CNN Forced To Admit Ron Paul Tops Favorability Amongst Republicans

page: 5
84
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


As long as education impacts on the economy then the federal government has a right to control it. They choose to try and not control it, aside from setting standards. Like I said almost 90% of the funding for education comes from something other than federal taxes. In other words, the federal government can't in any real way be seen to fund kids' education.

The core of my issue is the lie being told (and Paul told it too) that funding education through taxes, in any way, is unconstitutional/anti-American. Heck, you've seen a massive Paul supporter try that here, only to have his lie exposed.

So why are these people lying to you? Hmmm.? Do Libertarians not know that 90% of funding for education doesn't come from federal taxes? Why are they making such an issue?

As often happens, if you wanna understand why people are highlighting a problem, look at their proposed solution. In this case the problem's solution, as far as they are concerned is the complete defunding, via taxes, of all education, and the implementation of a for-profit system wherein the richest people got the best education. And this is their solution to this problem: 10% of funding for primary and secondary schools comes from federal taxes.

Talk about killing a Mosquito with a nuclear weapon.

As with most things libertarian, reality is unimportant. Ideology is. They are trying to justify pushing their ideology on you via a lie.

Ron Paul is part if that lie.

All the info is available. Do research. Don't just believe me or anyone. Learn the facts and try to make informed decisions based on something other than a baseless ideology.




posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





You'd be interested to see where you said that? When you said: The idea that you think education should be completely free and government funded shows you to be the most anti-american person I've encountered in a while.


While I've already said it, I imposed "federal" in front of any mention of the word "government" in my responses. Stop trying to create a trap. I know what I think and I don't need you to try and spin it.




As for your sudden turn that STATE TAXES for education is fine, that completely goes against your previous quote: The idea that you think education should be completely free and government funded shows you to be the most anti-american person I've encountered in a while.


Here's a perfect example of your lack of reading comprehension skills. I never "turned", Ok? I simply stated that state funding (and your Jefferson reference) was completely INCOMPARABLE to federal government-funded education. Did I turn there? Did I say I totally agree with or disagree? No, I said it was incomparable, and you are putting words in my mouth that I don't like the taste of.

You mention 90%. Part of me says to respond with "I'd like to see the actual figures", but rather, I don't even care. The federal government has no business putting its nose in education, it's unconstitutional, and will you please just agree to disagree because you are not going to change my stance and it's friggin' Friday night already. Having said that you cannot debunk the fact that educational curriculum has decreased significantly since the government's been involved.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 

Dear captainnotsoobvious,

Thanks for responding to me so kindly and thoroughly. But there may be a misunderstanding. I get the impression that you think I'm a Libertarian, a Ron Paul supporter, or both. I'm waiting for the GOP field to shake out a little more, and I don't know what label is approprite for my political beliefs.

And I may be misinterpreting you on what, to me, is a vital point.

As long as education impacts on the economy then the federal government has a right to control it.
Do you mean that the federal government has a right to control anything that impacts the economy? I hope not, because everything can be said to impact the economy. That level of government control does scare me.

The core of my issue is the lie being told (and Paul told it too) that funding education through taxes, in any way, is unconstitutional/anti-American.
I would hope that if it was unconstitutional, the Supremes would have caught it. I'm content to try for state level control of education for now. If that ever happens, then I might research into constitutionality issues, but I suspect I'd be happy to have the states continue to fund it. I think I'd like to see vouchers used, but that would be a state decision, too.

If I'm missing your point, please let me know.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





As long as education impacts on the economy then the federal government has a right to control it


You speak like a psychopath and therefore I do not have time to read the rest of that post. My own life has some small percentage of impact on the economy and you think the government has the RIGHT to control it. Please go back and read the Constitution..



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 





the Constitution should be read so as to grant very limited power to the federal government


Thank you, finally! Where the hell is everyone else!?



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


Maybe you should learn a bit about the constitution and how its been interpreted for the last few hundreds years and then get back to me.

What I have said is, and has been, accepted by both parties, and the supreme court, for literally almost 150
years.

But maybe this is shocking to folks that don't understand the history of the constitution and how it's ACTUALLY been interpreted, by ACTUAL supreme court justices, by legal scholars, and hundreds of politicians.

And of course none of this changes the fact that you've repeatedly made wild claims about the constitution and ts absolute definition. And none of this changes the fact that I've repeatedly shown your statements to be false and that you've chosen to just ignore that and instead havejust chosen to, big big surprise, deflect.

You have no real facts here, just fringe opinions. It's hard to justify this fringe opinion as fact, especially when you know so little about the US Constitution.

Rhetoric is not fact. Wishing something was true, to justify your ideology, doesn't make it true.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





What I have said is, and has been, accepted by both parties, and the supreme court, for literally almost 150 years.


I don't know that to be true, but in any case I could care less. Political parties were never part of the plan and completely despised by Washington and many others. But these same two parties came together in bi-partisan majority to also pass all the other unconstitutional BS that we have today, most of them in the name of "safety", which Franklin of course warned about in sacrificing the name of security. It is sad that it has become reality that congress has become what it has, a partisan system.



folks that don't understand the history of the constitution and how it's ACTUALLY been interpreted, by ACTUAL supreme court justices, by legal scholars, and hundreds of politicians.


No, the question, rather, is how it has been subverted. And also dis-regarded (ahem, Patriot Act, NDAA). And even not recommended: Even today, our Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg "spent the last two weeks in hot water for telling an Egyptian TV interviewer that Egypt might do better to emulate the up-to-date South African constitution rather than our 223-year-old model". Link...



And none of this changes the fact that I've repeatedly shown your statements to be false and that you've chosen to just ignore that and instead havejust chosen to, big big surprise, deflect.


No, you've continued to put words in my mouth, spin my arguments, and fail to comprehend my text. Like saying I "spun" on an issue when all I did was call it incomparable.




You have no real facts here, just fringe opinions. It's hard to justify this fringe opinion as fact, especially when you know so little about the US Constitution.


Please for the love of God, go copy and paste the specific text from the Constitution where it states that the government shall be allowed, required, or NOT forbidden to influence, fund, or alter education. Until you do that you have NO BUSINESS responding at this point, unless all you have left is to try and spin more of my responses successfully like you actually believe you've done already.
edit on 17-2-2012 by rstregooski because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


Here's the deal, you go figure it out. Figure out how the Federal government has the authority. Just figure it out.

Once you do that, we can talk.

You obviously have almost no idea what your talking about. You also dodge and deflect and accuse me of spinning, but of course you don't acknowledge the direct quotes I've repeatedly posted, your quotes, which show both your ever decreasing logic and ignorance (at best) and also show you're ideology is your basis for your beliefs about the constitution, not facts.

I love, as in I find it very entertainig, that you claim that consistant interpretation of one aspect of the constitution, is somehow a corruption of the constitution.

It's not corruption, you just dont have any idea what you're talking about.

Ignorance is bliss, unless you're trying to debate facts.



posted on Feb, 17 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 




Here's the deal, you go figure it out. Figure out how the Federal government has the authority. Just figure it out.


What is there to figure out? The authority is not there. You decided to protest on a thread against the subject's (Ron Paul) constitutional stance. So you go figure out what you think needs to be figured out. I see you've not found "the text" I requested that you find to post and justify your position. Job well done.




but of course you don't acknowledge the direct quotes I've repeatedly posted, your quotes


Which I've already explained the two instances, that #1: I should have specified that my use of the word "government" implied "federal government", and #2: That I did not officially agree nor disagree with your statements about Jefferson and LIMITED state funding, but called it incomparable to FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING.




which show both your ever decreasing logic and ignorance


Ha.. This coming from the very person that said if something impacts the economy then the federal government has a right to control it. This kind of statement defines both decreased logic and ignorance conveniently all at the same time! Thanks for that little bit.. That's one delirious quote to keep for sure!

I could think of so many reasons why that statement is wrong, but on the fly I'll mention one right quick.. Music. Let's see, music is something a majority of Americans tend to like listen to and spend money on- Fact. And Let's be clear here: Music is absolutely a form of free speech, which is one of the ultimate basic human RIGHTS. So since music distribution and many other facets of the industry definitely has an impact on the economy at some level, well we certainly need to make sure the government has control over it, right? Massive fail here..




I love, as in I find it very entertainig, that you claim that consistant interpretation of one aspect of the constitution, is somehow a corruption of the constitution.


First of all, define "consistent". And second of all, I love your ability to spell words correctly.




Ignorance is bliss, unless you're trying to debate facts.


Yes, these facts which you seem unable to produce, and now ask me to go figure out. I digress..



edit on 17-2-2012 by rstregooski because: beer



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by rstregooski
 


Right, so again you have just fallen back on your ideology. Your gonna need to out grow that, if you ever want to have substantive discussions.

Good luck with pushing your ridiculous ideology. Luckily for America, your candidate of choice will fail miserably, due almost entirely to his unpopularity.



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious
 





Right, so again you have just fallen back on your ideology. Your gonna need to out grow that, if you ever want to have substantive discussions. Good luck with pushing your ridiculous ideology.


Sure, whatever that means, and good luck finding that text you've yet to come up with leaving your tail between your legs.




Luckily for America, your candidate of choice will fail miserably, due almost entirely to his unpopularity.


Did you even bother to read the OP? A 2nd most favorable polling candidate amongst ALL Americans, and you along with the media would have others think he wouldn't stand a chance against Obama, when in fact he stands the best chance being that he would take the largest amount of independent votes and any frustrated democrat votes. Go back to sleep now. Good night.
edit on 18-2-2012 by rstregooski because: sd
edit on 18-2-2012 by rstregooski because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


If he does as you suggest it will slander his image of being an honest and fair candidate; it is expected of vermin like Gingrich and Romney to bicker over petty issues, and it is expected of Santorum to ramble on and on about nonsense which he has no knowledge of whenever he gets a chance to speak.

I think if Paul were to start taking a more aggressive and belligerent stance towards other candidates he would lose much support. He is the adult of the group; why would he start acting like a child?

Paul is known for his consistency; it is unlike him to act in a way that doesn't reflect his true self, even if it means gaining the attention of a few million idiots.


I thought about that as well. However, Ron Paul has a "way" with words in an honest form and he has a way of getting his points across in an absolute fashion when he wants to without "appearing" to be condescending, obtuse or obnoxious.

My opinion still stands. I do appreciate your opinion though


BTW, sometimes you just have to put on the boxing gloves and knock a few heads back if you know what I mean




posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   


This is what I was talking about. I'm so proud of R.P.



edit on 2/23/12 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by rstregooski
reply to post by PhysicsAdept
 


For realz, dude.. Santorum voted for the Patriot Act, the expansion of Medicare, and raising the debt ceiling by TRILLIONS of dollars.. I just threw up in my mouth a little...


Check out the video above to see what else this flip flopper voted for





new topics
 
84
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join