Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Roys, I just listed numerous examples of Paul's stances which are strongly again the GOP's fundamentals, and the main reasons why the right wing machine hates him.
Also take a look at who's his core base of supporters? That's right, very liberal college aged people.
Paul has turned down numerous interviews with your beloved faux news, because they are nothing but trash, and he doesn't want to be associated with that.
The Republican party changed. Ron Paul didn't. I wouldn't call the very liberal college aged people his core. He does do well with them.
so you support the war on drugs, patriot act, assasination of citizens, indefinite detention, warrantless searches ........., because you think the states can't provide their own social services. hmmmm, interesting
You are making some real far-fetched conclusions, pal. As a couple of us (at least) have pointed out, that is an ASS*umption on your part. I don't like Paul b/c of his value that property rights trump human rights. He is also opposed to Medicaid. I don't know about Medicare. He's old enough for it, so he probably supports it. He says he worked as an MD prior to Medicaid, but he was in the military when Medicaid was passed; he did not go into private practice until later.
so you support the war on drugs, patriot act, assasination of citizens, indefinite detention, warrantless searches ........., because you think the states can't provide their own social services. hmmmm, interesting
What is interesting is that you do not think any States would go just as far, if not further, than the Feds...
You ASSume that if those programs were killed at the Federal level they would be there at the State level. Now who is delusional, me thinks it is not the non-RP supporters.
Clue to the Clueless: You do not get people to listen to your message, and you sure do not get them to support your candidate or ideas, by insulting them. The tactics of the Paulbots here are enough to ensure that neither RP or one of his future clones will ever lead this Nation. Thankfully RP also stands for Rest in Peace and that is the best thing that can be said for his third failed run for the Whitehouse, Rest in Peace Ron Paul, have a peaceful retirement.
i don't assume that at all, but it would be much easier to overturn state law if it wasn't working than to change federal law. marijuana prohibition is a good example of this.
i'm of the belief that competition makes everything in life better. that extends to govt.
Its not Democrats. 70% of the TEA party when polled supports social security and medicare in their current form, which means federal.
Ron Paul isn't a bad candidate. He supports most of my foreign policy positions, but he would like to see social security ane medicare/aid completely overturned or sent to the states. If he would change his position on those two things alone, he would likely garner enough votes to win as an independent. But his foreign policy will never endeer him to the Republican faithful. Hell, Romney is talking about increasing defense spending, and we are already accounting for nearly 50% of all world wide defense spending, alone. Even President Obama, despite Republican talking points, is increasing defense spending, but he is decreasing the rate of increase. Paul would stop all increases, which is good, and likely decrease them.
Social Security, Medicare/aid, and our defense account for over 75% of our total budget. If the voters don't want to change social security and medicare, that leaves us with two options. Lower defense spending, and raise taxes.
if you were born in 1979 as your tag suggests, YOU WILL NEVER COLLECT SOCIAL SECURITY. IF YOU DO, IT WON'T BUY YOU ANYTHING! that is the reality of the situation. my problem with socialism isn't the intentions of the proponents, it's that it's purely unsustainable and the worst part is that you create a dependent class who then sees the rug pulled out from under them.
in many european countries, some lofty promises were made to the people. free healthcare and generous govt pensions. as a result many neglected to save, look after their health and generally have a plan b. now that austerity has been implemented, these people are screwed! they were counting on stuff which simply isn't there. if you think we're in any better shape than you and i will have to agree to disagree.
besides, ron paul's position on social security is simple. the status quo remains. if people want to opt out, that would be their right to do so too
i don't assume that at all, but it would be much easier to overturn state law if it wasn't working than to change federal law. marijuana prohibition is a good example of this.
i'm of the belief that competition makes everything in life better. that extends to govt.
You and I agree there. Which leads back to your statement about marijuana prohibition. It benifits are plentiful, the competition knows this, but they will still lobby to keep it illegal, because they fear they will lose money by it being legalized. I say OH WELL TOO BAD!
the point is that it has to start at the federal level. when that happens, then states choose their own course. some will go the small govt route and others will expand govt power. then we get to see what works best!
yes it does need to start at the federal level, but it needs to be real spending cuts, not just push the burden onto the states. many states have been cutting their budgets, and working to streamline their governments, somewhat, so to push a huge burden off the fed and onto the states will result in huge state deficits, worse than the past few years, much higher taxes at the state level, and a severe slashing of services all so the states can follow their laws and have balanced budgets.
and all that will do is harm the economy overall, not help.
You are making some real far-fetched conclusions, pal. As a couple of us (at least) have pointed out, that is an ASS*umption on your part. I don't like Paul b/c of his value that property rights trump human rights. He is also opposed to Medicaid. I don't know about Medicare. He's old enough for it, so he probably supports it. He says he worked as an MD prior to Medicaid, but he was in the military when Medicaid was passed; he did not go into private practice until later.
ron paul doesn't support medicare or medicaid. as a physician he wouldn't partake in the schemes but rather work things out with needy patients on a case by case basis. nevertheless, property rights and human rtights aren't divisible imo. around the world economic liberties are under sustained attack. kids these days can't even sell lemonade for fear of the red tape brigade. someone sells raw milk and they're pounced on by armed swat teams. we have people in prison for building on imaginary wetlands, and for arbitrary violations of foreign regulations.
katiana, i'm tired of arguing with you. what's sad is that we probably want similar outcomes yet we'll never agree on the path there. expansion of govt power, esp at the federal level, is not the way to the promised land imo. forcing people of different cultures together creates more problems than it solves. the problem is that you endorse this one size fits all approach. i prefer to see the states experimenting with what works, across the board.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
