For Ron Paul Voters: Have You Ever Analyzed Paul's Policies with a Magnifying Glass?

ACHIEVERS find a way. You people complain about Congresspeople "making deals" to screw the public. Well deal making IS how both the good and the bad get done. IT IS THE WAY OUR CONGRESS WORKS. And many times the president HAS to be in on the deal. Not always. But without dealing, NOTHING gets done. So Paul wouldn't deal, and no part of his honorable stances have become law. Net effect, his Congressional chair was kept warm.

Right now we have a severe fiscal crisis. Republicans insist on spending cuts. Democrats insist on tax increases. R's won't bend, D's won't bend, and the crushingly OBVIOUS answer is that BOTH spending cuts and tax increases are ESSENTIAL.

Read this:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sit...files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

A deal that both sides could accept is in there. and it would greatly benefit the nation.

obama has had this report in his office for over a year. It conflicts with his ideological idiocy so he refuses to use it. HE appointed the commission that compiled this report. But his unwavering stance will not allow a deal. Sound familiar?

LEARN HOW our govt works! It is not some thing of idealistic beauty. It is a rough and tumble, give and take, business. That allows for problems like we have now. but it also allows us to fix those problems. But you got to deal.

 

WRONG.

That is the way a failed government works.

Why do you think America is rife with problems?

Compromise. Backstabbing. No ethics. No morals. Almost nothing but losers in Washington as far as the eye can see. And they are bankrupting America.

And you cannot see this?

And you want the status quo to continue?

The crony capitalism?

The deals with the Wall Street types?

NO THANK YOU.

Your kind of politics is what is destroying America.

THAT is exactly the kind of crony corporatism that much of America despises and is exactly why Ron Paul is growing in popularity...especially among the young.

Maybe old foggies love the crappy Washington status quo.

America's future - thank goodness - apparently does not.


So THAT is what you meant by him doing nothing?

So thank you for showing us all what kind of America you are for.

YOU ARE A CHAMPION OF THE STATUS QUO.

 

Our country was built on compromise!

Compromise in Governance has been the hallmark of American politics since our inception and has always been considered our greatest strength!

When Compromise failed we ended up in a Civil War!

Of course we know that is what Libertarians really want, Civil War and the Country to tear itself apart because they foolishly think they will survive and pick up the pieces and finally be free of "The Police State".

Anyone who thinks America is a "Police State" needs to go to Egypt or Syria or Iran for awhile to see what a real Police State looks like.

 

I hope you are not so ignorant as to be speaking for me.

Because you got just about EVERYTHING DEAD WRONG.

Maybe you should speak for yourself more and stop trying to guess what others think...because clearly you have not a clue if this post is any indication.


And settling for a horribly corrupt government is not a compromise...it's a failure.

Of course perfection is impossible.. but the minute you stop trying for it is the minute you become empty, shallow and boring.

No wonder so many old people are against Ron Paul.

 

And what has Obama accomplished that the "other side" can point to and say "Look our guy does stuff, and Ron Paul doesn't?" His Nobel Peace Prize winning surge? His oh so successful stimulus? Romn... I mean Obamacare?

The biggest problem facing the country today is corporatism and our funny money. Neither Romney nor Obama would do a (*)(*)(*)(*) thing about it.

Ron Paul is not a contender because my television tells me so.

ELECTABILITY IS NO ETHICAL MEANS TO CHOOSE YOUR CANDIDATE! Do the research and find a person who best represents your ideals. Even if you want one of Vermin Supreme's free ponies.

Just ask yourself, are you voting for him because you think everyone else will? If the answer is yes, then you have done a disservice to yourself and this country.

FACTS:

Romney would ramp up spending on defense, continue killing innocents in the middle east, deny civil rights to homosexuals, keep wasting money on today's prohibition, and turn a blind eye to the unconstitutionality and unsustainability of the federal reserve.

Obama and the other GOP candidates are backed by the same big banks and corporate interests.

 

Your functioning brain, knowledge of his history, and logic should tell you Paul is unelectable. Not your TV.

Killing innocents in the middle east, as opposed to them killing innocents HERE?

Deny civil rights to homosexuals? How does the perverted desire to bugger one another's bottoms, and demand that the whole world knows about it and approve, endow one with some special civil rights?

And we, the electorate have to insist that Congress act on those other problems.

And, from the top, I will be voting for the Republican candidate, whomever that turns out to be, Paul is my least favorite choice, because his record of nothing accomplished is as bad as obama's record of nothing accomplished.
Both are rigid ideologues. Diametrically opposed, but equally rigid and uncompromising. And compromise, with all its inherent faults, is necessary to accomplish anything. You may hate that as it is far from idealistic, but it is reality. And politics deals with reality, not idealism.

 

The television remark was pointing out that by automatically voting for the winner of the GOP nomination regardless of what that person stands for you are voting for who the pundits told you to.

"We fight them over there so they we don't have to fight them here!" That type of thinking is ignorant, xenophobic, and lends itself to genocidal empires casually committing daily atrocities. The only reason we have ever been attacked by a fringe group of religious radicals from the middle east is because we've been meddling in their affairs for decades. What gives us the right to prop up brutal dictators and use them as our puppets. Before 9/11 we had already murdered at least 26,000 people in Iraq alone.

To label something perverted is an exercise of one's opinion. Every human has a right to their own interpretation of what is moral or perverted. Every American has the right to pursue happiness. Who is the American government to tell you how to be happy? Whether your happiness is found at the end of a crack pipe or in the pants of an individual with similar genitalia to your own, that is your own business. I do not believe there should be a new law passed to endow special civil rights. I believe we should do away with every law respecting marriage, gender, sexual orientation, and race. Let the churches handle marriage.

Politics are dealing in their own ideals. It is not reality that our present course of printing money to finance our empirical shenanigans is even remotely sustainable. The inflationary tax is wiping out the middle class.

The only people who will profit from any of the "top tier" candidates winning are the fat cats.

 

I'd love it the perverts would keep their sexual deviation to themselves. But they have to shout it from the rooftops, in the papers, on the tube. There have long been civil contracts every bit as binding as a marriage, which itself, IS a civil contract.

And the middle eastern terrorists have pledged to kill all infidels long before there WAS a USA. LEARN some history. The Marine song contains the words, "The Shores of Tripoli." That was the result of muslims capturing US MERCHANT SHIPS. They captured our ships and EVERYBODY else's ships and enslaved the crews. Charging ransoms for the ships and cargo. They had done this for many many years. WE decided to put a stop to it in 1801.

Plus they murder innocents all over the world, in the west AND in the east. They murder muslims as well as they murder anyone else. If a muslim does not "believe" hard enough, KILL HIM. So you can stuff that "We provoke them, politically correct bull(*)(*)(*)(*)!." They don't need provocation, they enjoy murder.

 

Who says that? You're simply setting up a straw man to knock down. Apparently, you just can't believe that some people would hold Paul's policies against the policies of his opponents and prefer his policies to theirs. You just can't believe it's not about the man; it's about the platform and, more importantly, the undergirding philosophy of individual rights.

 

No. I simply never see one iota of doubt among his supporters. This thread has shown that his supporters don't necessarily agree with everything he says, and that they don't necessarily know as much about his policies as it is perceived. I am fully aware that his supporters like the philosophy of individual rights. They profess it all the time. The philosophy is not what I am questioning.

I question the cold, hard policies, or his actual words, and how they would work in practice, or effect his policies. It is one thing to support the principles behind the policies. It is another thing to blindly support them strictly based upon those principles. I never put trust in any public official without looking at the laws they have written, the words in those laws, or the actual words stated by the man or women himself/herself.

When I look at Ron Paul's legislation on abortion, I actually see an instance where he would not uphold individual rights, and even Constitutionality. When I look at his stance on gay marriage, I see the same problem. When I look at Ron Paul's competing currencies legislation, I see something beyond the goal of ending the Federal Reserve.

Essentially, the goal of this thread was to see how many of his supporters look beyond his principles and delve into his actual policies and proposals.

 

That's not what the poll numbers say. They say he's second only to Willard in electability against Obama. Why should I trust your personal, subjective, biased opinion rather than the actual data on how much support he has?

Fewer and fewer people buy this ridiculous video game rhetoric. The military is coming home the easy way or the hard way: by enough people like you waking up and demanding that they come home from their crazy crusade or by bankrupting us into a Balkanized third world state that no longer has the money to be the world's unpaid policeman. Take your choice.

Washington doesn't need to accomplish anything. It just needs to leave me alone.

 

You are perfectly fine with a $15+ trillion dollar debt? You are perfectly fine worth the lack of fiscal and monetary discipline? If that is the case, why vote for Dr. Paul? The better choice would be Vermin Supreme.

 

Um, hello...that debt was one of Washington's accomplishments. It wouldn't need to do anything to correct it; it would simply need to stop spending money on things.

The nice thing about Ron Paul is that, for the most part, he doesn't want to do things. Rather, he wants to prevent, as much as possible, the other oligarchs in Washington from doing things. He'd be somewhat like Frodo, wielding the Ring of Power not so he could us it, but only so he could destroy it. The rest of you are all Boromirs, who think you can use the heavy-hand of the coercive state as a tool to grow flowers and breed butterflies.

 

You have some warped perspective if you think the debt was an accomplishment. That is an utter failure.

An accomplishment entails the act of fulfillment, which requires that one must fulfill something, which requires one to carry out, or bring to realization, as a prophecy or promise. It was not predicted nor promised by our public leaders that we would have a $15 trillion dollar debt. Therefore, they did not fulfill anything, and in turn, did not engage in the act of fulfillment, and in turn, did not accomplish anything. Hence, they failed, and are failures.

To correct the debt problem, you need to stop spending, reform programs, eliminate programs, and overhaul all budgetary items. That will be an accomplishment.

 

It's sarcasm. Such things as $15 trillion are represent the "accomplishments" of Washington. That's what they do. All they need to do it to stop doing the things they do.

It's a negative accomplishment: not continuing to make your mess. It's the accomplishment of a vandal that decides to stop vandalizing. That's why I said Ron Paul's alleged "lack of achievement" would still be preferable to his opponents' records of achieving only bad things.

 

Every individual has an obligation to voice their own personal dissent towards the government. Sorry that so many homosexuals feel the same message resonating with them. Government has no right to say who can and can't be married, or to offer special benefits to those that are.

Regarding Tripoli, I am pretty sure they still remembered the crusades. Those were pirates that captured the ships. Why don't we focus our efforts on modern day pirates? Protecting the global economy is a far more righteous goal than protecting the military industrial complex. Do you believe that human beings are endowed by their creator with different rights depending on their geographic origin? No matter who started it, should we continue fighting fire with fire?

The US government is top dog when it comes to murdering around the world. I don't think we'd stand for Iraq having as many bases as we have around the world. We kill our own too.

If this "we provoked them bs" was politically correct, then why does only one candidate say it? It is politically correct today to want to glass the whole Arabian peninsula.

 

well said.plus if you do any research,you can find out for yourself he is the only candidate that believes in the constituion of the united states and serving the people instead of wallstreet and the corporations.NONE of the other candidates say anything to indicate they are for us and say the same old song over and over and lie all the time.Pual at least says things that show you he is not ignoring what the people want.None of the others show that they care to do what the american people want.thats ALL that matters.

 

I've never seen a Crusade Campaign ribbon on an American soldiers chest. I seem to remember saying that muslims were ruthless murderers before there was a USA. CENTURIES BEFORE!

Fighting fire with fire? We have no choice about that. We fight them or they kill us. That's and easy choice for me. You may choose to be beheaded, or blown up, along with your entire family. My choice is to fight.

And only one candidate is not the only one to say that. MOST loony liberals make the same claim. The retard bums of OWS say the same thing.

 

First of all you are ignorant and xenophobic.

I brought up the crusades to point out that Muslims have been taking (*)(*)(*)(*) from Christians for a while. I think every human being has the same predisposition towards violence regardless of geographical or religious origin. So we score the same on the murder index.

We do have a choice, we'd be more safe with our entire military actually here. If Tebow is gonna throw a hail-Mary you think the defense should go beat up the crowd to stop him? If we are worried about an "imminent" threat to homeland security, shouldn't our troops be in the homeland?

I've never heard any mainstream candidate say that we brought the attacks on ourselves. Prove me wrong.

 

I've examined the others' policies with beer goggles on...still ugly.

 

It sounds as if someone (YOU) doesn't like the states deciding anything of consequence. You might not believe this, but southern states have much different opinions on abortion rites than the northern states. You probably don't like democracy very much either where people get to vote on issues that actually matter. You seem to like this system where an appointed bureaucrat in the supreme court gets to decide on everything. When I grew up, we used to make fun of the way the Politburo did this kind of thing. How sad it's degenerated to where it is now....

 

As a pro-choice voter, I can't support the Sanctity of Life Act, but then again, that's why I'm voting for Gary Johnson instead of Paul.

Still, Paul is the best GOP candidate. I may not agree with all of his stances or his positions, but I'm closer to agreeing with him than any of the other major candidates.

 

While having abortion as a state issue is probably for the best, to pass a law federally that interferes with Roe vs. Wade adds to the problem rather than helping the situation.

 

Actually, I feel that both defining life and dealing with matters of abortion are reserved powers respectively granted to the states. No policy altering the jurisdiction of the Federal Court system should favor one viewpoint that upholds unconstitutionality. To properly limit the jurisdiction of the Federal Court system, the Sanctity of Life Act would have to list "matters of defining life" as an issue that the Federal Court System should not decide.

Remember, bclark, when you assume, you make a "you know what" out of you and me.

 

I agree, especially when it is inequitable, and unconstitutional.