Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[HeavenSent]

See Ron Paul in tonight's Republican debates on CNN-YouTube!
Take notes.... Then see later how the mainstream media will later suppress, twist & spin what he says. <_<

[Vatican Assassin]

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.

So if you want to appeal one amendment, like the 16th, then you have to reconsider every other amendment? This seems like a questionable cause argument. I'm pretty sure we can talk about the legality of a direct income tax without raising the issue of women's rights. Let's deal with one amendment at a time and not get confused. Judges rule on the constitutionality of certain issues every day without throwing the entire constitution into the discussion.

[Chao.]

See Ron Paul in tonight's Republican debates on CNN-YouTube!
Take notes.... Then see later how the mainstream media will later suppress, twist & spin what he says. <_<

This is one thing that really pisses me off. I recall a question (that was phrased in such a way that there was an "obvious" answer they wanted to get out of him) about war and the constitution. He made a comment about leaving because we didn't have any real justification for being there anyway, and our men were dying without any goals set, and the moderator of the event replied "So you are saying we should take our marching orders from terrorists?" What the fuck?

[Epinephrine]

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.

Hmm maybe I was too harsh. I agree that teaching for a sake of a test is stupid. But the impression I get from Ron Paul is that, he doesn't want any standards at all. Meaning if you are home school, feel free to teach whatever you want to your kids and it doesn't matter.

While I'm sure some parents who homeschool do a great job. I believe you were homeschooled right Foreign? and you turned out fine.

But still I have a feeling there will be MANY others who won't, and some who may even abuse this fact to save taxes and give their children a substandard upbringing when they could have been getting a decent free education from public school. Either way, this opens up a great number of people to indoctrinate their kids however they want for 18 years until the kids move out, whether it's for religious beliefs or just plain wrong facts. And because the kids are completely under the control of the parents, they have no choice and no freedom to decide on their own the truth. At the very least if the kid goes to school, even if their parents are crazy, the kid can see how other people are. As least if there are standards, you can be sure the kids are learning a wide breadth of stuff.

I just don't think such a system where there are no educational standards at all if you want to be home schooled (plus you get to save on taxes) is good for children.

[Epinephrine]

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?

Yes because my dear heavensent, mentally deranged means that his mind works differently than others and works so differently because it's in fact quite good at what it does. It's a complement indeed.

If he thought I meant 'idiot' then he needs to start reading about what I actually say, instead of what he THINKS I said.

[Foreign]

Hmm maybe I was too harsh. I agree that teaching for a sake of a test is stupid. But the impression I get from Ron Paul is that, he doesn't want any standards at all. Meaning if you are home school, feel free to teach whatever you want to your kids and it doesn't matter.

While I'm sure some parents who homeschool do a great job. I believe you were homeschooled right Foreign? and you turned out fine.

But still I have a feeling there will be MANY others who won't, and some who may even abuse this fact to save taxes and give their children a substandard upbringing when they could have been getting a decent free education from public school. Either way, this opens up a great number of people to indoctrinate their kids however they want for 18 years until the kids move out, whether it's for religious beliefs or just plain wrong facts. And because the kids are completely under the control of the parents, they have no choice and no freedom to decide on their own the truth. At the very least if the kid goes to school, even if their parents are crazy, the kid can see how other people are. As least if there are standards, you can be sure the kids are learning a wide breadth of stuff.

I just don't think such a system where there are no educational standards at all if you want to be home schooled (plus you get to save on taxes) is good for children.

I went through public school and hated every minute of it, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure (don't quote me on it) home-schooled kids already have to pass the same state standards as any other kid (at least in my state) to get a high school diploma. Introducing a federal standard would obviously override the states'. I'm more in favor of the per-state standard, though, because the state governments are "closer to the action" and will know better how to assess their own students than the federal government. That's what I assumed Ron Paul meant, too, but I could be wrong.

[Epinephrine]

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."

So basically he's going with status quo. Right now it's illegal and nothing's being done, and that's basically what you're saying right?

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.

From ( http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/second-amendment/ ) the Ron Paul 2008 campaign website, the OFFICAL website:

I have always supported the Second Amendment and these are some of the bills I have introduced in the current Congress to help restore respect for it:

* H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
* H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
* H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
* H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it. "

Also note that he also sponsored a bill to pull the US out of the UN which you denied before I believe.

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."

Again from his website:
"I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students."

So yes, his stance is remove all educational standards.

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.

All nice and all, but honestly, the answer to healthcare isn't more 'competition'. Doctors also don't need more 'incentive' in the form of private healthcare to treat patients better. All private healthcare does is give incentive for doctors to either:
1) Treat less patients and charge much higher fees
2) Treat many more people in the same amount of time, thus spending less time with each patient

Neither of which really help a lot of people get quality care. Considering the US already has one of the highest ratios of doctors in the world, and already spends significantly more money than the rest of the world for basically the worst health care in the developed world shows that the US's partially private system is significantly inferior to the public health care systems of every other country.


Ron Paul as a candidate I agree sounds like a breath of fresh air. He gives a lot of speeches and stands for things wrapped around nice rhetoric that a lot of people would buy. Who wouldn't want 'less war', 'less taxes' and 'more freedom'? But it's when you really take a look at the end result of his policies if they were ever enacted, and what it would logically lead to, that we see that not only would America be hurt, but individual Americans would lose out significantly, and gains made in the last 100 years towards a more fair and equitable society from the rampant 'smaller government' and more rabid capitalism of the guilded age of the early 1900s would be erased.

[Epinephrine]

I went through public school and hated every minute of it, unfortunately. I'm pretty sure (don't quote me on it) home-schooled kids already have to pass the same state standards as any other kid (at least in my state) to get a high school diploma. Introducing a federal standard would obviously override the states'. I'm more in favor of the per-state standard, though, because the state governments are "closer to the action" and will know better how to assess their own students than the federal government. That's what I assumed Ron Paul meant, too, but I could be wrong.

If that is what he meant the I guess it's okay. But reading his paragraph from his website and seeing the rest of his website, I see it more as a 'return to 1776 when government regulated nothing' stance where people can do whatever they want, with absolutely no consideration to whether these kids will grow up to be normal people useful to society or not.

[HeavenSent]

Yes because my dear heavensent, mentally deranged means that his mind works differently than others and works so differently because it's in fact quite good at what it does. It's a complement indeed.

If he thought I meant 'idiot' then he needs to start reading about what I actually say, instead of what he THINKS I said.

Just FYI... You should probably change your wording when using this idea speaking to Americans... Because... I don't believe there's one single American that would receive this as a complement. In effect, holding to your definition, you will be seen as the one that is mentally deranged. Take it as a complement if you will. :turned:

de·range (dĭ-rānj') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. de·ranged, de·rang·ing, de·rang·es

1. To disturb the order or arrangement of.
2. To upset the normal condition or functioning of.
3. To disturb mentally; make insane.

adjective
driven insane [syn: crazed]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deranged


I would like to see how many besides yourself, would apply this verbage as a complement.

[HeavenSent]

This is one thing that really pisses me off. I recall a question (that was phrased in such a way that there was an "obvious" answer they wanted to get out of him) about war and the constitution. He made a comment about leaving because we didn't have any real justification for being there anyway, and our men were dying without any goals set, and the moderator of the event replied "So you are saying we should take our marching orders from terrorists?" What the fuck?

You like the game of twister don't you?
We don't & wouldn't take marching orders from terrorists. Unless of course one considers Bush a Fascist Terrorist.
We went in there on a lie for the control of oil (among other reasons for profit). We killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. Both Afghanistan & Iraq had nothing at all to do with 9/11. Next on the agenda is to do the same with Iran... It's not them, it's the people pulling Bush's strings for Global conformity.

Not that it really matters, but just FYI here: I am a die-hard patriot, Army veteran under Reagan's administration and my dad is a retired Naval officer that served 22 years with 3 tours in Vietnam... another senseless war to profit the puppet masters.

[ConcreteSchlyrd]

The choice is clear: we must develop interstellar warfare and invade the alien worlds who have decided to rule our government.

[HeavenSent]

The right choice is to identify & expose the puppet masters and destroy them & their system of deception & control. Then we will have eliminated the potential for all future wars & oppression. :fear:

[Epinephrine]

Just FYI... You should probably change your wording when using this idea speaking to Americans... Because... I don't believe there's one single American that would receive this as a complement. In effect, holding to your definition, you will be seen as the one that is mentally deranged. Take it as a complement if you will. :turned:

de·range (dĭ-rānj') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. de·ranged, de·rang·ing, de·rang·es

1. To disturb the order or arrangement of.
2. To upset the normal condition or functioning of.
3. To disturb mentally; make insane.

adjective
driven insane [syn: crazed]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deranged


I would like to see how many besides yourself, would apply this verbage as a complement.

You should really learn the meaning of sarcasm, and perhaps budding into other people's conversations.

[HeavenSent]

You should really learn the meaning of sarcasm, and perhaps budding into other people's conversations.

It's a friggin forum BITCH!!! I started this goddamn thread.. I can butt in where i will. F.O.!

/sarcasm


In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was (fraudulently) declared to have been ratified. Since then, the government refers only to the 16th Amendment as its authority to force Americans to work for the government, turning over the first fruits of their labor to the IRS.

Pursuant to the (alleged) ratification of the 16th Amendment, Congress adopted a graduated tax starting with a 1-percent rate for incomes between $4,000 and $20,000 increasing to a top rate of 3 percent for those earning $50,000 or more.

The first tax collection day under the new law took place on March 1, 1914. Since the average worker earned only about $800 a year, few people actually had to pay any federal income tax. Less than 4 percent of American families made an annual income of $3,000 or more. Deductions and exemptions further shrank the pool of taxpayers. Nevertheless, the federal government collected $71 million that first year. Millionaire John D. Rockefeller alone paid an estimated $2 million.

In 1916, three years after the adoption of the modern income tax statutes, the Supreme Court ruled in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. (240 US 1) that the income tax – as an indirect excise tax, was constitutional, tacitly admitting in its opinion that a direct tax on income was, in fact unconstitutional. http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLaws...2005-09-21.htm

Income tax was meant for corporations, not the wages of private citizens. If you refused to pay Federal Income Tax, you could beat it in court. That is, if you reminded the court to SHOW WHERE IT SAYS IN THE LAW that you have to pay taxes. It's not there. People do win in court with this argument but at the cost of personal harassment & character assassination by the IRS.
http://www.freedomtofascism.com/index.html

[Squeezer]

So, dunno if you guys saw this, but apparently Kucinich has publicly stated that he'd like to have Ron Paul as his running mate.

I'd vote for it.

LINK:
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...620.xml&coll=2

edit:

And here is Ron Paul's response a few months ago when a caller asked him about choosing Kucinich as a running mate.

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/...ng-mate-video/