Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes)

page: 19
20
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by krossfyter
 



Good luck on trying to persuade people away from Ron Paul. But Im not buying it. Its a failed argument from the get go because Ron Paul is against the CORPORATOCRACY.


If that is true...explain to me why he wants to remove most if not all regulations from Corporations and eliminate the taxes they pay???

What better support for Corporations is there??? He wants to give them everything they lobby for...they just don't have to lobby him to do it...he WANTS to do it.


Please explain to me how you justify his positions on regulations and removing/lowering taxes from Corporations???


I thought he said Corporatocracy? Which would imply the bureaucratic impact corporations have with the government to remain in power and eliminate competition. I think Ron Paul wants competition.




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by WilliamWallace
reply to post by The Sword
 


have any of you people ever heard VETO or executive order?
the office of prez . HOLDS huge powers
true congress brings bills to the floor and gets thing moving . but hey, guess what ?

WE CAN VOTE those WHORES OUT TOO !


Ron Paul has repeatedly talked against executive orders and how they are abused.

Are you suggesting he be a hypocrit and do the exact thing he is supposedly against???


And you are aware that Congress can override a veto...right??? You want Congress to work together...put Paul in office and have him veto all the bills they pass...it will be a threat to their power and they will band together to override vetos.


Vetoing a bill wouldn't be abuse. Abuse would be over ruling the constitution, which then maybe would encourage the people in congress to actually read the bills and listen to a good reason to why it can't be passed. Not to mention its not like 2/3 of Congress is going to decide on something overnight.



posted on Jan, 1 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Ron Paul is simply the Ross Perot for the 2012 presidential election. His job is to take away enough "conservative" votes in order to give Obama the election (like Perot giving Clintoon the election in 1992).

(Not that this is necessary since the unseen hand controls the "elections" anyway.....but the sheeple need to have a reason why they "lost;" which will be the split vote that Perot--er, Paul--causes).

Wake up folks. (s)Elections are only to make you think you have a say in all of this.....that's why we flip-flop between Dems and Repubs. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME AND PLAYING ON THE SAME---Luciferian---TEAM.

The Babylonian Mystery Religion never went away...hellooooo....anybody home?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

so what you're telling me is that a majority of 400-something of the sleaziest, most corrupt, revolving-door, rich politicians feel threatened by his policies 99.78% of the ti
E? I think we found our winner. He's almost as powerful as hand sanitizer.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Meanlittlemonkey
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

so what you're telling me is that a majority of 400-something of the sleaziest, most corrupt, revolving-door, rich politicians feel threatened by his policies 99.78% of the ti
E? I think we found our winner. He's almost as powerful as hand sanitizer.



Well...I think it says more about Ron Paul's inability to get people to work with him. And that he will have no more success getting people to work with him as President.

But you can form your own opinion.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by krossfyter
 



Good luck on trying to persuade people away from Ron Paul. But Im not buying it. Its a failed argument from the get go because Ron Paul is against the CORPORATOCRACY.


If that is true...explain to me why he wants to remove most if not all regulations from Corporations and eliminate the taxes they pay???

What better support for Corporations is there??? He wants to give them everything they lobby for...they just don't have to lobby him to do it...he WANTS to do it.


Please explain to me how you justify his positions on regulations and removing/lowering taxes from Corporations???


Why don't you ever cite your sources? You could be taking something completely out of context. There's no reason for anyone to respond to what seemingly amounts to a straw man at this point.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Like I said before (maybe in another thread).

There is only ONE reason you would want to take current federal law and hand it over to the states. The ONLY reason you would do this is if you are against the current federal law.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But apparently Ron Paul thinks it's broke...he knows he can't "fix" it at the federal level...so the best alternative is to get it moved to the states and at least some states will change the current federal law.

So if Ron Paul is trying to move some issues to the state..that is just his way of getting federal law changed...at least in some states.


That's just logical fallacy at best. The TRUE reason is that the Constitution was written to limit the powers of the Federal Government to prevent an all-powerful central government. The States are above the Fed except in the few powers enumerated in the Constitution. Check the Supremacy Clause and the 10th Amendment.

A lot of things are broken because they were taken over by the Fed. Look at the Post Office for an example. Things are getting so bad now that many states are re-asserting their 10th Amendment rights. So when Doctor Paul says it should be left up to the states, he's Constitutionally right. The Fed is supposed to be small and locked in deadlock for the most part. That's how the Founders wanted it. They figured that would be the best way to keep them busy and out of everyone's lives -- checks and balances designed block major change to what they intended.

They also knew that all Governments go bad and that this would last as long as we were willing to protect the documents they framed after spilling a lot of their own blood. Was it perfect? No. But it was the best the world had ever seen and led to a lot of free, prosperous folks. It worked for a long time. Then Bankers got involved.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 16  17  18   >>

log in

join