Ralph Nader on Obama and Ron Paul and more

[Loveshiscountry]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

Really? No basis?

Lets just take a look at some items taken from the Libertarian website Platform | Libertarian Party

2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

---So, please explain to me how, in combination with this

All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

--- and this

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution

--- are going to ensure any poor people receive an education.....oh yeah, if you actually bother reading them, they pretty much are in opposition to taxation and any form of "wealth redistribution". So, since subsidizing education for people who otherwise could not afford it, IS a form of income redistribution, Libertarians are platform opposed to it.


----As for the second part of that

We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates.

The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.


Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.


---- So, to translate for the brain dead, Liberatrians support the following based on their plaform

1. No minimum wage
2. No government subsidized education
3. No government subsidized training
4. Illegals should be welcome, as so much they are only driving the wages down for the poor
5. Business are free to export our jobs and sell back to us with no fear of penalty
6. No health care for people who cant afford it
7. Corporations should be able to be legit entities
8. Removal of monopoly and anti trust laws


How exactly is removing mimimum wage, erasing educational opportunities, bringing in illegals, taking away health care, and protecting the rights of big business, NOT going to end up in a class division not seen since pre revolution France?

You are misinformed. Why don't you look up what Ron Paul says about public education instead of what you THINK he represents. States rights, one size does not fit all.

[emilybh]

Originally Posted by Randomdude

I have no problem with Nader, I voted for him myself in 2004 and would have in 2008 if I wasnt so opposed to McCain/Palin. I dont agree with Ron Paul, or his party, but I have to hand it to him for being a legit 3rd party candidate.

Randomdude, Ron Paul this time ran as a Republican--not a third party candidate. The issues he stands for were what the Republican party way way back, USED to stand for such as a small federal government; no nation building; a strong military to protect this country (not start wars in other countries like we've been doing and the Neo-con Republicans ...and now the Democrats... seem to think is A-O-K).. They were for being fiscally responsible and for lowering or eliminating taxes not raising them. These are all things we NEED in this country and have needed for a long long time. They aren't crazy ideas from left field and they are, as it turns out what most Americans believe in and want.

Sadly most Americans that voted for McCain or Obama liked neither but just voted for one because they disliked the other even more. This indicates that if they had a choice of more candidates, such as the third party candidate, who stood for these ideals, that they weren't brainwashed to think by the media weren't electable, which is a crock of B%ll, they would have voted for them and we might actually have a president in office who is responsible and doing GOOD things for this country and its people for a change.

[emilybh]

I just discovered this lively interview of both Ron Paul and Ralph Nader on "The Situation Room" on why Ron Paul is supporting the third party candidates, what he thinks of the elections in general and what Ralph Nader thought of Obama and McCain before the election:

YouTube - Ron Paul And Ralph Nader Together On The Situation Room