The Madness that is: Ron Paul's Candidacy!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 



Well, there's the problem.


I know, but unfortunately for this country it's the ONLY way that conservatives can grasp a concept. See, if one uses logic, facts, reason, or reality. Conservatives just don't understand. So, one must use tactics that Conservatives do understand. Fear, hate, intolerance, bigotry, and self centered-ness.




posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


And you are falling for it hook line and sinker.

Give it time, as others have suggested, maybe the MSM will one day change your mind.

Think with your own mind, I know you can.
edit on 20-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

This is the exact reason he wants to make abortion illegal. The states wouldn't be able to make abortion legal or not because it would be against federal law. It would criminalize doctors and patients who end an unwanted pregnancy by making every fetus a human being thus terminating it would hold the exact same penalty as murder.

Incorrect, because murder is not a federal crime (it's a state issue, with state determined definitions and handling), and you're still disregarding the multitude of existing examples of states sanctioning the termination of indisputable life (including assisted suicide). All the legislation does is force the states to address the issue itself as they already do with any other case of the premature ending of life...aside from in DC, as the federal courts have jurisdiction over non-federal crimes there.


Actually Ron Paul wants two things, either private education, or homeschooling. He wants to completely end the public school system thereby forcing parents to either spend more on private education or give up an income completely and home school their children.

I'd love to see some substantiation of that claim, as Paul's interest in education from everything I've ever seen extends so far as ending the Federal Dep't of Education and returning educational autonomy to the states.


You are right, there are parents out there that are well qualified to home school their children. I'm not completely against home schooling, I am against stupid people home schooling their children and thereby creating a serf class of people as Ron Paul envisions.

I'll disregard the closing bit, but agree with the rest - and I'm pretty sure the states would deal accordingly with parents not providing adequate educational opportunities for their children (as I believe they already do...too bad the public systems are failing them in greater-than-desired proportion, eh). The inability of such children to pass required tests or gain access to university and the like would end such stupid experiments by parents fairly quickly as well, I'd assume.


It's not scaremongering when the candidate doesn't express how someone will get their citizenship when they are born in this country. Are we to assume that they will get citizenship through a fee of some sort? Thereby creating more people who even though were born in this country aren't actually citizens of this country? Perhaps they will have to pass some sort of Conservative litmus test (because we all know that conservatives love to make sure that people are "conservative" enough through tests) Or maybe the only people in Ron Paul's world that are deserving of citizenship are people that have northern European ancestry. He doesn't explain, so therefore all we can do is speculate.

People would become citizens the same way they did before the 14th amendment allowed birthright citizenship by illegal immigrants. Why do you think this wasn't an issue prior to the 14th amendment? Non-issue - there were already plenty of definitions of citizenship on the books, we just didn't allow people to sneak into the US and force open a backdoor to citizenship for themselves by giving birth on US soil.


Why is it silly? People assumed that Obama was a Muslim and wanted to bring over Sharia Law based only on a photograph. Ron Paul explicitly states on his campaign website that GOD dictates to him what to do and how to legislate. (not the people, but GOD) So, it's only fair to assume that he wants to turn the US into a theocracy and instill Cannon Law.

It's silly because it's simply not true by any ascertainable measure. As to Obama - well, we've both been more than glad to acknowledge that some people are stupid and rush to conclusions (as you are doing here as well - rushing; not calling you stupid, to be clear).

Let me phrase it this way. I also have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate. And I try to force no one to do anything according to the dictates of MY belief - I talk to them, try to get them to think about things, and try to convince them to my way of thinking at times, but if they don't, they have chosen as they have chosen.

When Paul is on record...well, innumerable times over the course of decades...consistently advocating a retreat of the federal government to its constitutional limits as well as actively voting against anything it does not authorize, in addition to consistently stating that liberty includes peoples' options to make the wrong choices as well as states to decide in ways that disagree with his personal views, there is no indication of Paul suggesting what you imply other than him saying what any publicly-admitting christian would be every bit as likely to say.

And...



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 
...if you'll read further down the statement of faith page that you linked, you'll come to this:

In Congress, I never vote for any piece of legislation that violates the Constitution’s strict limits on government power. I also do not participate in the congressional pension system.

As President, I give you my word that I will only exercise my authority within the confines of the Constitution, and I will work every day to rein in a runaway federal government by binding it with the chains of that document.

If you're worried about Paul being a christian, then you should also be made aware that the bible takes a very hard stance and pronounces strong condemnation on lying and oathbreaking - and Ron Paul's consistency approaches a legendary status, so there is no indication that lying is in him. The government has no authority to be involved in religion one way or the other, or to take any steps to implement any sort of remotely-religious rule or interference in people's lives.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I love how most Ron Paul supporters just say "LIES"...and run off.

Good thread...I agree with you on everything except the homeschooling...I do think parents should get a tax credit for home schooling.

But that doesn't override the thousand other bat **** crazy ideas Ron Paul has.

How is he doing in the polls again???



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I must say you raise a few valid points, especially on the abortion issue. Conservates always hate big govt. unless they are for it.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
In summation.

From all my interpretation of the things Ron says he wants to do is remove federal offices that dictate how and when the individual states will do things. He does not think it is the federal governments place to tell people whether they can have an abortion or not. He is not saying close the public school systems. He is saying to close the Federal DOE so that we can get back to the basics without all the governmental strings attached programs. Like the standardized tests for example, and BS things like no child left behind and race to the top. Although it is defunct now for the most part but D.A.R.E. is another example of a failed program that was forced down the states throats.

All Ron is saying is, let the individual states make their own decisions as to what is best for their people.
edit on 20-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Incorrect, because murder is not a federal crime


Really?

18 U.S.C. § 1111 : US Code - Section 1111: Murder


Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought.


And with Ron Paul trying to define a fetus as a human being, preforming an abortion would in fact be murder under section 1111 of the United States Code.

So, it wouldn't matter if a state said that Abortions could be legal, it would be a federal crime and it would be prosecutable. See, like all politicians, Ron Paul tells you one thing, then hides the reality in the legalese.


I'd love to see some substantiation of that claim, as Paul's interest in education from everything I've ever seen extends so far as ending the Federal Dep't of Education and returning educational autonomy to the states.




His ideas about abolishing public education flies in the face of one of our nations founders, Thomas Jefferson.


Thomas Jefferson is rightly given much credit for emphasizing the importance of education in a democracy. He believed education for all to be a crucial part of the success of the "experiment" undertaken in 1776. He had faith in the "common man" and his ability to elect wise and virtuous leaders if that man were educated to do so. With this caveat in mind, Jefferson wrote the Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge, the Bill for Establishing a Public Library, and the Bill for Establishment of a System of Public Education, among others (Tozer, Violas, and Senese, School and Society, 30-31).


www.vcu.edu...

See, the problem is, while again, on the surface it sounds good. States already are burdened with their own budget problems and to keep passing the buck along to states like Ron Paul wants to do is idiotic. There are things this government should do. And creating a standard for educating our young is one of them.

Do you seriously think that the conservative movement would stop at ending the federal department of education? Or (which is more likely) once they decimate education on a federal level, start eliminating education on a state level too?

See, when you have an educated public, ideas like protecting the environment, regulating businesses (as per Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution dictates is within the powers of Congress) and educating our children start making sense. If you give a child a decent education, they tend to have more opportunities in life. Take that education away, and you limit that child's life to one of menial labor or even crime.


People would become citizens the same way they did before the 14th amendment allowed birthright citizenship by illegal immigrants. Why do you think this wasn't an issue prior to the 14th amendment? Non-issue - there were already plenty of definitions of citizenship on the books, we just didn't allow people to sneak into the US and force open a backdoor to citizenship for themselves by giving birth on US soil.


But you are speculating just the way I was. Without a real plan in place to determine exactly who would be an American citizen in the eyes of Ron Paul, all one can do is speculate.


Let me phrase it this way. I also have accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, and I endeavor every day to follow Him in all I do and in every position I advocate. And I try to force no one to do anything according to the dictates of MY belief


When you are passing bills into law or rejecting bills based on your personal religious beliefs, it becomes a theocracy and not a republic. Our elected officials should not be writing bills or passing laws based on their personal religious beliefs. This is exactly the problem with some states "blue laws" today. These are arcane laws based on religion. If we had an actual Muslim running for office and he said "Allah guides me in all I do" he would be ostracized as a terrorist. Why the double standard?


If you're worried about Paul being a christian, then you should also be made aware that the bible takes a very hard stance and pronounces strong condemnation on lying and oathbreaking


Yes, but politicians are in fact paid to lie, Ron Paul is no exception to that rule. What is he, a liar/Heretic or Theocratic? If he is one, he cannot possibly be the other. If he serves God, he cannot serve the people, and if he serves the People, he cannot serve God. (to use the Christian idiom)







edit on 20-10-2011 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 



All Ron is saying is, let the individual states make their own decisions as to what is best for their people.


States would go bankrupt if Ron Paul passes the buck as much as he wants to. Either that or with a Ron Paul administration, expect your state income tax to go up 1000% to cover all that this guy wants to pass off onto the states.

Truman used to have a sign on his desk that said "the buck stops here"

Ron Paul's would be slightly different...



I think his nickname should be "pass the buck Paul!"



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


We used to operate that way as it is, the states did fine.
It was not until all these other agencies that were created when the problems began. Maybe you are just not old enough to remember the days when the federal DOE did not exist, and our schools were pretty damn good.

Get the federal government out the states affairs and the states will adapt and they will be ok. It is not fair for the federal government to make some blanket law for the states. While that law may be exceptional for one states needs, it could be devastating for another state. Each state has to make their own way and on their own accord.
edit on 20-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
It's a shame that public eduction has turned people into blobs of flesh that are not capable of taking care of themselves. As has the Welfare system for many people.

I think you just might be afraid of a little harsh medicine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're leaning towards some Socialist utopia at the end of this dark tunnel we've gotten ourselves into via out of control spending.

US code also defines speeding, and motor vehicle, etc..etc..It defines a lot of things, but does not always prosecute them. It's up to the states to do so.

The loophole of anchor babies needs some refinement as well.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Praetorius
 

Incorrect, because murder is not a federal crime

Really?

18 U.S.C. § 1111 : US Code - Section 1111: Murder


Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought.


And with Ron Paul trying to define a fetus as a human being, preforming an abortion would in fact be murder under section 1111 of the United States Code.

So, it wouldn't matter if a state said that Abortions could be legal, it would be a federal crime and it would be prosecutable.

Granted, I should have qualified that further. As I said regarding DC, federal courts would exclusively have jurisdiction over murder trials as it is a separate entity (so of course there is a federal definition of murder) - if you review the rest of title 18, the other narrow federal jurisdictions over murder are covered (involvement of federal property or employees, military, crossing state lines, impeding interstate commerce, and so forth).

"Murders" committed within the borders of a state, however, fall outside federal jurisdiction - as would effectively all abortions under this discussion -hence pretty much all murder trials occurring in state courts, etc. The proposed legislation is also quite clear in removing such cases of abortion from federal jurisdiction as well, so this continues to be a non-issue as I've already stated. The states would be forced to determine handling just as they do with the other examples I've previously provided (you have a fair point in how this would apply in DC, however. We'd have to look into that further).


His ideas about abolishing public education flies in the face of one of our nations founders, Thomas Jefferson.

The video on Paul provided only addresses the federal government's involvement in education? Paul is nowhere on record wanting to abolish public education or interfere with the states handling it, so the Jefferson reference doesn't do much. Jefferson was also quite clear on a strict interpretation of the constitution and not reading anything in to it beyond the enumerated powers - hence, no federal department of education until about 200 years later.


See, the problem is, while again, on the surface it sounds good. States already are burdened with their own budget problems and to keep passing the buck along to states like Ron Paul wants to do is idiotic. There are things this government should do. And creating a standard for educating our young is one of them.

Do you seriously think that the conservative movement would stop at ending the federal department of education? Or (which is more likely) once they decimate education on a federal level, start eliminating education on a state level too?

See, when you have an educated public, ideas like protecting the environment, regulating businesses (as per Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution dictates is within the powers of Congress) and educating our children start making sense. If you give a child a decent education, they tend to have more opportunities in life. Take that education away, and you limit that child's life to one of menial labor or even crime.

If the federal government wasn't ineffectively taking so much money from the states and people, the states wouldn't have such dire financial issues. And the one-size fits all federal involvement in education has caused the quality of education to worsen since the department of education was founded.

Yes - I think it would stop at ending federal involvement. I'm not aware offhand of 'conservatives' having issues with public education prior to the feds getting involved (please advise if I'm missing something here).

You're misinterpreting the interstate commerce clause, BTW - government has no general authority to regulate business (a good review of this can be found here. Refer back to Jefferson on strict interpretation here as well. Otherwise agreed with last paragraph noted quoted for space - and the states can do this better as they did before the feds.


But you are speculating just the way I was. Without a real plan in place to determine exactly who would be an American citizen in the eyes of Ron Paul, all one can do is speculate.

No, because there are already laws on the books. This wasn't a new issue and we were handling it fine previously. Repealing the citizenship clause of the 14th just ends birthright citizenship. Not speculation, existing laws already handled this... (additional post again, oi)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


I tell you what, I thought it was going to be a troll thread, but I gotta give you credit for putting a lot of effort into it, even though I really don't agree.


If he and his son ran on the same ticket, they'd wipe the floor with whatever his name is now.

Peace



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

When you are passing bills into law or rejecting bills based on your personal religious beliefs, it becomes a theocracy and not a republic. Our elected officials should not be writing bills or passing laws based on their personal religious beliefs. This is exactly the problem with some states "blue laws" today. These are arcane laws based on religion. If we had an actual Muslim running for office and he said "Allah guides me in all I do" he would be ostracized as a terrorist. Why the double standard?

And Paul, as discussed, is quite clear on operating only within the bounds of his constitutional limits. The constitution and religious principles are not as a matter of course dimetrically opposed. Paul's record is quite clear in evincing that he operates on a governmental basis according to these principles without letting his personal views influence these limits.

Look into any of Paul's proposed legislation and tell me where religion has figured in and he has not had a valid constitutional argument regarding governmental authority in handling such issues. While it's a valid concern generaly, this issue is simply a non-starter as involves Paul. His record is quite definite on the matter. According to the constitution, there are things the federal government can do, and things it can't. Paul takes the distinctions seriously (even on things that hurt him politically, and things that no one else tends to care about).

Additionally, ANYONE who claims they would not ever in some degree handle decisions in office according to their philosophical views, be they religious or secular, is lying - intentionally or not. As long as they are still functioning in accordance with the limits on their office and the chains restricting the federal government, this is fair game.


Yes, but politicians are in fact paid to lie, Ron Paul is no exception to that rule. What is he, a liar/Heretic or Theocratic? If he is one, he cannot possibly be the other. If he serves God, he cannot serve the people, and if he serves the People, he cannot serve God. (to use the Christian idiom)

I've got to disagree here. On this issue as well, I would like to see documentation (of Paul lying).

Secondly, I think you've got the idiom wrong, unless I'm misunderstanding the reference - should be you cannot serve both God and mammon (wealth/greed). Christ's teaching was quite clear that we are all supposed to serve and help one another in this life - and, consider him misguided or not, that's all I can see Paul trying to do. It would have been very easy otherwise for him to reap the benefits of legislating according to lobbyist whims and corporate/governmental influence. But he hasn't, even when it would benefit people in his district (talking about other legislation and subsidies, etc., not earmarks - we can have that discussion later if you like) and improve chances of reelection.

On a side note - despite the disagreement, I'd like to thank you for the mature and reasoned discussion so far.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkblade71
 


I caught a blurb of this while surfing scanning a live video somewhere and I remember the word 'common law'.
Found it strange but right as decried often in the UK.
Not being in the US, I would think you have common law.
Just a thought.
Peace!



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I love how most Ron Paul supporters just say "LIES"...and run off.

Good thread...I agree with you on everything except the homeschooling...I do think parents should get a tax credit for home schooling.

But that doesn't override the thousand other bat **** crazy ideas Ron Paul has.

How is he doing in the polls again???


Considering that Paul has the most supporters, I'd say he'll continue to do well in the polls:

Mapping Where GOP Candidates Raise Their Campaign Donations
(There must be a lot of people who like bat**** crazy ideas, then)
thedailyviz.com...



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Habit4ming
 


Well, I guess you have nothing to worry about....with so many supporters...he is sure to win.



Just get back to me after the primaries.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



If the federal government wasn't ineffectively taking so much money from the states and people, the states wouldn't have such dire financial issues. And the one-size fits all federal involvement in education has caused the quality of education to worsen since the department of education was founded.

Yes - I think it would stop at ending federal involvement. I'm not aware offhand of 'conservatives' having issues with public education prior to the feds getting involved (please advise if I'm missing something here).


Again, on the surface that seems like a good idea, except that while some state's education systems would improve (with a hefty tax hike in those states) others would suffer. Perhaps New York's education system would improve dramatically, while Alabama's education system may become pathetic to the point that children may end up functionally retarded. Hell, some schools in say Texas (for example) would become theocratic institutions teaching dogma and we may end up with a generation of Texans believing that the world is 6000 years old, the moon magically appeared in the sky by divine whim, and humans walked the earth with dinosaurs and Jesus was a white man with blue eyes and blonde hair.

I am saying without a national standard for education, and left solely to the states, there would be states out there lacking in a quality education system and our children would be less prepared for life in a global economy.

Furthermore, if Ron Paul gets his way, there may be children of poor families who are forced to home school their kids who are whole fully unqualified to teach, leaving those children with a marked disadvantage, while children from wealthier families would reap the rewards and opportunities afforded through a better education. This would of course lead to a more disparaging separation between the rich and poor. Poor children home schooled by parents who themselves are uneducated would be ill prepared for life in a global economy, won't have the same opportunities to better themselves, and end up in menial labor jobs, or worse.

If you don't realize that some conservatives have an issue with public education as a whole, please check out the spelling on some TEA Party signboards. This will give you a clue as to how these conservatives view the public education system.


No, because there are already laws on the books. This wasn't a new issue and we were handling it fine previously. Repealing the citizenship clause of the 14th just ends birthright citizenship. Not speculation, existing laws already handled this... (additional post again, oi)


Citation will be required for that, I would like to see existing laws that were on the books prior to the adoption of the 14th amendment that would ensure that citizens born in this country (after Paul rapes and pillages the 14th Amendment and without congress by the way) would be citizens of this country.

See, without a clear definition on Paul's part of who would be worthy of the right to be called an American citizen, we simply have to assume one side or the other. It's that speculation that is the problem I see. We can't assume that Paul intends to magically resurrect laws stating who would be declared citizens. More likely, new laws would have to be passed, by congress not by king Paul, to ensure that people who are born in this country receive their jus soli citizenship status. This means that depending on which party is in charge, it will either be a hefty fee that needs to be paid, or more government intervention into people's lives as the government would have to do background checks on parents to ensure that they were in fact legal citizens themselves.

reply to post by Praetorius
 



And Paul, as discussed, is quite clear on operating only within the bounds of his constitutional limits.


I have to disagree, usurping the roll of the supreme court which Ron Paul calls "activist judges" is not within the president's purview, so, no, he is not operating within the bounds of his constitutional limits. He's bypassing the judicial branch and plans on taking more power as president.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I think that one of the biggest problems that I have with Paul is that he is passing the buck to the states. To me, that doesn't seem like a good leadership quality. Again, I don't have a problem with his ideas on the Federal Reserve. It's one of the areas that I actually agree with Paul on. It's just that his idea for passing everything that he can down to the state level I see causing problems.

The brunt of that problem is the TEA Party, remember, the TEA Party stands for Taxed Enough Already. And I don't think that they particularly care (or in many cases understand) the difference between state level taxes going up and federal level taxes increasing.

Ron Paul's ideas will only lead to massive tax increases on the state level, and therefore it's doing nothing to ease the tax burden on anyone. Passing the buck Paul, isn't saving anyone anything, he's simply putting the tax burden on the states themselves. States that by the way already are having huge problems keeping their budgets in check as it is. If Paul gets his way, that's going to completely bankrupt some states as they would have to take all of that burden themselves which won't do anyone a bit of good.



posted on Oct, 21 2011 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
I think that one of the biggest problems that I have with Paul is that he is passing the buck to the states.



NO, he is not passing the buck. I do not think you are old enough to remember this.
He is giving the buck back to the states, the fed government took the buck from the states years ago without the peoples and states approval.

Before all the greed and capitalists moved in, our states used to take care of their selves. The greed mongers needed a way to control the system to make their outrageous salary's. So, corporations lobbied for the fed government to take the powers away from the states. And hence, here we are.

Ron is putting things back into the states hands where it needs to be and as it was when things were running smoothly.

edit on 21-10-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join