• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Ron Paul for 2012, what do you think?

bambua

Well-known member
#3
I was interested enough him in the last election to do some back study on him and all I had to read were the racist bigoted newsletters that were sent out by his campaign to know I didn't want anything to do with him. Even if I did believe some of his stances on politics.
 

steven s

Well-known member
#4
Tonight's debate are two blocks from my work. I left work early. :)

Why is Ron Paul the only candidate that is ever mentioned in forums?
Is it part of his marketing strategy?
 

kyrgyz

Well-known member
#5
Why is Ron Paul the only candidate that is ever mentioned in forums?
Is it part of his marketing strategy?
I lean to the libertarian side in my views. I guess that's why I am interested in Ron Paul, a guy with consistent principled integrity as described by Jon Stewart.

Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. [wiki]

 

Peggy

Well-known member
#6
Admittedly, I know nothing about Ron Paul, so I'm guessing he probably can't be any worse than anyone else who's talking about running.
 

Ray

Active member
#7
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property—rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. [wiki]
Is that your, Ron Paul's or wiki's definition?

I truly believe that everyone has the right to do with their live whatever they choose to, as long as they respect the rights of others.
 

SchmitzIT

Well-known member
#11
I consider myself to be a mild form of a libertarian. I loathe the socialist systems sprawled all throughout Europ, but at the same time, I do think that there ought to be some form of government aid for those who were dealt a bad hand of cards in life. A pure and simple safety net.

Ron Paul would have been my choice, except I have done some reading up on him a while ago, and have to admit I was not too impressed with some of the stuff I read. Still, when having to pick between Palin, Trump and Paul, Paul seems the least of the three evils.
 

kyrgyz

Well-known member
#12
I do think that there ought to be some form of government aid for those who were dealt a bad hand of cards in life. A pure and simple safety net.
My understanding is that welfare system was designed to help those who have fallen on hard times to get back on their feet and become PRODUCTIVE again. We are talking here about 6-12 months. Ron Paul wants to leave welfare to states.
 

jonsidneyb

Well-known member
#14
My understanding is that welfare system was designed to help those who falled on hard times to get back on their feet and become PRODUCTIVE again. We are talking here about 6-12 months. Ron Paul wants to leave welfare to states.
You are right. I think this is a misunderstanding the people often have with Ron Paul. Some things people think he is against he is not against at all. He does seem to think that State and Federal powers should not overlap. The Fed takes care of only the things that does not make sense for the States to do. Result all else being equal Federal Tax goes down and State Tax goes up according to how the individual States respond.

It is easier to change States than Nations if things start to become different than you would like.
 

SchmitzIT

Well-known member
#16
My understanding is that welfare system was designed to help those who falled on hard times to get back on their feet and become PRODUCTIVE again. We are talking here about 6-12 months. Ron Paul wants to leave welfare to states.
I'm all for that. Provided those relying on that system actually either did conttribute to it in some form or another (by working and paying for it that way, with the maximum amount of time they can fall back on it determined by the amount of time they spent working), or are new to the workforce (graduates working their way to their first jobs). At the same time it also ought to provide cover for those limited by handicaps (born or obtained through accidents).

But yeah. In most of Europe, I cannot help but notice that there seem to be a lot of people relying on a state hand-out from systems they never contributed to to begin with. And the only solution the governments see is to keep on raising taxes, because it obviously is easier squeezing hard-working people some more than it is to tell moochers and looters to start doing their share.

Anyone managed to find Galt's Gulch yet? I'm ready.
 

kyrgyz

Well-known member
#17
But yeah. In most of Europe, I cannot help but notice that there seem to be a lot of people relying on a state hand-out from systems they never contributed to to begin with.
I think U.S. welfare system is being abused much the same way as in EU.
 

SchmitzIT

Well-known member
#18
I think U.S. welfare system is being abused much in the same way as in EU.
Probably. But at least the US is not letting anyone in. In Holland, for many many years, illiterates unable to speak Dutch in even the most basic form were most welcome, without anyone raising s much as an eyebrow that these people instantly were on wellfare, and unable to find a job.

And so Holland now hosts large ghettos where Dutch is barely spoken, and where somehow a lot of people seem to have a year-round holiday.