Do you want ABSOLUTE life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

He will awaken the American people to the dangers of the fractional baking system.

Mmmm fractional baking...

*drools*

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Mmmm fractional baking...

*drools*

LOL I just noticed this. It is now fixed just in case.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

All I can say is that his voting record is as close to granting freedom for all as I have seen. That is unless you consider freedom to be different from what I believe freedom to be. I believe freedom is the ability to pursue happiness without government intervention as long as said happiness doesn't hurt anyone else. The thing is he will only vote in a way which doesn't take away our liberties. Look at his voting record, and tell me which vote you are so concerned with. I am not saying he is perfect, and perhaps some of his votes may seem a little bit out there. If you understand the meaning behind the vote perhaps you would see the purpose behind it. The article you linked didn't actually look at why Mr. Paul voted the way he did. He votes in a way that people have their god given freedoms to pursue happiness, liberty, and prosperity. I am 1 of the big Paul supporters around, and will tell you right now that I don't agree with everything he says. The truth is though you will never find someone that has all the answers. He takes the social liberties of the left, and the financial liberties of the right, and merges them into a total freedom package.

Freedom according to Dr. paul is not for everyone in my opinion... in the spirit of laziness and full bellyness I will link you with another article that fully illustrates what I am concerned about...I really wanted to like him, but I cannot go there with this kind of voting record...I can elaborate perhaps tommorow but for now I must just go off to dreamland.. 10 good reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul | MadMikesAmerica

At the end of the day I do not think there is a candidate that I will support.. The whole lot of them pretty much piss me off.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

Freedom according to Dr. paul is not for everyone in my opinion... in the spirit of laziness and full bellyness I will link you with another article that fully illustrates what I am concerned about...I really wanted to like him, but I cannot go there with this kind of voting record...I can elaborate perhaps tommorow but for now I must just go off to dreamland.. 10 good reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul | MadMikesAmerica

At the end of the day I do not think there is a candidate that I will support.. The whole lot of them pretty much piss me off.

This article gets it's information from Addicting info, and the same liberal anti-paul writer. I don't have the time to write a thorough explanation of the reasoning behind each of these votes right now. I will say that the reason behind them is because the federal government shouldn't have been involved in the first place. I will say though that those 10 reasons in that article are some of the same reasons why I will vote for him. I am not here to change your mind, nor make anyone vote for him. I am simply here to praise the 1 man I feel is the only person who will actually end these damn wars, and bring light on the federal reserve. I must say atleast your vote will not be wasted on the others, and that is good. Obama=romney, they are pretty much the same so what's the point. I am fed up with them all. The repub/democrat choices have gotten us where we are at. So I say what they hell I will give the libertarian guy a shot. He may be our last chance to save the country.

[scorpio1980]

Why we should get rid of FEMA. Remember Katrina?

Lionel: Ron Paul is Right About FEMA - YouTube

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

Freedom according to Dr. paul is not for everyone in my opinion... in the spirit of laziness and full bellyness I will link you with another article that fully illustrates what I am concerned about...I really wanted to like him, but I cannot go there with this kind of voting record...I can elaborate perhaps tommorow but for now I must just go off to dreamland.. 10 good reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul | MadMikesAmerica

At the end of the day I do not think there is a candidate that I will support.. The whole lot of them pretty much piss me off.

Instead of write out my arguments to that article someone has already beat me to it. So I will just post it.

Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Ron Paul | Blazing Truth

[MariconesUnited]

I think it's short-sighted to look only at the reasons behind someone's voting records. As we know, sometimes we intend something and get something different. This is especially true of legislation. Paul may have good intentions, but many of his ideas would collectively hurt the middle and lower classes.

He may be different, but that might mean he's a whole lot worse as well.

[JSB]

Yes. I think he is honest, principled and passionate about helping the country, which is incredibly refreshing to see from a politician, most of whom are dishonest, unprincipled, and passionate about helping themselves.

While, I respect the man and his intentions tremendously, I am convinced that the structural changes to society and the economy brought about by implementing his policies would inadvertently cause terrible damage and suffering to huge numbers of people.

I know these are unintended consequences, but MariconesUnited is right: it is short-sighted to look only at the reasons behind someone's voting records. Ron Paul is a smart man with the best of intentions, but restructuring society based on solely on ideological theory (even a good and benevolent ideological theory like his) rather than empirical evidence, can have all sorts of terrible results.

Please note that I do not support the current system as it stands, and I think much of what Ron Paul says in his criticisms is very much worth listening to, but I don't think that the solutions he proposes should all be enacted without some serious study and understanding of what their effects might be. I guess I'd like to see some of what he proposes enacted, rather than all of it.

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I think it's short-sighted to look only at the reasons behind someone's voting records. As we know, sometimes we intend something and get something different. This is especially true of legislation. Paul may have good intentions, but many of his ideas would collectively hurt the middle and lower classes.

He may be different, but that might mean he's a whole lot worse as well.

[Brutha]

The missing piece in the Ron Paul puzzle is consumer awareness. Take away the EPA and other regulations, and you have companies running amok, polluting everywhere, destroying everything in the name of profits and dismissing environmental concerns as quackery.

Making Ron Paul president wouldn't give him the power to get rid of the EPA.
Electing him will shake up the system.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I think it's short-sighted to look only at the reasons behind someone's voting records. As we know, sometimes we intend something and get something different. This is especially true of legislation. Paul may have good intentions, but many of his ideas would collectively hurt the middle and lower classes.

He may be different, but that might mean he's a whole lot worse as well.

I never said I ONLY look at the reasons behind his votes. I said the anti paul writer needs to realize there is a positive reasoning behind the vote. To simply look at what you feel the vote will do, but not take into account that the end result could be very different from what you think is short sighted.

I believe that the positive would out weigh the negative. Ending war. Tearing apart the tax code. Ending the war on drugs releasing thousands of non violent criminals. Breaking down the fed. Lowering the price of college. getting rid of so much regulation and burden on small business owners. If I can have that over what we have had for the last few generations, I will take it.

[stanmrak]

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I like the sound of that.

*Puts hand up* Question - what does he cut down on so he can lower taxes? Maybe excessive polititian salaries and absurd, crippling subsidies?

Get our troops out of the 130(!) or so countries that they now occupy. Mission accomplished! Bring them home and have them upgrade our infrastructure instead.

Why do we have troops in Germany, Japan, Iceland? We spend more on military than ALL the countries in the world combined - TIMES TWO!!!!

Fellow Americans, imagine this: you go down to the mall to shop and you see armed Russian troops parading around. How would that feel? Anyone here live in a country which is occupied by our military? How do you feel about it?

[wanzulfikri]

I'm not American but I can see that Ron Paul is someone that can really lead America based on what others say.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

I never said I ONLY look at the reasons behind his votes. I said the anti paul writer needs to realize there is a positive reasoning behind the vote. To simply look at what you feel the vote will do, but not take into account that the end result could be very different from what you think is short sighted.

I believe that the positive would out weigh the negative. Ending war. Tearing apart the tax code. Ending the war on drugs releasing thousands of non violent criminals. Breaking down the fed. Lowering the price of college. getting rid of so much regulation and burden on small business owners. If I can have that over what we have had for the last few generations, I will take it.

I suppose I was being too polite with my initial post. I don't think it's a good idea at all to look at why a certain politician votes a certain way. It's more important to look at the likely consequences of such votes. To me, Paul encapsulates the expression ''The road to Hell is based on good intentions'' just perfectly.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I suppose I was being too polite with my initial post. I don't think it's a good idea at all to look at why a certain politician votes a certain way. It's more important to look at the likely consequences of such votes. To me, Paul encapsulates the expression ''The road to Hell is based on good intentions'' just perfectly.

Of course it is important to look at the possible consequences of a vote. What I am saying is don't be so quick to believe a vote is bad from the surface. If you look closer you may see the actual end is different than what expected. Ofcourse if you don't welcome change I could understand why you dismiss Paul. He is a very big change. Do you really think anything good will come of Any of the other candidates? They are all the same. Ron Paul stands out as the only one that stands up to the status quo.

So you don't believe in individual freedoms over collectivism? You don't believe the FED is a harmful organization? You don't believe endless war to be bad? You like the fact people can't choose what to put in their own bodies? You believe the TSA has the right to fondle grandma at the airport? You believe taxation isn't theft?

All the other candidates give you exactly what we have. Which is a country that is slowly dying, and dying faster by the minute. How could you actually choose to support the same ole' policies that have destroyed us?

Please inform me of certain stances Paul has took that you believe lead to negative consequence.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

So you don't believe in individual freedoms over collectivism? You don't believe the FED is a harmful organization? You don't believe endless war to be bad? You like the fact people can't choose what to put in their own bodies? You believe the TSA has the right to fondle grandma at the airport? You believe taxation isn't theft?

You mind slowing down? I can only digest a certain amount of words being put into my mouth at a time.

Let's look at the flat tax. It immediately hurts the poor and helps the rich. Any measures to combat this new discrepancy between individuals? Does he just not care?

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

You mind slowing down? I can only digest a certain amount of words being put into my mouth at a time.

Let's look at the flat tax. It immediately hurts the poor and helps the rich. Any measures to combat this new discrepancy between individuals? Does he just not care?

How does it hurt the poor. It seems to me that it has everybody paying their fair share unlike now. We already get half our taxes from excise tax anyways, lower government spending to that level, and no one has to pay any income tax. Eventually the flat tax would be very low, because government would be very small. It also would give people the ability to own their property without having to pay taxes every year. So grandma will no longer have to find the extra money to pay property tax, because she already paid her 10% tax when she bought the house. I will pay an even 10% if it means no taxes on my property ever again. Also, how many poor and middle class people work for tips? Guess what no taxes will be collected from tipped wages anymore. It would also eliminate the taxes on social security which eat in to the wages of so many poor elderly people.

So you think caring means to steal the fruits of someones labor, and give to another under threat of prison and fines? Not the type of place I find loving at all.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

How does it hurt the poor. It seems to me that it has everybody paying their fair share unlike now. We already get half our taxes from excise tax anyways, lower government spending to that level, and no one has to pay any income tax. Eventually the flat tax would be very low, because government would be very small.

I don't believe that's possible.

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

So you think caring means to steal the fruits of someones labor, and give to another under threat of prison and fines? Not the type of place I find loving at all.

You keep drawing up strawmen to debate with. All I'm saying is that switching from the current system to a flat tax would mean an increase in taxes for the poor and a decrease for the wealthy. What I'd like to know is what is the benefit for the poorer classes? Is there some trade off?

[Brutha]

Let's look at the flat tax. It immediately hurts the poor and helps the rich. Any measures to combat this new discrepancy between individuals? Does he just not care?

Tax laws are created by congress and the senate. They aren't made by the president. Especially when the president doesn't have the support of any party in congress which would probably be the case for Ron Paul.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I don't believe that's possible.

You keep drawing up strawmen to debate with. All I'm saying is that switching from the current system to a flat tax would mean an increase in taxes for the poor and a decrease for the wealthy. What I'd like to know is what is the benefit for the poorer classes? Is there some trade off?

It is more than possible. 51% of Americans pay no tax, and most get money back that they didn't even pay in. It is somehow fair for 49% to take all the burden just because they went out and made something of themselves? Why should the poor get some sort of special treatment? That is class-ism if I have ever seen it. Everyone should have equal rights, and that means equal rights to the fruits of their own labor.

Also what Brutha said. Anti Paul guys don't seem to realize a lot of what Paul wants to do can't be done without congress anyways.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I don't believe that's possible.

You keep drawing up strawmen to debate with. All I'm saying is that switching from the current system to a flat tax would mean an increase in taxes for the poor and a decrease for the wealthy. What I'd like to know is what is the benefit for the poorer classes? Is there some trade off?

Also let us get this strait. Paul doesn't want any income tax at all, but offers the flat tax as a transition until government is cut in half. Excise taxes among a few others such as corporate tax bring in 55% of all revenue for the government. We cut spending to that level, and no one has to pay income taxes.

I don't believe someone deserves special tax breaks because they don't make as much money. If we are equal we all should be equal in all ways, and that means all paying the same percentage of taxes. Eventually we would all pay 0. We didn't have an income tax until 1913, they thought about introducing an income tax in the late 1800's, but in 1895 the income tax was deemed unconstitutional. If we cut spending enough we do not need an income tax.

[James Fletcher]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

To me, Paul encapsulates the expression ''The road to Hell is based on good intentions'' just perfectly.

So did FDR with the New Deal. And Obamacare.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Fellow Americans, imagine this: you go down to the mall to shop and you see armed Russian troops parading around. How would that feel? Anyone here live in a country which is occupied by our military? How do you feel about it?

I do. Given the North Korean situation, I feel somewhat safer than if there was no US military presence.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by scorpio1980

Also let us get this strait. Paul doesn't want
I don't believe someone deserves special tax breaks because they don't make as much money. If we are equal we all should be equal in all ways, and that means all paying the same percentage of taxes. Eventually we would all pay 0. We didn't have an income tax until 1913, they thought about introducing an income tax in the late 1800's, but in 1895 the income tax was deemed unconstitutional. If we cut spending enough we do not need an income tax.

So it is ok that many in the higher tax brackets have special privileges that allow them to pay less taxes or in some cases no taxes... or Corporations like G. E. that paid no taxes in 2010? That is OK? Ron Paul is out for the Wealthy and does not give a rats arse about anyone else...Not to be trusted....

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

So it is ok that many in the higher tax brackets have special privileges that allow them to pay less taxes or in some cases no taxes... or Corporations like G. E. that paid no taxes in 2010? That is OK? Ron Paul is out for the Wealthy and does not give a rats arse about anyone else...Not to be trusted....

Do you know why G E paid no taxes ( which, you actually meant to say, no INCOME taxes. They paid a ton of taxes, FYI), or are you just against the thought of someone paying no taxes and don't care to bother investigating in case it goes against your point?

[garentee]

I will bite.. Why did they pay NO income taxes?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

I will bite.. Why did they pay NO income taxes?

Do you understand what losses are, and what caring over losses means? As well as making money overseas and making money here?

They are not paying any Federal income tax this year, because they took massive losses last year, and carried it forward.

I'll give you an example of how that works, and why "Carrying forward" losses is a good idea. Take a research company. They spend 10 years developing a product, incurring severe operating losses all of those years. (Say $10 Million a year). They then make the product, and sell the patent for it for $100 Million.

They've actually made no money over 10 years. But their one year profit is $100 Million.

So, the headlines would be " Research company makes $100 million dollars!!! Yet, they did not pay a dime in federal income tax, while their secretary had to pay 35% of her income in taxes!! ".

See how silly that sounds, now that it's explained?

They did not profit domestically, but they did internationally from their lending. They don't bring home the money they make overseas so they don't have to pay taxes on it. As far as a corporation doing what it is legally obligated to do (maximize profits) they're doing great. Is that the best thing for America? Probably not. But when you get pushed into paying for the bottom 51% of non income tax payers, you tend to push back.

I'd like to add, that I haven't paid income taxes in a few years. Why don't I have to, and you do ? Because I have a business, and can show losses, where as an individual has no true losses, aside from cost of gas, and a few other tax write offs that they can use. My neighbor, uses his home as his business as well his car. He was paying a ton in income tax, working the same job, for some other guy. Now, he's working for himself, doing the same job, and paying barely any income tax. The reason you don't want to over tax business, is because it will squelch innovation, and there will be less jobs for people, who would have then paid income tax. If there is income tax, then this is the way it needs to be done. If we get rid of income tax, then we'll do things a different way. At the moment, this IS fair.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Tax laws are created by congress and the senate. They aren't made by the president. Especially when the president doesn't have the support of any party in congress which would probably be the case for Ron Paul.

Maybe this would be a better starting point for this discussion. What can we reasonably expect from a president who has no support from his colleagues?

[stanmrak]

Yeah, we're not talking about making Ron Paul a dictator, after all.

As much as I regret to say it, if Ron Paul were to be elected, he'd probably never make it to inauguration day alive. It would look like a heart attack or something, but the bankers would not allow him to set foot in the White House.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by stanmrak

Yeah, we're not talking about making Ron Paul a dictator, after all.

As much as I regret to say it, if Ron Paul were to be elected, he'd probably never make it to inauguration day alive. It would look like a heart attack or something, but the bankers would not allow him to set foot in the White House.

Yeah, that's not a conspiracy theory in the slightest.... They said the same thing about Obama.

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

So it is ok that many in the higher tax brackets have special privileges that allow them to pay less taxes or in some cases no taxes... or Corporations like G. E. that paid no taxes in 2010? That is OK? Ron Paul is out for the Wealthy and does not give a rats arse about anyone else...Not to be trusted....

That's the point. We should have no income taxes. If you do that it is fair. Ron Paul is not for the wealthy or the poor. He is for individual freedom. You seem to be for the poor, and that is class-ism. I am for everybody being equal, and I say this as your everyday average American, far from being rich.