I'm starting to like Ron Paul more and more everyday

[bigrebnc1775]

Well , may be righties don't. But Libertarians, such as Ron Paul, do.

.

Proof? Because, many libertarians also strongly reject your position.

Excuse me Vernon. Corporations are entities created by the almighty state, not the market place.

.

From your link:

As the American colonies developed and won their independence, corporations remained in the background. Sure, there were a few notable anti-corporate protests, like the Boston Tea Party (the Sons of Liberty dumped 342 crates of British East India Company tea into the ocean),

The Boston Tea party was not a protest against the British East India Company. What kind of shit is this?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I'm with Grace. I see a guy who almost has a handle on the problems but has brought no solutions to the game other than "elect me".

So restoring then enforcing the Constitution (1787) is not a solution? Or is it that as a Marxist, you hate the solution?

.

First, tell me what "enforcing the constitution" means.

Next, tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will assure access to health care at a reasonable cost with minimal paperwork.

Then you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will affect taxes and the blatant unfairness of the code.

If you still have any key-strokes left in you when your done with those, you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will address the perfectly legal corporate corruption so rampant in DC.

Ron Paul, like most every other politician, wraps his campaign in sweet smelling phrases like "enforcing the constitution" and "providing for the American way" without ever bringing any solutions to the game.

Like I said, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Tea-Party, WhatEver - The first politician who speaks of an understanding that the revenue side must be addressed first and a fair and balanced tax code must be enacted as a priority over simply slashing spending will have my verbal, financial and ballot support.

 

[bripat9643]

You're right. It's the way that he always seems angry or the perception that people don't like. I think he's definitely passionate about his beliefs. But yeah, he instantly be portrayed as the racist.

Whoever the Republican candidate is, he'll be portrayed as a racist.

 

[Contumacious]

I'm with Grace. I see a guy who almost has a handle on the problems but has brought no solutions to the game other than "elect me".

So restoring then enforcing the Constitution (1787) is not a solution? Or is it that as a Marxist, you hate the solution?

.

First, tell me what "enforcing the constitution" means.

US Constitution
Article VI, Clause 2


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;

The Constitution adopted in 1787 is supposed to be the supreme law of the land; not the Communist Manifesto; not the Platforms of the Republican or Democratic Parties; etc.........

next, tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will assure access to health care at a reasonable cost with minimal paperwork.

Secondly, the Constitution only guarantees your right to pursue happiness - not happiness itself.

Now , government bureaucrats have been interfering with your right to access health care since the mid 1800's.

"The American Medical Association, which for almost 150 years has sought to institutionalize a rip-off and to keep sick people and their families oblivious to it. Thanks to this central committee of the medical cartel, the number of medical schools and medical students is drastically restricted, state licensure further obstructs the supply of doctors, fees are largely secret and controlled across the industry, alternative treatments and practitioners are outlawed, pharmacists and nurses are hamstrung, and the mystique of the profession rivals the priesthood, although priests have a somewhat lower income. Meanwhile, the customer pays through the nose, even if he does not go to an otolaryngologist.

Then you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will affect taxes and the blatant unfairness of the code.

The tax code is blatantly unfair, precisely, because the Constitution was ignored when the 16th Amendment was adopted. The "income tax " was at Marxist scam deigned to soak the rich. 95% of Americans were supposed to be exempted.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I'm with Grace. I see a guy who almost has a handle on the problems but has brought no solutions to the game other than "elect me".

So restoring then enforcing the Constitution (1787) is not a solution? Or is it that as a Marxist, you hate the solution?

.

First, tell me what "enforcing the constitution" means.

Next, tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will assure access to health care at a reasonable cost with minimal paperwork.

Then you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will affect taxes and the blatant unfairness of the code.

If you still have any key-strokes left in you when your done with those, you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will address the perfectly legal corporate corruption so rampant in DC.

Ron Paul, like most every other politician, wraps his campaign in sweet smelling phrases like "enforcing the constitution" and "providing for the American way" without ever bringing any solutions to the game.

Like I said, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Tea-Party, WhatEver - The first politician who speaks of an understanding that the revenue side must be addressed first and a fair and balanced tax code must be enacted as a priority over simply slashing spending will have my verbal, financial and ballot support.

You can't look at all the different issues as isolated issues. If you look at the appropriate tax to cover our spending they would go through the roof. Spending must be addressed first. Then we can determine out tax policy.

Look at three of Ron Paul's issues. All three were issues promoted by other presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader but not Obama or McCain.

1) Close all foreign military bases and bring all the troops home.

A huge amount of money leaves our country to pay for infrastructure, equipment, and spent by our troops overseas. If that money stayed in country and flowed through our economy it would be like a perpetual multi billion dollar "stimulus package" that would cost us nothing. Or, no more than we are spending now. Jobs would be created and revenue streams would expand. The cost of "welfare" would go down without cutting those programs.

2) End the Fed, or more accurately, nationalize the Fed. The primary function of the Fed is to suck as much money out of our country as possible.

All the money we owe to the Fed we would owe to ourselves. The interest we pay to the Fed we would no longer pay.

3) End NAFTA and other so called free trade agreements.

Not much to be said here. Trade agreements are written by corporations to benefit corporations at the expense of the people on both sides of the agreements. It is that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot was talking about.

If we would do those thing we may find that we could reduce taxes without going further in debt.

 

[Antiderivative]

The Boston Tea party was not a protest against the British East India Company. What kind of shit is this?

Actually, it was. However, nowadays, many libertarians seek out favoritisms to corporations.

These types of libertarians are called vulgar libertarians. They are corporate apologists and endorse our current system of crony capitalism. They do not support free markets. Essentially, they are Republicans in disguise

 

[Contumacious]

The Boston Tea party was not a protest against the British East India Company. What kind of shit is this?

Actually, it was. However, nowadays, many libertarians seek out favoritisms to corporations.

These types of libertarians are called vulgar libertarians. They are corporate apologists and endorse our current system of crony capitalism. They do not support free markets. Essentially, they are Republicans in disguise

Karl, you are learning.

If a "libertarian" supports crony capitalism then he is a Republican. That was a good deduction.

 

[Antiderivative]

Karl, you are learning.

If a "libertarian" supports crony capitalism then he is a Republican. That was a good deduction.

I am learning?

Many libertarians mask around in disguise of something else. This has been apparent for decades. Heck, even Randians hijacked libertarianism from the mutualists and distorted it.

 

[Contumacious]

Karl, you are learning.

If a "libertarian" supports crony capitalism then he is a Republican. That was a good deduction.

I am learning?

Many libertarians mask around in disguise of something else. This has been apparent for decades. Heck, even Randians hijacked libertarianism from the mutualists and distorted it.

HUH?

I do know that many communists mask around in disguise. They refer to their policies as "progressivism, Liberalism, compassionate conservatism, anti-corporatism....."

.

 

[Antiderivative]

HUH?

I do know that many communists mask around in disguise. They refer to their policies as "progressivism, Liberalism, compassionate conservatism, anti-corporatism....."

.

Enjoy your fish.

 

[skookerasbil]

I could support his domestic policies in half a heartbeat, but his foreign policy is just this side of k00k. Were it 1800, he'd be perfect.

 

[skookerasbil]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88&feature=related]YouTube - The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative[/ame]

 

[Contumacious]

HUH?

I do know that many communists mask around in disguise. They refer to their policies as "progressivism, Liberalism, compassionate conservatism, anti-corporatism....."

.

Enjoy your fish. ]

Enjoy your idol

Karl Heinrich Marx

 

[Antiderivative]

HUH?

I do know that many communists mask around in disguise. They refer to their policies as "progressivism, Liberalism, compassionate conservatism, anti-corporatism....."

.

Enjoy your fish. ]

Enjoy your idol

Karl Heinrich Marx

lol....so you are just another rw kook who can only hold a conversation if logical fallacies are involved.

Marx is not my hero. However, I am used to mental midgets like yourself. You think that anyone who goes against your grain of perverse thought is a Marxist.

 

[Contumacious]

Enjoy your fish. ]

Enjoy your idol

Karl Heinrich Marx

lol....so you are just another rw kook who can only hold a conversation if logical fallacies are involved.

Marx is not my hero. However, I am used to mental midgets like yourself. You think that anyone who goes against your grain of perverse thought is a Marxist.

I am used to mental midgets like yourself.

You think that anyone defending their right to life, liberty and property is perverse .

.

 

[Antiderivative]

I am used to mental midgets like yourself.

You think that anyone defending their right to life, liberty and property is perverse .

.

Wrong again, sparky. I support those concepts too. However, I don't live in a fucking delusional fantasy world where I think that "its me against the Marxists".

For fuck's sake, when will you McCarthyists die out?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Dr. Paul scares the Status Quo zombies. Most Americans were born & raised on Big Government domination. They've only known Big Government Neocons and Socialists/Progressives. That's why he's generally despised by both. The more people listen to him,the more they like him though. He really is very enlightening and a true breath of fresh air. But he does make the Status Quo Big Government people very nervous. I'm always interested in what he has to say on issues. I can't say that about any other politicians at this point. More Americans need to join the Ron Paul Revolution.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So restoring then enforcing the Constitution (1787) is not a solution? Or is it that as a Marxist, you hate the solution?

.

First, tell me what "enforcing the constitution" means.

Next, tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will assure access to health care at a reasonable cost with minimal paperwork.

Then you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will affect taxes and the blatant unfairness of the code.

If you still have any key-strokes left in you when your done with those, you can tell me how "enforcing the constitution" will address the perfectly legal corporate corruption so rampant in DC.

Ron Paul, like most every other politician, wraps his campaign in sweet smelling phrases like "enforcing the constitution" and "providing for the American way" without ever bringing any solutions to the game.

Like I said, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Tea-Party, WhatEver - The first politician who speaks of an understanding that the revenue side must be addressed first and a fair and balanced tax code must be enacted as a priority over simply slashing spending will have my verbal, financial and ballot support.

You can't look at all the different issues as isolated issues. If you look at the appropriate tax to cover our spending they would go through the roof. Spending must be addressed first. Then we can determine out tax policy.

Look at three of Ron Paul's issues. All three were issues promoted by other presidential candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader but not Obama or McCain.

1) Close all foreign military bases and bring all the troops home.

A huge amount of money leaves our country to pay for infrastructure, equipment, and spent by our troops overseas. If that money stayed in country and flowed through our economy it would be like a perpetual multi billion dollar "stimulus package" that would cost us nothing. Or, no more than we are spending now. Jobs would be created and revenue streams would expand. The cost of "welfare" would go down without cutting those programs.

2) End the Fed, or more accurately, nationalize the Fed. The primary function of the Fed is to suck as much money out of our country as possible.

All the money we owe to the Fed we would owe to ourselves. The interest we pay to the Fed we would no longer pay.

3) End NAFTA and other so called free trade agreements.

Not much to be said here. Trade agreements are written by corporations to benefit corporations at the expense of the people on both sides of the agreements. It is that giant sucking sound that Ross Perot was talking about.

If we would do those thing we may find that we could reduce taxes without going further in debt.

Imagine the typical American family sitting around a typical American kitchen table trying to construct a family budget around the concept of first setting spending amounts and then finding the money.

You want to back that truck up a step on the revenue side not being the priority? Don't get me wrong, both how and how much money is spent is almost as important as establishing a fair, balanced and above all else simple method of collecting the revenue that We, The People choose to make available to our government, but spending can't be discussed until we have an idea of the true size of the pie without all the loopholes, smoke, mirrors and bullshit.