Politics: I Don't Trust Anyone Not Voting Ron Paul

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
You're not going to get your wish.


I wouldn't be so sure of that Justin just yet. There are a lot of primaries still to come.




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
alright, TA, responding to the second half.

ok, now, what programs do you have a problem with?
taxation is necessary.

so all we need is reform and oversight.
again, back up the founding fathers argument. show me where they were specifically against the specific things that you have a problem with.

and show me exactly where the founding fathers outlined EXACTLY what they intended...

NWO order hell... fear mongering! wow...

alright, you're right, i do have to deal with all of the crap of what you're doing.

...they didn't really go out to war over taxation...they went to war over REPRESENTATION. they had no problem with taxation, just taxation WITHOUT representation.

now, show me exactly where the constitution says that these things you keep telling me it says. you often bring it up... but you don't cite the constitution itself.

you say you know that much about it... but do you?
it's not just through amendments...
are you aware that we have an airforce... yet an airforce isn't mentioned in the constitution?
you might be saying: "so what?" well... it mentions a ground force... and a naval one. quite specifically...
but nothing about an airforce...yet, we have one. do we need to make an amendment for that one?

nope:
Article 1: Section 8:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States


emphasis added... laws dealing with the general welfare... like a universal healthcare law, would be constitutional right there...

airforce is added under common defense

*snip*



To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

^
elastic clause, they can make laws not specifically mentioned in the constitution, yet have to do with it in a way.
now, combine these two parts, and you can add quite a bit without having to go through the amendment process...

that's for the growth in the size and roles in government.
you're kind of wrong here, i just pointed out where the constitution shows you're wrong.

actually... it would be in the role of the states... but promoting the general welfare

amendment 1: free speech and whatnot...

...wait. wait. the constitution is what this country was founded upon?
and then you asked how I got through school?
this country was FOUNDED on the articles of confederation... which were scrapped when we realized they didn't give the federal government enough power.
i don't agree COMPLETELY with the constitution. i agree with parts. this does not make me a domestic enemy, it makes me someone who is pushing for reform.
you don't want me to come back?! you need dissent. this country wasn't founded on the constitution, it was actually founded on dissent...

you keep telling me it's so good... and that things would be better would be better if you followed it to the letter and things would coming together naturally.
how? show me a line of causation

...dissolve an institution that promotes the general welfare? the good doctor clearly hasn't read article one.

education in the hands of parents?
well, clearly voting on education is stupid. example: science. science isn't democratic... there is a very vocal 40-55% of this nation that doesn't believe in science, and they would put a stranglehold on the proper teaching of biology... oh, i forgot that ron paul doesn't believe in evolution...
[short tangent] i kind of care if a candidate wishes to embrace reality... this one fails to[/short tangent]
we've seen things hijacked... and then there are the book banners... parents tend to be outraged over small things like a book that mentions graffiti that is a 4 letter word... honestly, you'd put education in the hands of the book banners and ignorant. education shouldn't be handled by the general populace of a nation that is quite...well...ignorant.
blind leading the blind and all that.
you'd also create a problem... failing schools. this system fails to address schools that are failing the students. they'd still lack funding... even more so without federal funds. many schools are so starving for the federal government funds that they would entirely fail without them.

the parents shouldn't be telling students what they need to be learned.
we may need education reform, but the american people aren't educated enough.

here's your provision: promote the general welfare. i already quoted it before. add the elastic clause.

show me a successful free market healthcare system that is superior to the system in france... or how about one superior to the one i'm currently in, malta.
this isn't about protecting people from themselves... it's for drug companies to not deceive people.

you've yet to think outside the box on this issue. you're compartmentalizing this.
see... you used the word "believe". now, back up that belief.
and then you go on a tangent about "if the constitution was followed" etc etc.
but you can't necessarily say where we'd be. nobody can... because nobody is omniscient in that way.

oh, you're right. we should get rid of the standing army. biggest reduction we could make. we could put the money into the hands of the people AND put forth my policies!
win-win!

now, you've been earnest and i understand where you're coming from... but i don't see any reasoning behind it. show me something harder. you talked about substance... now put some into your responses.

ohhh
and you said the income tax isnt' constitutional...
well... i hate to break it to you:

Amendment 16 (1913)


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration


it's 100% legal. it's right there in the constitution. a strict constitutionalist would be forced to follow it.

[edit on 1/9/08 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I agree with you 100%- why wouldn't you want a president like ron paul? Everyone else seems to be talking out of their butt. The constitution is what founded this country- Ron paul is the only one who's defending our civil rights that everyone else wants to strip away from us- Thats why when I hear people say their voting for Huckabee or Obama I can't help but ask...Whats wrong with you?


All other candidates seem shady and have other motives that they aren't sending out to the public...This is a very nasty campaign in my opinion- hopefully voter fraud won't elect hillary or another antichrist like bush. It just goes to show you who really is "awake" to the real world and whose trusting the lies that people swear by. For those of you not brainwashed- you can pat yourselves on the shoulder.

Everyone has their right to vote for whoever they want- I'd just prefer you'd elect someone that won't damage this country more than it's already been...

Heres some facts about Dr. Paul

*He wants to dismantle the FBI and CIA (Everyone thinks its ludacris so I guess you can call me insane)

*He wants to pull out of iraq a.s.a.p
*He wants to end the enormous debt that we've locked into
*He wants to just focus on America (by closing ties to many outside countries) which every candidate should be doing- not focusing on the world.

He may not have a chance in alot of peoples eyes but come election day- we shall see...hopefully it will be a fair vote and not scammed like we all know it could be.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by dj05544
I agree with you 100%- why wouldn't you want a president like ron paul?


because i'm a progressive, not an isolationist regressive...



Everyone else seems to be talking out of their butt.


...obama really doesn't seem to be
and kucinich definitely isn't.
granted, you just stated and opinion that's really not subject to much discussion.



The constitution is what founded this country-


actually... you're wrong and a great proof of why we need to keep the department of education (which promotes the general welfare) and reform the educational system at a national level.

the articles of confederation founded this country. the constitution was something created well after the USA was a nation.
they were adopted november 1777
the constitution was adopted in 1787.



Ron paul is the only one who's defending our civil rights that everyone else wants to strip away from us-


um... evidence?
he doesn't support the civil rights act... calling it unconstitutional.



Thats why when I hear people say their voting for Huckabee or Obama I can't help but ask...Whats wrong with you?


well, i have a bit of a headache from dealing with ignorance, but that's about it. thank you for the concern
granted, i wouldn't vote for huckabee and obama is only my third choice. first being kucinich, second being nader, third being obama... yes, i know nader isn't running (for once)



All other candidates seem shady and have other motives that they aren't sending out to the public...


again, this is presumption. this is discussion, support that statement.



This is a very nasty campaign in my opinion- hopefully voter fraud won't elect hillary or another antichrist like bush.


well, as much as i hate bush and his policies, i really don't think you should resort to ad hom.



It just goes to show you who really is "awake" to the real world and whose trusting the lies that people swear by. For those of you not brainwashed- you can pat yourselves on the shoulder.


more ad hom, but now directed at a larger group of people.
this is actually something i'd like to note about the conspiracy mindset: a feeling of superiority over those who are "brainwashed" or "not awake"



Everyone has their right to vote for whoever they want- I'd just prefer you'd elect someone that won't damage this country more than it's already been...


alright, that's why i'm NOT voting for ron paul



Heres some facts about Dr. Paul


i'd also like to note this, people that support ron paul tend to add his title. it's not relevant at all.. yet they add it.



*He wants to dismantle the FBI and CIA (Everyone thinks its ludacris so I guess you can call me insane)


i wouldn't call for dismantling of them... intense reforms, yes, but dismantling them?



*He wants to pull out of iraq a.s.a.p


i somewhat agree with him on this one... but i wouldn't mind keeping some people over there for the sole purpose of training iraqi police forces.



*He wants to end the enormous debt that we've locked into


you know... that's something you don't need ron paul for.



*He wants to just focus on America (by closing ties to many outside countries) which every candidate should be doing- not focusing on the world.


but... that doesn't work. isolationism is not the answer and isn't a solution for the future.



He may not have a chance in alot of peoples eyes but come election day- we shall see...hopefully it will be a fair vote and not scammed like we all know it could be.


another thing i've noticed from ron paul supporters. allegations that the vote will be rigged BEFORE the voting starts so they say "see? he didn't win because it was rigged"



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:34 AM
link   
so.... why the intense silence in the face of so many of my replies?



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
so.... why the intense silence in the face of so many of my replies?


I suppose you're asking me? Well, first let me say that I appreciate your time in composing those replies. And I haven't forgotten about you. But I know the kind of time I will need to give you the kind of reply I want to give you. But as you said, I want it to contain substance, so I will need time. Time which I have been spending doing behind the scenes research on the Election fraud story. So sorry to make you wait, but that is no reason to go to my other threads like you just did and go immediately off topic bashing Ron Paul.

And I would also venture to say that Ron Paul has probably read the constitution more than anyone else in that government, including the Supreme Court. Your accusations in that regard are ludicrous.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I have a few questions for you Madnessinmysoul. I honestly do appreciate where you are coming from with your argument. RP and his views are primarily based on dismantling the fascist state that is America.

His bright idea for doing this is reverting back to the what he believes made America great... the constitution.

While this would have far reaching consequences it certainly beats the alternative of continuing to let corporate America run the show. I fail to see how there can be another choice apart from RP in less the idea of fascism in America seems like a good one to you.

In a time like the one we live in now the world needs an anti fascist leader who will stop waging war and scrap the federal reserve etc and RP is the only candidate i'm aware of who openly proposes that he will try to do this. For me their is no choice RP is the only one who offers this.

I do agree though that if RP is not going to be nominated then i would hope Kucinich or Obama make it. Main reasons for me being Kucininch wants 9/11 re-opened and investigated properly which shows me what side he stands on with regards to the fascist state. And Obama does want to pull troops out of Iraq and start proper diplomatic talks without preconditions with Iran.

Edit: Speeling

[edit on 14/1/08 by Argos]






top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join