Let's Talk About Ron Paul

[Spider]

I finally read a little bit and frankly I am ashamed of you guys. This is some of the stupidest bullshit many of you have ever fallen for. Wow. I'm glad some people sane said a few things. I don't really have to. There is no point in anyone saying anything because you're clearly insane conspiracy theorists, and for the most part either misinformed or uninformed. It's humorous to see you trying to argue with Epi, it's like watching a Go-Bot try to fight a Transformer. I honestly don't understand how anyone can swallow such a load of bull. I seriously can't. I mean, I've argued with people with philosophical differences but this is something else entirely. I mean, I'm anti-war, for example, which would mesh with some of what you're saying but I can't legitimize this at all, it's just insane. It's all insane. You've been duped hardcore. I don't care if you come around and turn into Democrats (the people I hope would win) I don't think you guys should vote. Yikes.

[Chao.]

I finally read a little bit

That doesn't really surprise me.

Since we're going to talk like that i'm glad I never have to set foot in pseudo-socialist batshit crazy liberal Canada.

[Kolar]

Since we're going to talk like that i'm glad I never have to set foot in pseudo-socialist batshit crazy liberal Canada.

Don't worry Chao my friend. The Federal Conservatives are doing everything under the sun to fix Communist Canada from destroying our commitments to Kyoto, scraping the gun registry, to NOT lower the income tax and giving themselves a nice little GST cut (should come in handy for those big purchases the middle class is always making), underfunding the provinces and municipalities who due to downloading of services have limited resources for social programs, to not respecting or following our Constitution and law of the land by giving Ontario and Quebec an unfair number of seats in Parliament for purely political reasons to destroying our credibility around the world by continuing the Afghan conflict in a military capacity and not coming clean with NATO on the issue.

[Chao.]

Don't worry Chao my friend. The Federal Conservatives are doing everything under the sun to fix Communist Canada from destroying our commitments to Kyoto, scraping the gun registry, to NOT lower the income tax and giving themselves a nice little GST cut (should come in handy for those big purchases the middle class is always making), underfunding the provinces and municipalities who due to downloading of services have limited resources for social programs, to not respecting or following our Constitution and law of the land by giving Ontario and Quebec an unfair number of seats in Parliament for purely political reasons to destroying our credibility around the world by continuing the Afghan conflict in a military capacity and not coming clean with NATO on the issue.

I don't see the point in trying to argue or reason with Spider when he's not going to even bother looking up information on a candidate until the second page of the thread, and then labeling his supporters as "clearly insane or conspiracy theorists". If he wants to throw around insults that have no basis in reality I can too.

[Reaver]

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:

* $966.9 billion (44.4%) - Individual income tax
* $818.8 billion (37.6%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
* $220.3 billion (10.1%) - Corporate income tax
* $75.6 billion (3.5%) - Excise taxes
* $26.1 billion (1.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
* $28.3 billion (1.3%) - Customs duties
* $41.6 billion (1.9%) - Other

The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.6 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

* $544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security
* $512.1 billion (18.00%) - Defense
* $359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
* $345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
* $268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
* $211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt
* $88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training
* $70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation
* $68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans' benefits
* $43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice
* $38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs
* $31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment
* $26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture
* $24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology
* $19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development
* $17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government
* $23.4 billion - Energy

Lets see, 40-50% of our budget. So we could do away with education 3.40%, never really saw an interest in that and we never really funded it anyways :grin: (we're also ultra-conservatives so we probably home school or private school our kids to keep them away from the dangerous liberals), social security 20.90%, just lazy immigrants clogging up that system anyways. Medicare 13.26... time to cut the cord people they've lived long enough already. Unemployment and welfare 13.79%: Do I really have to say it? Let's see, oh Foreign affairs 1.47%...

Done. Getting America back on track :thumbsup:.

That's a terrible breakdown, it needs to be more specific where the money goes, especially when you talk as broad as "defense" and wheres the citations? Don't just put up some data and neglect to put where you got it from.


Epi, I don't think America should be policing the World. We should be protecting our borders at home, and reducing poverty in America. It's ridiculous how many bases we've got in other countries and even more are being built. America cannot financially carry the burden of helping the World, it's just not realistic in the fashion and extremity we're doing it right now. I'm well aware and informed on the many reasons why people dislike America.

Don't compare Ron Paul to Tom Cruise heh, the comparison isn't even close. To make a bold claim that someone's ideas are crazy without systematically proving them to be so is not you Epi, or is it?

What good is it to elect a candidate with a good platform if they're untrustworthy to do as they promised? George Bush had a good platform to run on and he completely flip-flopped. Maybe this election people will learn from their mistakes.

You guys are still missing it yet again. Ron Paul isn't flawless, he has his problems like all of us. If you sincerely believe his ideas are crazy, then I implore you to bring up a candidate more worthy in this next election, and I'll easily pin-point as many or more problems with the candidate (Except maybe Kucinich).

[Kolar]

That's a terrible breakdown, it needs to be more specific where the money goes, especially when you talk as broad as "defense" and wheres the citations? Don't just put up some data and neglect to put where you got it from.

Wiki and it's an accurate breakdown. Defense does not account for the Wars as they are appropriations.

Here's a more detailed break down:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...6Agencies.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

[Vatican Assassin]

I finally read a little bit and frankly I am ashamed of you guys. This is some of the stupidest bullshit many of you have ever fallen for. Wow. I'm glad some people sane said a few things. I don't really have to. There is no point in anyone saying anything because you're clearly insane conspiracy theorists, and for the most part either misinformed or uninformed. It's humorous to see you trying to argue with Epi, it's like watching a Go-Bot try to fight a Transformer. I honestly don't understand how anyone can swallow such a load of bull. I seriously can't. I mean, I've argued with people with philosophical differences but this is something else entirely. I mean, I'm anti-war, for example, which would mesh with some of what you're saying but I can't legitimize this at all, it's just insane. It's all insane. You've been duped hardcore. I don't care if you come around and turn into Democrats (the people I hope would win) I don't think you guys should vote. Yikes.

Not one point made, not one fact found, just labeling anyone who wants to vote for a 20 year congressman a conspiracy theorist; you should seriously consider working for fox news.

[Cops]

- Removing the US from the UN is a bad idea, regardless of how useless it can be at times. Ron Paul regardless of how well people believe he can turn around the country will leave office in eight years thus paving the way for another person, and if the last president is any example of presidents to come I think it's a terrible idea for future presidents to not answer to an international community (The UN).

[Vatican Assassin]

- Removing the US from the UN is a bad idea, regardless of how useless it can be at times. Ron Paul regardless of how well people believe he can turn around the country will leave office in eight years thus paving the way for another person, and if the last president is any example of presidents to come I think it's a terrible idea for future presidents to not answer to an international community (The UN).

Agreed on this point, I think removing us from the UN would be disastorous. Most countries already have enough reason to dislike us. What we are doing now, by appointing ambassadors like Bolton to the UN who is natorious for being arrogant and unhelpful toward the UN, is just as bad. That being said, Ron Paul does not intend to remove us from the UN. He states that he wants to remove us from organizations and foreign groups which intend to impose unfair traide agreements on us. Last year the UN attempted to impose a direct tax on the US, and this was voted down by congress. A direct tax by a foriegn entity on the US is the main reason why we fought for our independence in the first place. Until a similar measure is passed by the UN without our consent, we will remain in the UN, according to Ron Paul. Other agreements such as NAFTA would likely be removed, should congress allow it under Ron Paul.

[HeavenSent]

Who are these guys? and why do we need them?

Trilateral Commission http://www.trilateral.org/
DAVID ROCKEFELLER (1977-91) Founder and Honorary North American Chairman

David’s function in our society is to recognize great tasks, to overcome the obstacles, to help find and inspire the people to carry them out, and to do it with remarkable delicacy....
Henry Kissinger Chairman, Kissinger Associates
http://www.trilateral.org/nagp/regmtgs/98/1201tribs.htm

The “growing interdependence” that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s is deepening into “globalization.” The need for shared thinking and leadership by the Trilateral countries, who (along with the principal international organizations) remain the primary anchors of the wider international system, has not diminished but, if anything, intensified. At the same time, their leadership must change to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system.
http://www.trilateral.org/about.htm

North American Regional Meeting of the Trilateral Commission
Cancun, Mexico, September 28-30, 2007
http://www.trilateral.org/recent.htm

SESSION II: "THE CHAVEZ PHENOMENON": IMPLICATIONS FOR THE HEMISPHERE
http://www.trilateral.org/NAGp/REGMTGS/07cancun.htm

"At a time when most countries are vying with each other for a place under Pax Americana, the Venezuela of Mr. Chavez is an aberration, a rude and insistent interruption in the otherwise triumphant march towards the End of History."
http://www.handsoffvenezuela.org/ven...phenomenon.htm

Further reading on the Trilateral Commission:
http://afgen.com/trilateral.html
This is real – it is not a conspiracy theory
http://www.bilderberg.org/
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...94564876413449

[Kolar]

Other agreements such as NAFTA would likely be removed, should congress allow it under Ron Paul.

Do you only oppose NAFTA on the basis that it could evolve into something more then an economic agreement and become a threat to both our nation's independence? Wouldn't the elimination of trade barriers be something of a concern to a Libertarian?

[Vatican Assassin]

It's humorous to see you trying to argue with Epi, it's like watching a Go-Bot try to fight a Transformer.

I understand that when someone shares your viewpoint that it can seem like they are making a good case, but I fail to see Epi offering many logical arguments in this particular thread. Consider the following two examples, for instance.

1. Reaver originally stated his support for Ron Paul by agreeing with Paul's stance that America should not be so busy "policing the world":

That's what we need in America. People are wrong if they think we should go around policing the World.

Epi replies by saying that America only polices the world for its own benefit:

Dude, the only 'policing' that the US does is directly for it's own interests such as protecting it's own commercial interests (the US Navy), or it's own political interests (i.e. bases in South Korea, Japan, Iraq, etc etc etc). It's not for anyone else's benefit.

Well, Reaver just said the US should not be policing the world, and Epi responds by saying that the US should not be policing the world. Apparently Epi agrees with Reaver and doesn’t know it.

Reaver brings this up in his next post, reminding Epi that he never said that the US does good by policing. Epi responds by saying that he wasn’t actually responding to what Reaver had said at all, he was responding to what he believes most people “generally…talk about” when they speak of America being a police force and what it “usually further implies.” Because Reaver reminds us that he did not bring up this idea, Epi is forced to admit that she is actually responding to what she thinks people generally think, and then implying more from these generalizations. They may be true, but they do not have anything to do with Reaver’s current argument. If you want to argue against a generalization, that’s fine, but don’t quote someone else who is saying the same thing and attempt to make it look like you are proving them wrong. Finally, Epi acknowledges that this may indeed be the case:

Maybe you aren't referring to what basically everyone who talks about this issue refers to, in which case I have no idea what you are talking about.

There you have it, Epi has no idea what Reaver is talking about, but still feels capable of arguing against it by stating her opinions on a different matter. Reaver does not fit the mold of how she sees "basically everyone" as being, and instead of thinking about what he is actually saying, she simply states her opinion that American bullies are bad. This is also how Epi’s arguments function in the next example.

2. Epi goes on to imply that civil rights, women’s rights, and social security were all made possible by the income tax. Well, people pay for social security in a separate tax from income tax, African-Americans and women fought for their rights decades after income tax was created and quite without the money that it provided. Chao points out how these issues are uncorrelated, and Epi responds by saying:

My point is, these people support Ron Paul because his policies support 'things that are in the constitution' not 'stuff that was added later'. Civil rights wasn't in the constitution, nor was women's right to vote either. So their argument that this return to the past is somehow 'better' is pretty flawed, unless of course they support taking away those rights as well…”

Well no, that didn’t seem to be your point at the time, because your explanation brings up an entirely new point altogether which does not address the necessity of income tax. Where is the post you are currently arguing against which states that Ron Paul does not support any of the changes made since 1776? It does not exist, and again Epi is responding to an idea in her mind which she is unsuccessfully attempting to force onto this thread. Although no one has brought up this idea, when Ron Paul says he wants to return to the Constitution, he means by undoing the damage done since 9/11, not since Martin Luther King Jr. He means giving back the rights that everyone enjoyed until 7 years ago, not just to the whites.

But this is besides the point.

[Vatican Assassin]

Do you only oppose NAFTA on the basis that it could evolve into something more then an economic agreement and become a threat to both our nation's independence? Wouldn't the elimination of trade barriers be something of a concern to a Libertarian?

No, I oppose NAFTA for what it already is.

Let's start simply. Do we care about workers' rights? If you are a worker, you probably do; you obviously don't want to work in bad conditions for no money along with your 6 year-old son under a government which won't allow you to form unions. If you are a business owner, maybe you don't care about the people's backs you are standing on, but in our two countries the laws exist so you have to live with them. All in all, the country benefits from the laws as a whole because average incomes and quality of life is increased. If the laws were eliminated altogether only the rich business owners would benefit and democracies are supposed to benefit the majority.

Okay, so I assume that there is nothing new there, and we can both agree with what has been said. Now, there is still a cause for concern to American and Canadian workers even with labor laws in place. If your boss decides to close your factory and move to Mexico--where there are no such laws--you are in trouble because you are out of a job. If many owners do this, than many workers are out of jobs, and they will have to resort to the jobs which they would previously not have considered. This is why tariffs have been used by our countries. Tariffs ensure that foreign products must be either made from materials we cannot produce or technologies we do not possess. If it is something that we already make ourselves, than there is no need to buy them from overseas as shipping costs and tariffs will always outweigh profit earned from domestic manufacturers. This accomplishes two things: it ensures that we have REAL jobs at home which produce items themselves instead of just selling the goods of others, and it makes sure that we do not benefit from the horrible working conditions abroad.

NAFTA and similar agreements do not ensure the rights of workers abroad. They simply eliminate the barriers of which Heavensent brings up in his previous post, in this case tariffs. Think about my first question, do you care about worker’s rights? You must have said yes to yourself, but think about what you meant. You may have meant yes to Canadian worker’s rights, but did you mean Mexicans, too? If so, how can you support agreements which allow our companies to set up shop in Mexico and not give Mexicans the rights we worked so hard to get here? Sure, we save a little at WalMart, but it is not worth the cost of working there. Give me a skill and the pride felt at making something over the lead-licking pops any day.

[Galleleo]

Wait.. epi is a she?

[Vatican Assassin]

Wait.. epi is a she?

thats what I heard, mb if I'm wrong, I'm just glad to see you read my post Gally!