Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Kolar]

If we null every legal precedent and law enacted by the Federal and Supreme courts, because much of what they decide on is not spelled out in the United States Constitution then how is that not throwing legal precedent to the wind?

[Reaver]

Before I start on Paul, remember that Bush campaigned on conservative judges, tax cuts, and a new education bill, all of which were achieved. Bush did his platform, he just had a crappy platform. And 9/11 was the big wrench that changed things from his platform as well. Besides, before he was elected, many people would have stood out to say Bush was trustworthy and bipartisan.



As for Ron Paul, I debated this extensively with Jerome on the universal healthcare thread a month ago for a very long time. But here I will sum it up again. From http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ :

1) American Independence
He talks bad about the WTO, which was American created to instill the American system of economics onto the world. The system which is mostly run by America, and benefits America the most. What an idiot.

He talks about the NAFTA Superhighway, it's not even going to happen LOL.

2) Immigration
He'd 'secure' the borders whatever that means (berlin wall around Mexico?). And then round up 10-20 million illegals. Yes that's going to be VERrrrry constructive.

3) Debt
"In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. "

Is he serious? He wants to cancel the Fed and go back to the gold standard or whatever form what I get from you guys on this forum. The economic implications are just stupid. There isn't nearly enough gold to certify American money. Either the economy contracts by about 1/1000 of it's current size, or maybe American money will be worth less than pesos.

4) Environment
His way to stop global warming is to allow private citizens to 'sue' polluters. Not only would this clog up the courts, it would be useless. You can't sue everyone, and most private citizens don't have enough money or time to sue smaller polluters. You also can't sue other countries.

5) Health Care
I support universal healthcare, he does not. I think he's against abortions too, and I'm all for it.

6) Health Freedom
Yikes he sounds like Jerome here. Yeah I'm sure the industry would be well regulated without a regulating body... kind of like pharmaceuticals in China

7) Home Schooling
"I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students."

Yikes, so now you have millions of kids running around with substandard educations becuase their parents are crazy? That's not fair to the kids.

8) Life and Liberty
I am all for freedom of choice in abortion.

9) Privacy
The only part I agree with

10) Racism
I don't see how he will end it. Sounds like crap to mee.

11) Social Security
Okay that's fine. But how are we going to pay for it without income taxes? Cut everything else from government?

12) Weapons
Oh great he wants more people to have assault weapons. Grrreeeeat idea.

13) War

"Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations."

That's nice... except the US is on the security council with a veto. In fact the US uses the UN to legitimize it's wars, not the other way around. All in all it sounds like rhetoric to me.



There you have it, it's almost all BS.

Here's a direct quote from Ron Paul on Immigration, "I would not sign a bill like [comprehensive immigration reform], because it would be amnesty. I also think that it's pretty impractical to get an army in this country to round up 12 or maybe 20 million. But I do believe that we have to stick to our guns on obeying the law, and anybody who comes in here illegally shouldn't be rewarded. And that would be the case."

That's completely opposite of what you claimed his stance was on immigration.

Health care is a personal issue that I disagree with you on. We have different solutions for a problem, so you're entitled to your opinion and so am I. As I said before, he's not for or against abortions, he only stated that it should be decided on the state level and not on the federal level. So you were wrong there again.

None of the candidates can probably end racism.

Where do you get him saying he wants people to have more assault weapons?
I couldn't find it anywhere. The only thing I found in this manner is that he's for the constitution, so he's for the right to bear arms. He didn't pass any laws that I found that allowed assault rifles, or ever say he was for them.

As for your last statement, like I said before. Do you honestly think there are any candidates that put blame on America and gained votes for it?

He's for Life and Liberty and Privacy, and so am I, and based on what you responded with I believe you might be as well.

This is his stance on education in regards to home schooling, which I agree with, "My commitment is to ensure that home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children's education. I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment."

Edit: here's his stance on health care: We've had managed care in this country since the early 1970s, and it hasn't worked well. It's very, very expensive, and it's the fault that we changed our ERISA law and our tax laws that created this corporatism that runs medicine. Wall Street rakes off the profits. The patients are unhappy. The doctors are unhappy. And it's a monopoly now. Who lobbies us in Washington? The drug companies and the HMOs. They come. And now what is the cry for? Socialized medicine. That's not the answer. We need to get the government out of the way. Inflation hits the middle class and the poor the most. Those are the people who are losing it. We don't have enough competition. There's a doctor monopoly out there. We need alternative health care freely available to the people. They ought to be able to make their own choices and not controlled by the FDA preventing them to use some of the medications.

[Reaver]

If we null every legal precedent and law enacted by the Federal and Supreme courts, because much of what they decide on is not spelled out in the United States Constitution then how is that not throwing legal precedent to the wind?

Again, who's going to null every legal precedent and law enacted by the Federal and Supreme courts?

[Epinephrine]

Your point about removing suffrage because it wasn't in the constitution is weak at best. We can easily revert back to the constitution and still keep those important movements in mind. Nobody here (nor Ron Paul) is suggesting that we remove women's suffrage rights or any of those things, why are you?

I asked you to prove your allegation that his policies are insane. Not to prove that you wouldn't vote for him because you don't see eye to eye on solutions. The only remotely close idea that you came close to proving was outlandish was his idea on the Gold standard. I don't see eye to eye on every issue with Ron Paul but there's no one else out there as close as my views. Obviously I know you don't like Ron Paul, but that wasn't my interest.

You were wrong on at least one of those, for instance, he doesn't support abortion. He simply made the point that it shouldn't be a federal decision, but a state decision. I'm still upholding my challenge for one of you to supply a candidate that stands a chance at doing a better job at running America, and will actually do as they say.

Do you honestly think a candidate that points the blame on America is going to be voted in? Think for a second guys.

Fine whatever, I still think you're naive in thinking the US should just pull out of everything. The US does immeasurable good for the world economy (of which the USA is the largest benefactor) precisely because of it's military presence around the world.

The US military keeps stability in the world, in the sea lanes (all global trade depends on safe waters free from piracy and free from attacks by rogue countries, terrorists, and having adequate rescue operations), in the Middle East (think Saudi Arabia, China abd Japan's largest supplier of oil), in South Korea and in many other parts of the world. One of the biggest reasons why the USA matters, is because it's the only country in the world that can militarily hurt another country completely and decisively. It is that power that keeps those who want to not play by the rules in check. Yes it's a horrible thing for other countries that the US reaps a lot of the benefits, but then again other countries and in fact the world reaps the benefits from the fact that at the very least the US is a democracy committed to capitalism and keeping the engines of the world running smoothly.

Pulling back US troops to stop it from 'policing' the world (what the heck do you think a police force does anyway?) would do irreparable damage to the world economy, and change the balance of power completely. Likely Britain, Russia and a newly resurgent China would fill the US's role, is that what people really want?



And yes, I disagree with his positions, and that's why I think they are crazy. I think the US should be moving closer and closer to universal healthcare, not completely away from it as Ron Paul would like. Currently 47 million Americans have absolutely no care at all. As a physician himself, Ron Paul is supporting something which is indefensible that 47 million people would be LEFT TO DIE because they couldn't pay for care, while in almost every other first world country in the world these people would receive the care that they need.

I think he's insane in trying to overturn roe vs wade. As much as the standard Republican candidates profess to not like abortion, overturning it with a federal law has never seriously been on the table (using sneaky ways like using the supreme court has been the preferred method). Overturning it and allowing states to decide this extremely important subject, would form a hodge podge of places in the US where abortion was illegal and places that were not, thus wildly different standards within the same country, and allowing significant eroding of women's rights in the states that banned abortion. Yes that's right, roe vs wade was originally decided by the supreme court because of the fact of women's rights, and it was so blatantly obvious at the time that rights were on the line that there was a clear majority and not much debate about it until years afterwards.

I also think his pulling out of world organizations idea is also insane. The UN marginally works, and the WTO works and other organizations work simply because the US is there as the largest economy and military to instill legitimacy to these organizations. Organizations that mind you were STARTED by the USA and as such very much within the stated ideals of America on a world scale. The US pulling out, would ruin these organizations. How could you have a united nations whose purpose is to regulate war, when the largest and most powerful country in the world pulls out? (oh wait in a Ron Paul world there'd be no military... riiiiight). How could you have a WTO without the US? We'd fall back to what we had before which were arbitrary rules between nations, which would harm the world as a whole.

His idea that the FDA is bad and that it shouldn't be around is also insane. Maybe this is just Jerome editorializing Ron Paul (all I know is from his website which is mostly rhetoric) but I cannot believe someone would seriously say that we don't need to regulate medications and should just leave industry to do it on it's own. We see how good industry is at regulating itself simply by looking at China. We don't need to abandon it, we need to make it better.

And gun control? Absolutely insane. He wants to bring back assault weapons to the streets of America? He wants no gun control? Seriously, anyone who lives in a city area that sees the daily gun violence, anyone who has been a victim of family violence using guns, knows that having hundreds of millions of guns lying around for everyone to use is a STUPID IDEA. I honestly don't care if some hick rednecks like to shoot birds on weekends or whatever, the vast majority of people in the country would clearly benefit from the removal of guns.


And finally Reaver if removing the income tax because you are 'going back to the constitution' is a valid argument, so is removing suffrage because 'we should go back to the constitution' is a valid argument as well.

So yes Reaver, no matter how 'honest' you think Ron Paul is, his platform is completely wacky. I'd rather vote for Nader, he looks pretty honest too.

[Reaver]

And finally Reaver if removing the income tax because you are 'going back to the constitution' is a valid argument, so is removing suffrage because 'we should go back to the constitution' is a valid argument as well.

So yes Reaver, no matter how 'honest' you think Ron Paul is, his platform is completely wacky. I'd rather vote for Nader, he looks pretty honest too.

Ron Paul hasn't mentioned anywhere that I know of (and I've looked around) that it would be a good idea to remove women's suffrage rights. We can drop that one. Ralph Nader is either not running for President or he's keeping it a good secret. As for your other comments, most of them are again, personal issues that you don't agree with. I see your point on pulling out of those organizations. But as I've said before, I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything.

[Epinephrine]

Ron Paul hasn't mentioned anywhere that I know of (and I've looked around) that it would be a good idea to remove women's suffrage rights. We can drop that one. Ralph Nader is either not running for President or he's keeping it a good secret. As for your other comments, most of them are again, personal issues that you don't agree with. I see your point on pulling out of those organizations. But as I've said before, I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything.

Let me phrase it as a SAT question. Maybe it will make more sense unless you failed the SATs

Justifying removing income taxes as 'going back to the constitution'
is the same as
Justifying removing sufferage as 'going back to the constitution'


And yes Reaver, opinions are always that, personal. Obviously he's not running to make a law saying the sky is in fact a shade of neon green (thus factually incorrect and not a personal opinion). I just happen to believe that my opinion is correct, and that his opinions are absolutely wrong and ruinous to the United States.

[Reaver]

Let me phrase it as a SAT question. Maybe it will make more sense unless you failed the SATs

Justifying removing income taxes as 'going back to the constitution'
is the same as
Justifying removing sufferage as 'going back to the constitution'


And yes Reaver, opinions are always that, personal. Obviously he's not running to make a law saying the sky is in fact a shade of neon green (thus factually incorrect and not a personal opinion). I just happen to believe that my opinion is correct, and that his opinions are absolutely wrong and ruinous to the United States.

Let me rephrase it

He's suggested doing one, he hasn't ever suggested doing the other.

[HeavenSent]

I think that you are mentally deranged.

I think you should learn to read.

I stand by my original statement that you are mentally deranged.

At least I do not feel the need to refer to someone with a different opinion as a deranged idiot.

Deranged idiot? I never said that. In fact I was complementing you, geez.

He talks about the NAFTA Superhighway, it's not even going to happen LOL.

There you have it, it's almost all BS.

Ok, so you didn't say "idiot" but it seems pretty obvious, especially to VA, that "mentally deranged" and "deranged idiot" are synonymous. AND THEN... Your response to him is that you were COMPLEMENTING him?!?! WTF! ...AND YOU'RE TELLING HIM HE SHOULD LEARN TO READ?

Re:
NAFTA Superhighway; aka
NASCO (North American Super Corridor),
SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) &
TTC (Trans-Texas Corridor)

Time you crawl out from under your rock of ignorance and google the above names.
This super toll highway (funded mostly by Spain - aside from the $3 million of American taxpayers to build on the Mexican side) will not have access ramps to or from towns along its path, thereby cutting them off to travelers and essentially reshaping America's (& Canada's) populace by virtue of putting those communities in economic crisis. Not to mention making it nearly impossible to travel East or West going across it. Meanwhile, along its path (four football fields wide), outraged citizens are losing their home & property to 'eminent domain' while a majority of political representatives are helpless and ignored on the federal level.




I don't understand why we Americans are talking American politics with friggin' brainwashed Canadians?

[Vatican Assassin]

Let me phrase it as a SAT question. Maybe it will make more sense unless you failed the SATs

Justifying removing income taxes as 'going back to the constitution'
is the same as
Justifying removing sufferage as 'going back to the constitution'

That's the stupidest SAT question I've ever seen.

Wait a second, it says you're from Toronto, Canada. You mean you're not even American?! fukin shit man.

[Ayano]

Let me phrase it as a SAT question. Maybe it will make more sense unless you failed the SATs

Justifying removing income taxes as 'going back to the constitution'
is the same as
Justifying removing sufferage as 'going back to the constitution'

What is ron paul's primary LEGAL justification for removing income tax?

-because the founding fathers did not inscrible that within the consitution and the fact that it was instilled by supreme court.

What would be the primary LEGAL justification for removing universal sufferage?

-because the founding fathers did not inscrible that within the consitution and the fact that it was instilled by supreme court.

By legal definition Epi is on the mark, I can't see how reave turned an eye off to that. The only way that we can view income tax as 'wrong' and universal sufferage as 'right' is by public opinion. I'm sure you could deduce some argument on that, but when the case comes to court, everything falls back on the consitution and the base line legality of the two cases is relativly the same. This was just an example, if income tax could be removed by such justification, then every other judicially reviewed ammendment would be just as vunerable.

[Imagine throwing abortion into congress. That would kill middle road canidates and possibly introduce radicals that in other cases would have been on the backburner.]

As for Epi's other remarks, I completly agree except on universal health care. My prime reasoning is that universal health care places a lock on the preformance of the medicare industry. Take the UK for example; private medicare is handeled far better than the universal healthcare plan. Take away incentive and any work force will lose intrest. Sure there may be the sincere professional, but it's only human nature to expect a higher degree of effort and proficiency when there is personal gain involved. Universal health care would be like cornering the gold market to a degree where doctors and other health care workers would be forced to work for a capped salary with little room for recieving anything more. Once you hit a certian degree as a doctor, what incentive do you have for improving if your salary will not outweigh the education costs? A split system may work, but obviously privately insured health plans will recieve the fatter end of the stick as they have capitalism at work. The 'universal health care' recipients would be treated to cost effecientcy rather than what would be benificial to the patient. Don't like your health care professional or disagree with his/her diagnosis? Looks like you're in a rut if you're on the public plan; you might be able to appeal for another, but expect plenty of paper work, time, and minutes on hold. This movement would also be detremental to a majority of working americans who are under an insured health care plan that is paid for by their employers. If universal health care rolls out, a majority of businesses would drop their insured plans ( probably to some trade off like an increase in wages which is appealing, and cheaper to the buisness) , thus dropping the quality of medicare across the board. Those without medicare may benifit, but the middle class will suffer as a majority of them will opt for private doctors to expediate their priority juxaposed to the bloggled down public system.

edit: minimized my off subject remark.

[Foreign]

7) Home Schooling
"I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students."

Yikes, so now you have millions of kids running around with substandard educations becuase their parents are crazy? That's not fair to the kids.

It's statements like this that really annoy me and make me hate politics in general. It is too often assumed that if the government doesn't provide something for us then we won't get it. In this situation it's an education. Standardized tests are good things, but assuming education will be poorer without them places the government in very high esteem that it doesn't deserve.

My wife taught elementary school for 4 years in Jacksonville, FL. Jacksonville's city limits encompass a single county, so the Duval County school board reigns over all Jacksonville schools. There is one standardized test in play in Florida: the FCAT. Different grades of students focus more on different parts of the test. 4th grade, for example, is focused heavily on writing. There's nothing wrong with the test.

However, policy placed around the test says your school gets funding based on FCAT scores. So, instead of focusing on learning, schools in Jacksonville focus on how to best take the test. This standards-based teaching is extremely backwards. Tests are supposed to take samples of what somebody knows, not serve as teachers. This results in a situation where banking too heavily on a test has adversely affected the educational system. Standards have been put in place that each teacher has to "teach" simply to try to get the kids to pass the test. In surrounding counties the schools are less standard-based, and those schools score much better.

Also, the turn-around time for teachers in Jacksonville is around 2 years (awfully short). This is because all of the standards imposed on the schools in the county ultimately fall on the backs of the teachers. Many (including my wife) who began teaching out of a desire to help children further themselves end up underpaid, overworked slaves of the system.

My wife and I will probably home school our kids or send them to private school. Whether there are nationally standardized tests or not will have zero impact on whether our children are brought up to be educated. I find that most home-schooled kids are far beyond any of the kids in the same grade at public schools.

The government can waste time writing the tests if they want, but they won't force my family under the shit-heap of standards-based teaching that has taken possession of Jacksonville's schools.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

My wife and I will probably home school our kids or send them to private school. Whether there are nationally standardized tests or not will have zero impact on whether our children are brought up to be educated. I find that most home-schooled kids are far beyond any of the kids in the same grade at public schools.

The government can waste time writing the tests if they want, but they won't force my family under the shit-heap of standards-based teaching that has taken possession of Jacksonville's schools.

That really does suck for your wife. On the other hand, though (and I know it'll be treated most gravely, seeing as how it's coming from some "internet spaceship guy") I don't agree with your assessment of home-schooled kids being far beyond public school attendees.

Maybe I just grew up in a state with a really good public school system, but whenever home-schooled kids came to class (which a lot of them did around 9th grade), they were always hyper-introverted and not necessarily up-to-par with academics. Again, mine's just as much of a generalization as yours is, so I'm not saying it's the truth across the board.

Is it a possibility to move? I mean, public schools may suck down there, but I can vouch that they don't suck EVERYWHERE.

[HeavenSent]

Maybe I just grew up.

NAIL
HEAD


Oh, the irony!

You're not dead yet? FUCK! :fear:

[Foreign]

That really does suck for your wife. On the other hand, though (and I know it'll be treated most gravely, seeing as how it's coming from some "internet spaceship guy") I don't agree with your assessment of home-schooled kids being far beyond public school attendees.

Maybe I just grew up in a state with a really good public school system, but whenever home-schooled kids came to class (which a lot of them did around 9th grade), they were always hyper-introverted and not necessarily up-to-par with academics. Again, mine's just as much of a generalization as yours is, so I'm not saying it's the truth across the board.

Is it a possibility to move? I mean, public schools may suck down there, but I can vouch that they don't suck EVERYWHERE.

I too can vouch for the social disadvantages of home-schooling, but I also think things can be done to counteract the development of those issues, and I'm sure the education gap is in my area is a result of the size of the county I live in. It's not easy for a single school board to organize the education a county of 1 million+ people. I don't think Florida's standards are capable of being implemented in such a large county, especially considering the average economic status of the residence affects the county's funding in an adverse way. Unfortunately, I won't be moving away from here anytime soon (family + sentimental wife = no moving ).

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

Heh, I hear that--"sentimental wife" will be the most probable reason for our move back to Iowa in a short two years time. (Wifey-to-be disagrees strongly with my desire to move to Vancouver or Boulder.)

You've always seemed like a pretty intelligent guy, so my guess is that home-schooling would have a pretty good chance of being an optimal solution for you guys. Plus, I can see how implementation of state-wide standards could be hard in your area. Good luck, duder.