I know we have had a few threads regarding this guy from Texas. I just want to here what people here think of him.
Take a look at his website under legislative information: [url]http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml[/url]
Read a few of his articles...like this one on the V.T. shootings: [url]http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst042307.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism...The therapeutic nanny state only encourages individuals to view themselves as victims, and reject personal responsibility for their actions.[/QUOTE]
Or this one on the Don Imus crap: [url]http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst041607.htm[/url]
[QUOTE]The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism. [/QUOTE]
It would be cool to hear what people like jets5ever, CBTNY, Warfish and Sackdance think of a real libertarian conservative like Ron Paul. A lot of what he says about abolishing the IRS and government reform is pretty far out there...but when you really think about what he is proposing...it sounds a lot more like the brand of conservatism that conservatism is supposed to be...
Is this guy really just a crazy old fart or does he actually feel the same way a lot of real conservatives do? Or is he just a politician with real ideas that will never see the light of day because of the old powers that have a stranglehold on Washington they don't want to give up?
Last edited by PlumberKhan; 05-04-2007 at 04:59 PM.
This guy is every working-class American's best friend. The reason you haven't heard much about him before is because the corporate-owned establishment media hates him because he votes on principal and cannot be bought off. He has a non-interventionist foreign policy, and TV networks hate that because war=ratings. He is the only one brave enough to speak out against Wall Street. Throw out party affiliation on this one. He is the best politician the common man has seen since Abraham Lincoln.
On social issues, he generally beleives in limited federal govrenment, letting the states handle most issues such as abortion, the war on drugs, and gay marraige.
He is the only candidate who understands economics. If you watched the debate last night you know he mentioned the often-ignored inflation tax that we all pay thanks to our country's irresponsible fiscal and monetary policies. The reason no other candidate mentions this is because the inlfation tax benefits Wall Street, and Wall Street donates more to political parties than anyone else.
Hopefully enough Americans still know how to think for themselves so his campaign can get some momentum now. He won the MSNBC.com debate poll. He finished 3rd out of 10th in the Drudge Report debate poll. The people are starting to speak. Sooner or later the media will have to recognize.
Last edited by JetsCrazey; 05-04-2007 at 05:24 PM.
Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member
what's wrong with anything posted above??
we saw what a welfare state New Orleans turned into after decades long of the goverment being a nanny and people not being able to take care of themselves...cripes- the lunatic left cries about the Patriot Act...
he's also right on about the second quote to highlighted....Imus' remarks were never an issue until days later when someone other than the parties involved made a stink...
I read a funny thing this morning; Imus is now in a court battle for the remaining $40 million in salary...evidently, according to his lawyer, both CBS radio and MSNBC had the ability to delete what he said before it made the airways if they found it offensive, which means there was a delay...don't know the exact particulars but if it is true it is damning of Imus' former employers and gives even more creedance to what Paul says...
Ron Paul won the debate according to MSNBC's poll of 56,000 people. Not a word from MSNBC on the air about this. Not on peep about Ron Paul today on Chris Matthews show when he recapped the debate. Big inconsistency here between what the people are saying and what the corporate-owned media wants them to say. Yesterday after Ron Paul said he supported the original intent of the Constitution Chris Matthews audibly said "oh god". No other Candidate got a reaction. The media hates Ron Paul. If they fairly covered him he would smoke the competition. What you saw up there yesterday was 9 people who bend over for big business corporate America, and Ron Paul
Last edited by JetsCrazey; 05-04-2007 at 09:30 PM.
ABC isn't even including Ron Paul in their debate poll. Need any more proof that our media outlets are propaganda for the establishment of rich bankers and war profiteers? This country is a joke right now. We talk about freedom, but we don't live it.
ABC isn't even including Ron Paul in their debate poll. Need any more proof that our media outlets are propaganda for the establishment of rich bankers and war profiteers? This country is a joke right now. We talk about freedom, but we don't live it.[/QUOTE]
We just got to hope that Paul can stick it out until later debates when there are less people and more of a chance for him to voice his position. I tell you what...this guy goes down to "red America" and proclaims that he wants to end the IRS? That would definitely get middle America more in the mood to vote than your normal election year flag burning and fag banning bullsh*t. You want tax reform? How about no more income tax and our inefficient ass government gets up off its butt and starts cutting some of the asinine pork out from the budget.
Sure...no more income tax would suck for the government which like to spend mind blowing amounts of money on retarded sh*t like peanut storage. But no more income tax would sure be a epi pen to the heart of the US economy. Think of all those small businesses out there that would no longer have to be buried in mounds of paperwork to pay quarterly and payroll taxes. Think of all those people out there that would suddenly have an extra couple hundred dollars in their check every week?
You wouldn't need the tax revenue from income taxes because Ron Paul would cut spending by ending the welfare/warfare state. Over 2/3 of the Federal Budget is entitlements. This means that Congress doesn't even vote on 2/3 of the money it spends! By limiting the scope of the Feceral Government, we stop using inflationary deficit spending and people actually get to keep their incomes and use it to stimulate the economy.
[QUOTE=BrooklynBound]How does Paul intend to bring in tax revenue?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. [B]Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck[/B].[B] Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! [/B] Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. [/QUOTE]
Read more here:
Last edited by PlumberKhan; 05-05-2007 at 02:03 PM.
[QUOTE=JetsCrazey] By limiting the scope of the Federal Government, we stop using inflationary deficit spending and [B]people actually get to keep their incomes and use it to stimulate the economy[/B].[/QUOTE]
Which is a no brainer if you are a die hard capitalist...
I agree that taxes should be lowered and government should be smaller. However, raising tariffs will harm the US, significantly. Protectionism and economic isolationism will lower our standard of living. It is something that no serious or informed person can believe will be good, long-term. This is why Paul's ideas are so dangerous.
[QUOTE=jets5ever]I agree that taxes should be lowered and government should be smaller...[/QUOTE]
Income tax should not be lowered. It should be eliminated. No more. Cease to exist. Not of this world.
You of all people, should agree with this. How is it fair, capitalistically, to have our government heavily tax wages and then proceed to further tax us when we try to buy stuff with the money left over. If the Federal Government cannot function without the the money it steals from it's citizens, then it must be replaced with a smaller, more efficient model. Would a business, modeled after the inefficiencies of our government, survive very long in a truly capitalist environment?
Income tax should not be lowered. It should be eliminated. No more. Cease to exist. Not of this world.
You of all people, should agree with this. How is it fair, capitalistically, to have our government heavily tax wages and then proceed to further tax us when we try to buy stuff with the money left over. If the Federal Government cannot function without the the money it steals from it's citizens, then it must be replaced with a smaller, more efficient model. Would a business, modeled after the inefficiencies of our government, survive very long in a truly capitalist environment?[/QUOTE]
Hey, you're preaching to the choir on this one. I simply think that raising tariffs is an absurd idea. That's whay I don't trust Dr. Paul. I'd also need to see more specifics about his property tax and consumption tax ideas. But I have no problem whatsoever with eliminating income tax and shrinking the size of government, trust me..I just don't want to go into protectionist mode to do it. I am also a supporter of open markets and free trade within and in amongst nations. Raising tariffs is simply a horrible idea.
[QUOTE=JetsCrazey]He's not a protectionist, he supports free trade,but not under WTO/NAFTA agreements that are designed to help the Rockefellers and DuPonts more than they help the American people.
America needs some sort of manufacturing sector anyhow. Otherwise, when the dollar finally collapses, we won't be able to import any.[/QUOTE]
If he wants to raise tariffs, he doesn't support free trade, period.
If we ever get to a point where we "can't" import things, we'll just develop a manufacturing sector. That's child's play. We've already done it and moved past it. Just like we moved past agriculture-based economies. 130 years ago, I imagine a guy like you would be crying about the "loss" of farming jobs and lamenting the growth of the manufacturing industry. You'd say that we should concentrate on making food because when things collapse we won't be able to feed ourselves. But we figured out feeding ourselves a long time ago and the next step was manufacturing. Now, we've figured that out and are able to devote our resources and time to other things. I'd rather have our best and brightest making medicines and electronics and not wasting time making shoes and sweaters when we can get those things made cheaper elsehwere. And if the fit hits the shan, we can make our sweaters. We haven't forgotten how to do that at all. We figured it out long ago and did it better than everyone else, which is why we have moved forward and the countries who are doing it now are where we were 5 generations ago! Not only is it cheaper, but it frees up human capital in the States to devote to more important endeavors. Just like it made no sense to have our best and brightest on farms milking cows when they could have been in cities growing industry it makes no sense to lament the "loss" of manufacturing jobs. There isn't a fixed amount of jobs in the world. 130 years ago, no one knew what an IT department was, but now millions of people work in that indsutry. There isn't a fixed amount of wealth in the world, nor a fixed amount of jobs. People need to remember that. There is real pain during this transition, I don't deny that at all. But it is making the country as a whole better off, even if the parochial interests of manufacturers who are used to high wages and a certain quality of life are being forced to adapt, just like people before them. The only constant in this world is change. You must adapt and if you have a skill set that is (1) obsolete (2) not as highly valued as it once was or (3) unable to be performed at market rates due to US laws like minimum wages then it is YOUR fault that you have put yourself in this position and the country as a whole should not suffer for your inadequacies. If your daddy worked in manufacturing and his daddy did and it's all you know, tough. Learn another skill. You've had your whole life to prepare for adulthood.