Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 63

Thread: The Age Of Ron Paul video

  1. #21
    Like the video states, the other guys want us to run out of money with all these unpaid for, costly wars and 900 bases around the world.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4045411]Like the video states, the other guys want us to run out of money with all these unpaid for, costly wars and 900 bases around the world.[/QUOTE]

    Ron Paul will end the wars he will also end SS and Medicare along with the current concepts of public education. You want to eat the pie you better eat the whole meal.

  3. #23
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,228
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045416]Ron Paul will end the wars he will also end SS and Medicare along with the current concepts of public education. You want to eat the pie you better eat the whole meal.[/QUOTE]

    I don't think he ever said he wants to end the current concepts of public education. What he wants to do is end the federal department of education and leave it to the states.

  4. #24
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045416]Ron Paul will end the wars he will also end SS and Medicare [/QUOTE]

    Wrong. Those systems would be privatized and would actually become sustainable

    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045416]
    along with the current concepts of public education. [/QUOTE]

    An excpetionally ignorant comment. Education in this country is primarily funded locally. The federal Department of Education is not only Unconstitutional, but it is a behometh drain on the budget and has been proven to only REDUCE the quality of American education. Throwing money at the problem is counterproductive.

  5. #25
    He also would end the IRS, the Fed and TSA before he touched Medicaid/Medicare. Even on the video he states that he would end all that foreign aid before doing anything to change the systems here

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045431]Wrong. Those systems would be privatized and would actually become sustainable



    [B]An excpetionally ignorant comment.[/B] Education in this country is primarily funded locally. The federal Department of Education is not only Unconstitutional, but it is a behometh drain on the budget and has been proven to only REDUCE the quality of American education. Throwing money at the problem is counterproductive.[/QUOTE]

    Privatized retirenment and Medicare is not either SS or Medicare which Ron Paul would end.

    Show me where the SC has ordered the Department of Education to be dismantled as unconstitutional?

    I understand your frustration that not everyone who believes in a smaller federal government believes in the dismantling of the federal government.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,228
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045447]Privatized retirenment and Medicare is not either SS or Medicare which Ron Paul would end.

    Show me where the SC has ordered the Department of Education to be dismantled as unconstitutional?

    I understand your frustration that not everyone who believes in a smaller federal government believes in the dismantling of the federal government.[/QUOTE]

    Has the SC ever ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the Department of Education? I dont think it is a dismantling of the federal government I just think everyone has a different definition of how much smaller it should be.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=Trades;4045470]Has the SC ever ruled one way or the other on the constitutionality of the Department of Education? I dont think it is a dismantling of the federal government I just think everyone has a different definition of how much smaller it should be.[/QUOTE]

    The answer is no they haven't. One of the things this strict constructionist always ignore is Lincoln had as much influence on the Constitution as our founders.

    The Federal government has done lots of good things and there is a difference between fundamentally dismantling it and having a strong reasoned debate on what the priorities should be and how to pay for it.

    Ron Paul and his ilk are firmly into isolation and dismantling the core of our federal government. Both positions most liberals who like his antiwar position conveniently ignore.

  9. #29
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Posts
    13,809
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045501]The answer is no they haven't. One of the things this strict constructionist always ignore is Lincoln had as much influence on the Constitution as our founders.

    The Federal government has done lots of good things and there is a difference between fundamentally dismantling it and having a strong reasoned debate on what the priorities should be and how to pay for it.

    Ron Paul and his ilk are firmly into isolation and dismantling the core of our federal government. Both positions most liberals who like his antiwar position conveniently ignore.[/QUOTE]

    you mean like how old people conveniently ignore the fact that it's medicare and soc. sec. that are driving our country to the brink of insolvency, and will make their grandchildren (and their children) endure a 90-something % tax rate?

    Small price to pay as long as gramma and grandpa handout get theirs, right?

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,228
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045501]The answer is no they haven't. One of the things this strict constructionist always ignore is Lincoln had as much influence on the Constitution as our founders.

    The Federal government has done lots of good things and there is a difference between fundamentally dismantling it and having a strong reasoned debate on what the priorities should be and how to pay for it.

    Ron Paul and his ilk are firmly into isolation and dismantling the core of our federal government. Both positions most liberals who like his antiwar position conveniently ignore.[/QUOTE]

    Sure but it isn't like Ron Paul could just walk in day 1 and remove all of the departments he doesn't like. It would have to go through congress and the house and will get watered down to a clean reduction of government. The thing we need is the guy at the top bringing in accountability and keeping everyone focused on reducing government and/or making it more efficient rather than someone that spends 100% more that we are taking in.

  11. #31
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045501]The answer is no they haven't. One of the things this strict constructionist always ignore is Lincoln had as much influence on the Constitution as our founders.

    The Federal government has done lots of good things and there is a difference between fundamentally dismantling it and having a strong reasoned debate on what the priorities should be and how to pay for it.

    Ron Paul and his ilk are firmly into isolation and dismantling the core of our federal government. Both positions most liberals who like his antiwar position conveniently ignore.[/QUOTE]

    So what you're saying is war and The Department of Education are "core of our federal government". Interesting.

    Tell me: what good has EVER come out of the trillions spent on the DofE?

  12. #32
    Ron Paul is for [COLOR="Red"][B][SIZE="7"]NON INTERVENTION[/SIZE][/B][/COLOR]

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=freestater;4045530]you mean like how old people conveniently ignore the fact that it's medicare and soc. sec. that are driving our country to the brink of insolvency, and will make their grandchildren (and their children) endure a 90-something % tax rate?

    Small price to pay as long as gramma and grandpa handout get theirs, right?[/QUOTE]

    My grandfather paid into SS never got a dime out. My grandmother did get SS into her 80's but she also worked into her late 70's and paid taxes into her late 70's pretty much a wash. My father is in his late 80's works full time and pays a huge multiple in taxes to what he gets out in SS. My wife and I have been paying into SS now for close to 40 years with at least another 9 or 10 to go before we get a dime of it which will be taxed based on our income.

    Personally I have no doubt that my family would have been able to parlay the SS and Medicare taxes we paid into a huge retirnment fund only to be stolen by my kids and grandchildren at some point down the road. Thankfully the government squandered it and kids like you are going to have to keep me fat and happy until I demand a feeding tube at 90 something.

  14. #34
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Trades;4045535]Sure but it isn't like Ron Paul could just walk in day 1 and remove all of the departments he doesn't like. It would have to go through congress and the house and will get watered down to a clean reduction of government. The thing we need is the guy at the top bringing in accountability and keeping everyone focused on reducing government and/or making it more efficient rather than someone that spends 100% more that we are taking in.[/QUOTE]

    You're making too much sense for this guy.

    Truth is, as always, the best answer probably falls somewhere in the middle of the two sides. Problem is, the two sides these days are almost identical. The right has shifted off the axis into some other dimension of reality. It's time to get back on track.

    I support Paul not only because I support his policies. But because I know we're a stronger nation when we compromise somewhere between him (the true conservatism) and our liberal friends. Not between them and the Bushes and JSJs of the world.

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,950
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045298]fear is far more powerful than logic.[/QUOTE]

    And people fear, more than anything else, real change. Especially change they've been told will take something they've gotten used to away from them.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045540]So what you're saying is war and The Department of Education are "core of our federal government". Interesting.

    Tell me: what good has EVER come out of the trillions spent on the DofE?[/QUOTE]

    I haven't said that at all. What's your problem?

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4045546]I haven't said that at all. What's your problem?[/QUOTE]

    You did. You attacked a stance on ending foreign aid and wars and the D of E and labelled it as "destroying the core of the fed gov"

    Answer the question - what good has the D of E ever provided? Besides votes for federal candidates that "care about education"?

  18. #38
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4045545]And people fear, more than anything else, real change. Especially change they've been told will take something they've gotten used to away from them.[/QUOTE]

    My issue with this is that a majority of what Paul proposes isn't truly "radical change". It's just a return back to where conservatism once resided.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045548]You did. You attacked a stance on ending foreign aid and wars and the D of E and labelled it as "destroying the core of the fed gov"

    Answer the question - what good has the D of E ever provided? Besides votes for federal candidates that "care about education"?[/QUOTE]

    I haven't attacked anything. I'm just pointing out that Ron Paul is not a peace loving hippie who's only policy is to end wars for ever. Ron Pual would fundementally dismantle the Federal government as it exists today. I believe that is something that is worthy of real honest debate not to be glossed over by people drinking the cool aid who through out Unconstitutional as if it were a fact.

  20. #40
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,950
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4045551]My issue with this is that a majority of what Paul proposes isn't truly "radical change". It's just a return back to where conservatism once resided.[/QUOTE]

    Which is radical change...from where we stand today.

    And the issues he promotes that are not strictly a "return", are also viewed even today as radical change.

    I maintain, as I did last election, he has no chance and never will.

    In the two-party system, he will never get enough of the Replucan Core, and he will never convince enough Demiocrats to switch over (despite their claims). He has baggage just like the rest, and he espouses an ideal of thrify and limited Govt. the masses of the moderate realm won't support becuase they think they'll lose out the most (and the probably would).

    He may be right, but he and many of his idea are unelectable.
    Last edited by Warfish; 06-10-2011 at 02:06 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us