

I have, in my life, learned to avoid folks like that like the plague .... they do nothing whatsoever .... other than convince those around them of the impossibility of doing anything ....

If Ron Paul believes, and I doubt that he does, that ending U.S. involvement will end "the war" he would be insane and not fit for office. I don't believe he is insane.

Nope - you are correct - he's a very sane dude (MO) .... and pretty pragmatic as well.

It is my personal belief that an instant withdrawing of U.S. forces back within our borders will cause far more problems for us than it would solve.

Who said anything about instant ?

That wouldn't even be possible .... unless you know of some top-secret "transporter" that Captain Kirk left us off the Enterprise when he traveled back in time ....

It is also my personal belief that, in the long term, it would likely create a much larger conflict for the U.S.

Yeah ...... I think we need to give folks a reasonable and adequate amount of time to prepare for their own defense .... afterall, we've placed them in the position where they've become dependent on us.

But we need to make it clear - it is largely their own responsibility to ensure their own defense .... not ours.

I also think that we need to maintain a strong defense capability .... but that doesn't necessarily mean we need to spend our nation into bankruptcy either ....

When one considers the rather sobering fact that we as a nation account for a little over 43% of the total global military spending, it's hard to imagine that we couldn't manage to trim a little fat from somewhere with a little sincere effort:

Failure to do so, will most assuredly be literally "the death of us all" .... (...... economically, as a nation .....)

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." — James Madison, Political Observations, 1795​

Disengagement is needed, BUT it is going to take several more years. We started that process decades ago and it continues today. The current conflicts has slowed the efforts to be sure but it will, and should, continue at a measured and responsible rate.

The current "conflicts" (which are largely self-created, as many in past also were) are actually driving and creating further engagement .... and we have lunatics (on both sides of the aisle of course) itching for all sorts of further "action" .... likely based on stuff that has about as much validity as Saddam's phantom WMD's ....

Mr. Paul, if elected, will get a similar lesson that Obama got right after he was elected. When he sits down for his first security and threat briefing he is going to learn that the U.S. is not faced with "sound bites" and "news clip" threats. He will learn that we are faced with real threats. Threats that should not nor cannot be ignored.

The biggest threat we as a nation face is not external - it never was - it is internal .... and it always has been.

The evidence of it is in the Founders writings .....

But until one understands that, there is no solution possible.

Looking at another "entertainers" take on Mr. Paul will not help.

I'm quite sure it won't ...... but then I never had any doubt .......

It is my belief that the more entertainers in a candidates camp the less I trust that candidate.

...... I guess a ringing endorsement from the Statler Brothers, Glen Campbell, or Wayne Newton would make Paul positively radioactive politically for ya then .....

I'd imagine poor ol' Willy Shakespeare and Charlie Dickens woulda had a tough audience in you ...

LOL ..... you should have lived in Sparta ..... you of course know that they're no longer around ..... seems some Roman fellers had other ideas ..... and of course, yet some other fellers had ideas about them ..... and so it goes ....

We will never see eye to eye on these subjects nor on Mr. Paul's fitness for the office he seeks. Our lives, backgrounds and experiences are far too different.

Perhaps ..... but have you ever considered the possibility of what it might be like if he were to be elected .... and then performed in a competent manner which actually impressed you ?

Would you still be unwilling to see eye to eye .... just in order to be "right" about it ?

There is little common ground between us and likely never will be.

I don't think that's the case at all - I think there is a huge amount of common ground between us ...... far, far more than divides us ......

The uncommon ground is really rather quite miniscule ..... it is, however, being fought over at the moment, with some ferocity and a vengence ....

The best we can hope for is to remain civil

My aspirations run a little higher than that I'm afraid ....

and pray that neither of us is right.

Oh .... I don't see it that way at all ..... if I'm right, everyone wins .....

...... whereas, if you're right, everyone loses ...

 

[davekc]

That chart is disturbing. I think we are going to have to lay off being the world's police department. One of the many reasons we are broke.

 

[layoutshooter]

No, unfortunately, we have little common ground. What common ground there may be would only be on some very broad concepts.

I have no use for either political party. I endorse no candidate. I only oppose the evil we deal with now.

What will I do if Paul is elected and does well? Be thankful.

There is PLENTY that can been done, on both the domestic and international stages. It is my personal belief that Mr. Paul is not able to handle the job. So far, at least, I have seen nothing that has changed my assessment of his capabilities. If I see something, from him, I will pay attention.

No form of "entertainer" has any sway over my political views. Be it stage, musical, painter, sports star or writer. Their political views are theirs, their celebrity gives them no better insight than I.

 

[RLENT]

Anyone watch the GOP debate last night?..

You betcha

Paul shone with some good responses that got very good reactions from the audience ..... (hard to argue against freedom and sanity)

Newt did exactly what he said he wasn't going to do .... in fact, he jumped in with both feet .... and further managed to get soundly and loudly booed for his inability to control himself ....

The guy is an undisciplined loose cannon .... and a complete idiot. (One should never confuse the ability of someone to articulate thoughts, with intelligence or actually being in possession of real wisdom)

Things ain't lookin' too good for the Mittster .... the bet was a pretty juvenile reaction and bad PR move (yeah, we can see the silver spoon pretty clearly)

Bachmann acquited herself well - she is a good speaker.

Perry did better .... but still managed to screw it up.

...... and Sanctimonium is still hangin' around ... he probably ought to go look up Huntsman and buy him a beer ....

I like Pauls stance on Israel ...

I do too.

Literally We should shut up and let them do what they do best ... defend themselves

Yup.

... and we should just be there as a friend ....

Yup - provided they start actually acting like one ..... they can start by knocking off the spying and espionage crap ... otherwise they should be viewed just as any other nation who engages in similar acts would be ....

 

[RLENT]

That chart is disturbing.

Dave,

It truly is - incredibly disturbing - and it goes to a point that Paul has repeatedly made - that expenditures on militarism does not necessarily equate to having a good defense.

Further, it means that a significant portion of our GDP ($$$) is being focused into stuff that may not pay dividends in terms of being more economically capable and competitive as a nation - everything in that big red area is resource that is being sucked out (thru taxes and devaluation of the currency) of the non-military economy - the thing that actually creates real wealth and a better standard of living.

And that likely doesn't include the money we dumping into places that we are blowing up ..... to rebuild them.

I think we are going to have to lay off being the world's police department. One of the many reasons we are broke.

Yup - one of many. They all need to be addressed - and very, very soon.

 

[greg334]

Mr. Paul can do nothing to control our border(s) either. It will take a congress that agrees and is willing to work with the president on the problem. He would not have that.

Actually it is his job. The congress allocates the funds for the border through the DHS but by using the military in the capacity that they are constitutional charged with, the congress has little to say about it.

We do need to control the border better but I doubt that will ever solve the problem completely.

Well that all depends on who is in charge and what their vision is. If I was in charge, there would a mile wide area from the gulf to San Diego and a BIG ditch 300 feet wide and a real wall. BUT that's me, I do believe that a country that can't control their borders can stand up to an invasion of any sort, including ours.

The military cannot defend us by sitting on that border playing defense.

Then what good are they?

If they can't defend the border, then how can I have faith in them to do a job overseas - I can't.

Maybe reinforcing the two concepts that our country's military is based on will help - their job isn't in the Middle East, South Korea or Germany, it is here and only here. The second is that the civilian population is in complete and unquestionable control of the military and seeing we have a serious threat on the border, we need them to listen to what the people need, not what some foreign power needs.

Remember, the Constitution trumps all treaties and agreements.

The threat will continue to grow until it boils over.

Yep I agree, that's the point of moving out the concept of the Department of Homeland Security who has done little and having the military fulfill their constitutional obligation by doing that job to meet the immediate threat.

Defending the borders will also not deal with those who have already invaded us and congress will also not deal with that problem.

Well that's a different situation one which is easily solved - cutting off funding for things like public schools will help which will shift schools to a for-profit system and allow the money to follow the qualified kid to the school of their choice. The other is being done (amazingly more with Obama than with Bush) by going after employers who do not check or knowingly hire invaders.

He has little power to control the crimes committed by those invaders. Those crimes take place in the States where the Federal government has no authority nor should they have.

That's all true to a point. As I said, he can go after the employers who don't check or knowingly hire. But more importantly he can stop the Justice department from pursuing lawsuits against states who decide to enforce their own laws, allowing the states to actually protect their citizens.

 

[greg334]

I like Pauls stance on Israel...Literally We should shut up and let them do what they do best...defend themselves...and we should just be there as a friend....

Isn't that what they been telling us to do for a long time?

 

[layoutshooter]

Sorry, I cannot respond to most of what you say, I must remain civil and I have a feeling that if I state my case on your remarks that will be an impossible task. What I would say would likely be taken out of context and spur some to ...................

No one is going to built the ditch and wall. Besides, no man made fixed structure can stop an invasion. No mountain range or ocean can, why do people think that any thing man can build would?

 

[greg334]

Sorry, I cannot respond to most of what you say, I must remain civil and I have a feeling that if I state my case on your remarks that will be an impossible task. What I would say would likely be taken out of context and spur some to ...................

I understand ... sort of. The problem is I may understand more of what's going on in Iran and other countries than most and it is hard to articulate the point of view I hold which goes against the grain of the more common point of view that is passive aggressive in form, function and rhetoric.

No one is going to built the ditch and wall. Besides, no man made fixed structure can stop an invasion. No mountain range or ocean can, why do people think that any thing man can build would?

Well it isn't about the ditch, it is about the effort to correct an injustice that is caused by our laziness and stupidity.

By being passive about it, taking the superficial steps to protect the country and then not understanding the larger picture of the issue, we allow modern day slavery, human trafficking and unchecked crime within cities to happen to innocent citizens on both side of the border.

We can't be considered a civilized society or even consider ourselves a compassionate one unless we are willing to first fix the problems we have within our neighbor's borders by closing ours off and cleaning up our problems before we can consider being overseas. Our issues enable those who are destructive within our neighbor's borders and most can't see that or comprehend it let alone have the nerve to stop it.

Until we grow up and return to being a nation of laws, enforcing those laws, our position in the world is not what it can be, not what we are trying to be and hopefully not what it was.

 

[layoutshooter]

I understand ... sort of. The problem is I may understand more of what's going on in Iran and other countries than most and it is hard to articulate the point of view I hold which goes against the grain of the more common point of view that is passive aggressive in form, function and rhetoric.



Well it isn't about the ditch, it is about the effort to correct an injustice that is caused by our laziness and stupidity.

By being passive about it, taking the superficial steps to protect the country and then not understanding the larger picture of the issue, we allow modern day slavery, human trafficking and unchecked crime within cities to happen to innocent citizens on both side of the border.

We can't be considered a civilized society or even consider ourselves a compassionate one unless we are willing to first fix the problems we have within our neighbor's borders by closing ours off and cleaning up our problems before we can consider being overseas. Our issues enable those who are destructive within our neighbor's borders and most can't see that or comprehend it let alone have the nerve to stop it.

Until we grow up and return to being a nation of laws, enforcing those laws, our position in the world is not what it can be, not what we are trying to be and hopefully not what it was.

I was not even considering your views on Iran etc.

No matter what I may say next will be taken wrong, so therefor I won't say. Don't assume anything. There is nothing personal.

I fully understand the problems with our border. There are effective ways to use our military to secure our borders. I will not go beyond that.

It is really hard not saying what I think! Being nice is good.

 

[tbubster]

Would Ron Paul build a border fence,wall or ditch If he were president?

 

[RLENT]

Ron Paul takes secure Drake University Straw Poll, with 35% of the vote .... Romney placed second with 25%, and Gingrich scores 10%, being outpaced by Paul by nearly a 10 to 1 margin:

RON PAUL EASILY DEFEATS COMPETITORS

Drake University Straw Poll