It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Should I Vote For Ron Paul?

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


all three of these cost something don't they? free education? free healthcare? free for who exactly?

nothing is free in this world... and the US is not even top 50 anymore even with billions of dollars a year being dumped into the public education system.

we were better off when we didn't have these social programs.... they only lead to a self entitlement society.... like we see today... especially with OWS. (Current example)




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Hi fellow ATS members. I am an ATS newbie and this is my first post so please don't attack. :-)

I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter and was just having a debate with one of my co-workers about why he should vote for RP, and he brought up a point that got me thinking. It is a perception obstacle that I have not encountered before. He mentioned that the only thing that scares him about Ron Paul is that the last two times the US tried isolationist policies, we ended up in a World War (I & II obviously).

Does anyone think that bringing home our troops from abroad create a power-vacuum that will be back-filled by nuclear war? My co-worker thinks that these type of actions will cause world aggressors to assume we are weak? Do we care about the millions that could be swept up and die in the aftermath?

I don't want my girls to grow up in a nuclear winter. This has me a little concerned. Does anyone think Israel and Iran will just start lobbing bombs at each other if the US only protects its own borders. Can anyone give me a counter-argument? Because I have nothing.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


And this is why I'd never vote for Ron Paul, because deep inside of every Ron Paul voter is someone who thinks that ending free education is a good idea for America.

The cost of destroying society is much greater than any money you'd save by slashing 90% of government.

Ron Paul's policies would NOT equal liberty for all but liberty for a wealthy elite who would use their power to create monopolies and control what little government there was left. And then guess what, they'd raise taxes, they'd remove all protection left and they'd remove any freedoms that cost them money.

Libertarianism is like Adam Smith said, a good idea if we could all live in perfect harmony, where a market system wouldn't create social classes. But alas, in the real world Libertarianism like Socialism would fail, badly and brutally, because morality for too many people can't come from the inside out. Libertarians would turn the captains of industry into new kings... completely destroying the safety society is intended to offer.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rbotvinik

He mentioned that the only thing that scares him about Ron Paul is that the last two times the US tried isolationist policies, we ended up in a World War (I & II obviously).

Does anyone think that bringing home our troops from abroad create a power-vacuum that will be back-filled by nuclear war? My co-worker thinks that these type of actions will cause world aggressors to assume we are weak? Do we care about the millions that could be swept up and die in the aftermath?


Nonintervention is not isolation, there is a difference. And lets be honest here, if they wanted to turn the desert to glass they would. It is pure egotism to think that somehow having troops there would stop it if that is the route they went to go. It would just mean our troops would get vaporized along with them.


Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by ugie1028
 
And this is why I'd never vote for Ron Paul, because deep inside of every Ron Paul voter is someone who thinks that ending free education is a good idea for America.


Our "education system" as it is is a joke! This hellish world you fear exists now, the rich send their kids to private schools.... The federal government has no place in the public school system, that is for the states to handle. The federal government sticks it's nose in far too many places it does not belong, and ends up ruining everything it touches eventually.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


The board of education has done more harm than good. Although good in theory; it isn’t a viable solution. Think of it this way…. Back in the 50’s and 60’s we didn’t have a massive public educational system – yet students thrived. Now the the department of education budget is massive, we dropped out of the top 50. It is a failed program. The more money you dump into it the worse it gets.

Take the money away, free up tax payer money and in turn; this enables responsible people to homeschool or send their children to a private school.

If you didn’t catch that… it means that people get to keep their money and allows them to use it on their kids.
Also, another note what about parents who send their kids to private school but they still pay taxes that go into the dept of education? Do you think that is fair?

I hate the fact that we are forced into these social systems and in the end don’t help at all. Anything the government throws money at it breaks.

I wont expect a reply to my post… you’ll most likely reply, but you won’t answer my questions or engage in civil debate.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


This is a nutso suggestion.

There are LITERALLY 10s of thousands of kids that get an education ONLY because of free education. Those people would literally not be educated. The chances of the amount of money they save on taxes being equal to what they would need to afford a private education is infinitesimal. On top of that, removing all standards and allowing people to home-school is possibly the most lame-brained approach to education going. Tell me, in the countries that now beat the US in the educational standings, how many of them have free education? How many rely on home-schooling?

I'll wait for you to show me some examples of this genius idea working ANYWHERE in the world.

It's gonna be a long wait.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


Home schooling is the future: www.khanacademy.org... thenewboston.org... , why not?
edit on 30-1-2012 by Pr0t0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


nutso suggestion? Its better than dumping billions of dollars into a failed system. Dont you think you're being a bit extreme saying that a lot of people will be uneducated? hate to break it to you, but a lot of Americans are uneducated even with this system in place.

Billions of dollars spent on public schools, almost a trillion in student debt (college) Who is supposed to pay for all of this?

You said before that ron paul was selling a utopian idea.... the only utopian ideas are one where no one has to pay, and everything is free... well guess what it isn't free and life isn't fair. you play the hand your dealt... and not a hand out.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Pr0t0
 


Like I said, home-schooling isn't a big part of any education system that's kicking the US's ass, educationally. In fact the US education system is much much much less subsidised than pretty much every system that kicks the US's ass. Which is pretty definitive proof that the state paying, via taxes, for the education of the populous isn't the problem. At all.

It's all good to claim that the education system is broken and that this is somehow BECAUSE taxes are paying for it, but it is FACTUALLY NOT TRUE.

It's instead a way for people try and weasel out of paying taxes.

If you ACTUALLY want education to be fixed in America, try emulating places where it does work.

Oh, but then, then it would mean your taxes will go UP.
edit on 30-1-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


nutso suggestion? Its better than dumping billions of dollars into a failed system. Dont you think you're being a bit extreme saying that a lot of people will be uneducated? hate to break it to you, but a lot of Americans are uneducated even with this system in place.

Billions of dollars spent on public schools, almost a trillion in student debt (college) Who is supposed to pay for all of this?

You said before that ron paul was selling a utopian idea.... the only utopian ideas are one where no one has to pay, and everything is free... well guess what it isn't free and life isn't fair. you play the hand your dealt... and not a hand out.


Check out how many kids live below the poverty line. Those kids, a huge portion or them, would no longer be educated. The fantasy that people in poverty, people who often choose to avoid chronic health issues due to having no money, would suddenly have cash for a for-profit education system, is lunacy.

The for-profit healthcare system failed how many 10s of thousands? And the for-profit education system will be different how?

It IS a fantasy. All of this. Ron Paul is delusional and an ideologue.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 




Check out how many kids live below the poverty line.


because over time... with the system that we live in the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

there is an imbalance in the economy and how we use our resources. if allocated correctly, it can be corrected. Ron Paul plans to slash 1 trillion dollars and wield a balanced budget by the time the elections come around.

if government didn't blow all the cash they have, the poverty level in this country wouldn't be where it is now.

Healthcare didn't fail... healthcare failed because government got in the way with regulations which in turn caused rates to skyrocket. there is not competition in an artificial economy.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Again, the US' healthcare system is well below other countries that regulate much more. The myth that regulation is the problem in America is disproven by simply looking at other countries where these systems DO work.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 


when it takes weeks or months to prove or pass something due to these regulations, the money spent doing it, and the time and effort as well is what costs the health care industry. Its called bureaucracy... an un-needed element of govt.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 

There is a some misunderstanding about why the healthcare system in the U.S. failed to serve the masses like it once did. I know it once did, I was alive when it did. I also was in business when it began to fail, and I had to cancel the health care I provided to employees and my own family because it got too expensive.
The first development was the private injury lawsuits. An injured party could not count on the many government agencies that existed for fair compensation for their injuries. So, the personal injury lawyers came in and changed all of that, BUT, they made an industry out of it. It didn't take long, and huge amounts of money began to go into the pocket of these PI lawyers, causing personal injury and malpractice insurance rates to rise. Often, the doctors deserved to be sued, after all, they are protected by their powerful association which allows them to get away with murder. BUT, the insurance company HAS to pay the settlement.
I remember looking in the phone book yellow pages, and the personal injury lawyers had FAR more pages than any other profession or retailer, PLUS the back cover and the end cover and sometimes the front cover.

Where was the regulation? The truth is, regulation doesn't work within a corrupt system of government, and THAT is what happened to the U.S. on all levels. The system is hopelessly corrupt because we reelect corrupt people and expect them to fix themselves. There is NO system that will work when the government and its people are corrupt.

Ron Paul is incorruptible. He is a start.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow
 


Sorry, but the Libertarians would refuse to get involved in that as they believe government shouldn't regulate enterprise. It's one of their main ideas. Basically, as long as it makes money, it's good business and government should leave it alone. If you're so awesome go make some money and pay Market value. Don't expect government to help you fight corruption. That'd require regulation.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
here is a very good reason to vote for Ron Paul...

Support our troops by supporting their choice of our next Commander in Chief




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Vote for whoever you want and dear God please do not base it off on what some forum of what anonymous posters tell you.

For the love of aqua buddah.
edit on 30-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by Still
 


Well,I am an Independent.

If your undecided,thats a whole different ball game.

I never stated anything,other then you haven't said a good thing about Paul.


Which makes no sense at all. Saying it again makes less sense. I never said anything bad about Ron Paul either. I do not get what you are thinking. I never said anything good about Eggnog but I love eggnog. I never said anything good or bad about Ron Paul.


Usually,those who are on the fence with him,have a STRONG opinion,either yes or no.


huh?
How are you on the fence if you already decided a strong yes or no?


I wont call you disingenuous,but I will say I don't believe you have him anywhere near on top of your list to become President.


I will point out how meaningless that statement is. That is just more of "my team is better than your team" crap. That is not how you get people to see your point of view. I will also point out that you trying to tell me about myself based on a couple forum posts you read from me is extremely disingenuous.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Still
 


It's hard to respond in kind to propaganda.


I need to know what you are calling propaganda. I have read my posts in this thread a few times now and I do not see what you could possible be referring to.
Ready to have a polite and honest discussion about it?



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join