The Honest to GOD Truth about Ron Paul...
 

... if he gets elected:


#1 - Income tax will NOT be repealed. The President has no power to enact or remove previously enacted laws.

#2 - The Federal government will still tell us we all need seat belts, helmets, air bags, safety glass, to drive under 76 MPH and everything else it does. Why? Because the President can't change any of that shit either.

It takes both a President and a Congress to get these kinds of things done and we are only changing the President.

It must start somewhere. Maybe it will scare the shit out of congress and let them know we are tired of them selling us out to the highest paying lobbyist. Maybe they will get the message to take better care of our money. I can guarantee if he could get elected money wouldn't get spent like a drunken sailor orgy. Maybe if he did win we could get HONEST decent people to run for public office.

I would much rather have a guy like Paul, even though I only agree with a portion of his platform, than any of the rest of the slick sycophants neatly packaged for our consumption.

Dr. Paul is well aware of this.

Indeed it does. At least with Paul, there will not be any phony wars and other similar crap to what we have dealt with.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

WTF is so funny about that Baddog? I am beginning to believe you are just a hit and run troll with absolutely nothing to add to anything. Am I right about that?

He is still the best option.

Just passing by........

What I dont understand is why all you anti Ron paul folks put so much work into all that anti paul sigs and pics if he has no chance. Whats up with that? Its funny how people who get crazy enough to stalk the so called paultards with such a passion and then call them whacked out.

Let me give you a hint..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crazy

what i dont understand is why you insist people are bashing Ron Paul, when they are clearly bashing his supporters and their ridiculous behavior

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh
http://www.dakine.net/humor/images/poster-delusions.jpg

Oh, you figured it out. Secretly we think Ron Paul has a chance (We lie!) and that if we debate you enough about it we will convince you that he doesn't have a chance. The entire campaign will implode once enough of you are convinced. (Hint: the more we debate the more you will actually convinced of your position which just makes the whole thing even funnier)

Yet another conspiracy for the Ron Paul forums.

It's just fun watching you guys and egging the whole thing on. So convinced that a 5th place finish is really a win of some sort, that there was voter fraud in Iowa, that the uncounted votes in Iowa are all Ron Paul's and so not being reported on time (EVERYTHING has to do with "Doctor Paul"), that the "mass media" has it our for Ron Paul because he they are "scared of him", that Paul's views are "too complicated" for the "Average American", that Paul is being left out of things for any reason other than the fact that he is a second tier candidate.

Oh, maybe if you could just keep EDUCATING people about the dangres of the "military-industrial" complex and any of about 10 Federal Reserve conspiracies we would suddenly join you.

Then there was the "World Of Worldcraft" march which is quite possibly the most amusing thing I've ever seen in a primary.

I am merely laughing at the fond memorize of being so young and idealistic.

That is okay, that is what youth is for.

I think Ron Paul is a great guy and an awesome candidate. My thread was basically created to let detractors know that while he has some great ideas, he will not be able to implement them unless he survives for another term when a congress with the same agenda can be voted in to create or remove the laws.

Just because you have fallen victem to rampant dissent doesnt mean you have to be young to be idealistic. You have an old mind thats all.

doesn't he want to overturn roe v wade...? and yet he's somehow a libertarian? or am I misinformed?

Income Tax law was never ratified, so I bet he could. Just saying.

Politicians are only on one side, their own. It is a career choice, not public service, regardless of what they spew.

this is exaclty what politics is about. The people who are looking for excuses not to vote on someone because his/her points are unrealistic completely miss this point.

i am very interested in who you will/would vote for. You always seem to argue why you won't vote for someone. Please answer this?

By overturning it, it goes back to the States to decide for themselves.

That is the definition of Libertarian and goes completely in sync with descriptions of his campaign points.

Where you sleeping this whole time?

Admit it, you're a pawn of the mainstream media trying to keep Ron Paul and his supporters oppressed.

As a democrat, in the primaries I will be voting for Edwards.

Politics is different things to different people.

People vote for all kinds of reasons - all equally valid. Say you agree with Kucinich's positions more than any other candidate. Should you go out and stand in the cold for an hour to vote for him if he is at 3% and has close to zero chance of getting the nomination? Some people would say "yes". Others would say "no".

Say there are two candidates in an election. Say Obama and Giuliani. Say I agree with Obama's positions more but think Giuliani would be a better leader. Well, whom should I vote for? That would depend on how important "being a leader" is to me or how important I think "being a leader" is to the country.

Lots of dimensions here.

a sincere question and an actual answer... this has to be the proof that everyone all can get along :winkwink:

No, I just have not researched Ron Paul. That's why I asked if I was misinformed because I only heard someone say it and I was looking for clarification.

Also, there is more to being a libertarian than giving more power to the states... it's ultimately all about personal freedom. Anything that is going to potentially limit my right to control my own body is not something I can get behind... and if the power is left to the states to decide about abortion, it's very likely that my state and states around it will make it illegal. It shouldn't even be a question for the state or federal government. It's a medical procedure. Anyway, that's a different topic entirely.

true, but i think when you agree with someones positions the most you should always vote for him; none of them have experience in leading a whole nation and in the case of the US - leading a world power. Plus they have a huge team behind them who do most of the thinking - just look at bush (extreme example of someone not thinking for himself).
I think when someone has a good thought process in the way to presidency, they can't just turn 180 degrees once in office. Alot of it is always lost once they have the power, but the bases will always be there - so thats what yo uhave to vote for in my opninion.

Really? My next door neighbor agrees with me on most of my political views. Wouldn't vote for him to become President of the United States. Obviously there is more than just "agrees with me on the issues".

Wow.... kinda reaching a little Colin. IF your neighbor could get on the ballot and his issues matched your own, you would not vote for him? Why? Maybe he doesn't look presidential, because I know that's what's important to many voters. What is the correct answer for the person for us to give our vote to. Maybe someone we don't agree with would be better?

It's funny?


.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

You are 100% correct! :winkwink:

It's funny that people get blinded by the whole republican/democrat, red/blue, right/left thing.

There is no correct answer. Everyone has different reasons for voting. Some people vote only on or two issues. Some people don't vote as much on issues. Voting on issues is valid. Voting on leadership is valid. Voting on past success in life is valid.

You implied that "getting on a ballot" displays some skill and maybe at that point they can be considered for president. Well, that might be true to some extent but it doesn't necessarily mean they have the management skills, leadership and confidence to be president of a country. It shows some skill. It doesn't necessarily show enough.

Running a presidential campaign also displays some skill. I don't think Paul is running that good of a campaign. Not compared to say, Clinton. She has a large staff and some heavy hitters working on her campaign. She has put together the kind of staff that it takes to win a presidential campaign (of course, she may or may not win).

Without his grassroots support Paul is about a 1% candidate. That is what he did in the last election he ran in. With it he is currently at less than 4% nationwide.

But back to your question. Say that the most important issue to me in politics is the tax rate. Say all the other issues are just not really that important to me. Now say I agree with 80% of Hillary Clinton's positions. well, maybe that doesn't mean anything to me because she will try and raise taxes.

Another example. Say there are two candidates whose positions I like about equally. But I think one of them has a better chance of getting some of the things passed that he or she wants. Well, maybe in that case I should vote for that candidate over the other. Maybe one candidate will be less divisive (Obama's marketing here whether true or not). Maybe that is important to me
so I could vote that way)

Will the United States be a better place to live for me with candidate A or B (or my family or all of us or whomever we care to care about)? That is not simply a matter of which candidate has views I most agree with.