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

[superfoodist]

I know there's some people out there that don't like Ron Paul, but he's the ONLY one that's 100% FOR the Constitution. He's EXACTLY what the founding fathers would have wanted. For those that haven't heard of him, or don't know enough about him, here's a few key things about this candidate :

• He wants to end the Federal Reserve, and bring the control of money back into the AMERICANS hands.

• He wants to lower taxes, and COMPLETELY abolish the IRS and income tax, which accounts for about 2-3 months of your labor.

• He wants to bring our troops back home, and put them around OUR borders to protect us, rather than invade every country we can and oppress the people of other nations.

• He wants to legalize marijuana, gay marriage, etc -- He doesn't legalize these things out of personal preference.. He wants to legalize them because this is supposed to be a FREE nation, with FREE choices. No government has the right to tell us what we can, and can not put into OUR bodies, or how we can live OUR lives.

• He wants to stop the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from interfering with Americans’ knowledge of and access to dietary supplements and alternative treatments.

• He supports homeschooling, and will help to make it a more accepted and widespread (this is a major plus for those that understand how terrible our nations' education system has become) form of education.

• He will look into alternative energy choices.. This means we can eventually stray away from the use of oil, and focus on energy sources from the sun, water, wind, and biofuels, making energy cheaper, and majorly reducing our negative impact on our environment.

• He wants to legalize the Second Amendment (our right to bear arms [own guns]), which politicians have been trying to make illegal for a long time now. Look up statistics of American states that allow concealed carry of firearms, and see how much lower state crime is compared to states who make firearm ownership illegal. The fact is, if someone plans to rob/murder you, they will think twice if there's a chance of you adequately defending yourself. Also, the criminals who commit crimes in the first place will find a way to ILLEGALLY get a gun if they need to, while the honest, innocent American citizen remains defenseless. To understand how critical it is that we keep our Second Amendment right, please check out this website and look at quotes about it by our founding fathers : The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

Overall, he's about FREEDOM. For those stuck in the republican/democrat, liberal/conservatism, one vs the other mindset - please leave that behind for a moment and focus on what this guy truly stands for - your personal rights as a human being.

He has never voted on a tax raise.

If you want to learn more, please check out his website at : Ron Paul 2012 Official Campaign Website

There's a reason the mainstream media ignores him. It's because he won't buy into their game. He won't be one of their puppets that they can throw a few dollars at to push their agenda. He's for the constitution. He's for America.

[scorpio1980]

Thank you superfoodist for starting a new thread about Ron Paul. He is the only candidate worth voting for. I see people starting to wake up. His ideas aren't at all new, but are new for us. Freedom in every form is what he desires, and what I desire. One thing that we need to get Ron Paul supporters to understand is that he needs to win the primaries to have a shot at being the president. This means you need to be registered republican to vote in the primaries. I was registered independent, but switched so I could vote for him in the primaries. I feel Dr. Paul is the only real choice to beat Obama as well. He is the only candidate that isn't really republican, he is a libertarian. I feel this gives him an advantage, because he will gain a lot of Democrat voters along the way as well. Ron Paul 2012! Thank you for spreading the message of liberty.

[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?

[JSB]

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?

Social Security, Medicare, welfare, social programs, education funding, scientific research, foreign aid, defense, infrastructure, environmental protection, energy, etc.

I like the idea of libertarianism and what Dr. Paul espouses, but I am skeptical of it's real world effects. A society dominated entirely by selfish and corrupt multinational corporate interests is no better to me than a society run by selfish government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. I don't want prisons, hospitals, military forces, etc. all run by private contractors.

I think Paul is a needed voice, a great counterbalance to the current circus in Washington, but I'm not convinced that the society he wants to create would end up being any better for the average citizen than the one we have now --- in the absence of government influence, other forces will step into the power vacuum, and Goldman Sachs and Monsanto will have even more influence on people's lives than they do today. Still, I like having him in the ring and calling other politicians on their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

As for cutting spending: people talk about "waste" and "fat" in US budgets, and it's there, but it makes up a very small percentage of total spending. There are really only 4 contributors to US budget problems: defense, Social Security, Medicare, and debt financing. Nothing else even comes close, and there is no way to fix spending without addressing these areas.

[Andrew Gubb]

As for cutting spending: people talk about "waste" and "fat" in US budgets, and it's there, but it makes up a very small percentage of total spending.

I don't know about that - what of the absurd subsidies e.g. to corn, meat, etc? In Spain bullfighting is estimated to take up 47€ of each family's yearly tax contribution. This is a sport that 60% of Spanish people either don't support or are against.

I can't make a list of all of these absurd expenses - and lack of transparency in government spending very much assures that - but the scale of it I believe is staggering.

[garentee]

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society. In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2. I certainly think we ought to be more selective of where we put our energies in the world, but as long as corporations are in bed with government it is a moot point... I would like to believe that he is the answer, but there is no one person who will be THE answer and frankly I think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing..

[scorpio1980]

Originally Posted by garentee

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society. In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2. I certainly think we ought to be more selective of where we put our energies in the world, but as long as corporations are in bed with government it is a moot point... I would like to believe that he is the answer, but there is no one person who will be THE answer and frankly I think he is a wolf in sheeps clothing..

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He wants to have relations and trade with everybody. He simply wants to pull our military out from everywhere and bring them home. That is not isolationist.

[JSB]

Yes, there is waste and money thrown at "pet projects", but the scale of it pales in comparison to defense, social security, medicare and debt financing. Also, federal employee pensions, which I forgot to mention earlier.

See below for more detail on how federal tax money is spent in the US. The Mandatory section is for spending commitments already mandated by law, meaning that Congress can't just decide not to pay without changing the existing laws, and even then may be forced to pay pre-existing commitments by the Federal courts, depending on the nature of the spending (e.g. the government isn't allowed to ignore or write off its pre-existing debts).

Discretionary spending can be changed year to year, but good luck cutting Defense significantly.

Taking apart the federal budget (washingtonpost.com)

Originally Posted by Andrew Gubb

I don't know about that - what of the absurd subsidies e.g. to corn, meat, etc? In Spain bullfighting is estimated to take up 47€ of each family's yearly tax contribution. This is a sport that 60% of Spanish people either don't support or are against.

I can't make a list of all of these absurd expenses - and lack of transparency in government spending very much assures that - but the scale of it I believe is staggering.

[superfoodist]

Hey guys!! I'll try and answer your questions, or comment on some of your statements in the best way I can

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?

@Andrew Gubb - One of the most notable "tax cuts" he's going to make is to abolish the IRS, therefore stopping us from being charged income tax. Income tax consumes 2-3 months worth of YOUR money, from YOUR labor. This alone will stimulate massive economic change, and he plans to do much more than this.

I like the idea of libertarianism and what Dr. Paul espouses, but I am skeptical of it's real world effects. A society dominated entirely by selfish and corrupt multinational corporate interests is no better to me than a society run by selfish government bureaucrats and corrupt politicians. I don't want prisons, hospitals, military forces, etc. all run by private contractors.

@JSB - There's a lot of things that I'm sure Ron Paul isn't going into detail about - because presidential elections need to have a touch of mass appeal, and too much information doesn't often appeal to the masses. One of those things that I'm talking about is corporate charters (You can read about them here : History of Corporations (United States)). Basically, a corporation would be granted a limited charter to exist, and when their time runs out, it would go to congress, and it would then be decided if they're allowed to continue on, or if they must shut down. They also made it illegal to run a monopoly in this way. Now, like I said, Dr. Paul isn't saying this as part of his campaign, because most mainstream media consumers wouldn't understand the significance of this - but as a guy who knows history, and as a true patriot, I'm almost positive he would re-implement something similar to keep corporations in check.

Goldman Sachs and Monsanto will have even more influence on people's lives than they do today. Still, I like having him in the ring and calling other politicians on their ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

One of Ron Pauls primary campaign slogans is "End The Fed". By ending the Federal Reserve, there will be MANY banking and monetary reforms, which will definitely dim down, if not completely black out, the power of Goldman Sachs and similar firms. As for Monsanto, it's been proven over and over again that pesticides, herbicides, GMO seeds, etc are damaging our planet, our health, and it destroys tens of thousands of farmers jobs. Ron Paul knows this, and more and more people are starting to wake up to this as well. Monsanto, and similar corrupt corporations won't stand a chance with him in office.

There is a lot I do agree with Mr Paul about, however there are things that disturb me.. most notably his possible connections with Christian Reconstructionists,and The John Birch Society.

Hey garentee! I don't know too much about either of these subjects, but after a wikipedia search on The John Birch Society, I got this :

The John Birch Society is an American political advocacy group that supports anti-communism, limited government, a Constitutional Republic[1][2] and personal freedom.

It looks like they stand for the reasons America was created, and what it's meant to be. Limited government, a Constitutional republic, and personal freedoms are exactly what our founding fathers fought to achieve for us. Communism wasn't even a word until the 19th century, but our founding fathers would have without a doubt been against it as well due to its limitations of personal freedom.

In addition, his isolationism which I find rather destructive..Isolationism could be seen as part of the cause of WW2.

Hope I'm not coming off like I'm trying to attack you, but the only thing that's been destructive is our invasion of other nations. The "Washington Farewell Address" specifically states that we should keep to ourselves (George Washington's Farewell Address). If we bring our troops home, to guard our borders, and ONLY our borders, we'd be back to being the #1 superpower in the world... Not only because we'd be saving MASSIVE amounts of money on "defense", but because mainland America would be literally impenetrable with our entire armed forces defending it.

As for Isolationism causing World War 2.. That's a long subject to discuss, but in short (and this isn't conspiracy theory).. American bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution, which eventually brought Communism into play. Communism was getting too powerful, so in order to keep the world economic game board in check, they funded an "enemy" to communism, known as National Socialism. It's well known, for those that research, that Prescott Bush (George W. Bushes grandfather) was one of the people that financially supported Hitlers rise to power. Eventually, Nazi Germany (National Socialism) started becoming too powerful as well, and was starting to look as if they'd be the victor in WW2, so America had to chime in and play their part to make sure they didn't take over all of Europe.

That's the extremely summarized version, but basically, I wouldn't say it was Isolationism that caused WW2.. Instead, I'd say it was bankers, and multi-national corporations that caused 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?

[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.

[James81]

Originally Posted by superfoodist

• He wants to legalize the Second Amendment (our right to bear arms [own guns]), which politicians have been trying to make illegal for a long time now. Look up statistics of American states that allow concealed carry of firearms, and see how much lower state crime is compared to states who make firearm ownership illegal. The fact is, if someone plans to rob/murder you, they will think twice if there's a chance of you adequately defending yourself. Also, the criminals who commit crimes in the first place will find a way to ILLEGALLY get a gun if they need to, while the honest, innocent American citizen remains defenseless. To understand how critical it is that we keep our Second Amendment right, please check out this website and look at quotes about it by our founding fathers : The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

If politicians are trying to make it ILLEGAL, then how can you say he wants to legalize it? If politicians are trying to make it illegal, then it's already legal.

To be perfectly honest, though, I am SO glad that not just anybody can walk around carrying a gun. And it's not because I don't believe in freedom, but have you seen and talked to people? Most people are great, wonderful people, but there are a lot of dumb animals out there too. I think it's a great thing that you can't just walk around carrying a gun wherever you want. it doesn't infringe on my freedom in ANY way whatsoever, because I sill own guns and I still use them for shooting target, hunting, etc. I don't need to carry one on my hip to feel safe. If you live in an area where you need to do that, then friking move. Don't say you can't afford to move, just pack what you can carry and get the ♥♥♥♥ out of there. I think being completely homeless in a safe place would be far better than scraping and scrounging in a place where you live in constant fear.

[ZaneEckle]

This piece dissects and dispells the idea that Paul is a strict constitutionalist, or that he will "give" you the freedom you think he would

Classically Liberal: Ron Paul signs pledge that would keep most libertarians out!


here's a sample

Paul whined because the court ruled "that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protect under the 14th amendment 'right to privacy.'" Actually Paul is ignorant, yet again, of the facts. The ruling was made on the basis of unequal status before the law. Texas had repealed the sections of sodomy laws that applied to everyone and only had laws that now applied to gay people, excepting heterosexuals. It was a case of inequality before the law. Conservatives embrace such inequality, not libertarians. Ron Paul embraces such inequality, not libertarians.


Take a real legal scholar like Randy Barnett, instead of the usually befuddled Paul, as more aware of the libertarian position on the constitution. Barnett has argued that the "equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment, along with the 9th and 10th Amendments create a "presumption in favor of liberty." He argues that this legal foundation means the courts should presume that liberty is the favor position in ANY ruling, even the rulings that confused, old men of Christianist bent don't like.

[CroMagna]

If Ron Paul is such a freedom fighter, then how is it that's he's strongly pro-life?