Ron Paul could have won this election.....

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#-49 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"]

Actually, no. You started this by claiming that Obama/Romney are extremists and Paul is a moderate. I posted a video showing him wanting pretty much every facet of modern day government eliminated because they are unconstitutional. These are positions well outside the mainstream.

You then objected because the video didn't allow Ron Paul to explain WHY he thought all those things are unconstitutional.

I'm giving you, a Paul supporter, a chance to fill in the blanks. It's not my fault that that when challenged you can't back up your talk.

And TC: I'm well aware that you posted this thread just to rile up the Paulbots. I shall have my vengeance. In this life or the next.nocoolnamejim


Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

I'm sorry that I quoted Ron Paul in his own words claiming virtually everything that modern society is based on is unconstitutional. That was really unfair of me. :lol: It's not up to me to explain why Ron Paul finds all those things unconstitutional and is calling for the abolition of pretty much every government department that exists. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you asking me to tell YOU why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them eliminated? Shouldn't you be more familiar with his positions than I am? Though, I acknowledge the point about paper money. He does advocate a return to the gold standard, which is also a lunatic position...but you're right that overall Paul has no problem with paper money in and of itself. But here's the thing: As Abbeten mentioned, the Supreme Court (which, contrary to Ron Paul supporters' belief is the ultimate authority over issues of constitutionality, not Ron Paul) has ruled on pretty much everything on that list. Which means that Ron Paul is really nothing more than a demented old nutcase who does happen to have a few good ideas here and there.

Once again, that video does not accurately represent what Ron Paul's positions are, because it is nothing more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips. And most of the stuff he is saying is unconstitutional are things that aren't even mentioned in the constitution. You can't say that something is constitutional if it's not even in the constitution. Have you even read the constitution?
#-48 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
You can't say that something is constitutional if it's not even in the constitution.Laihendi
This thinking was discarded by the supreme court centuries ago. It is by nature extreme.
#-47 Posted by Aljosa23 (24747 posts) -

Can someone explain to me why some Americans swear by the constitution 100% like it's some infallible document and praise the founding fathers as near-mythical figures? It just makes no sense to me that someone would invoke the second amendment as a legit reason to justify their AK47.

#-46 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]'no state'Abbeten

Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.

No they aren't. The federal government is the entity that authorizes fiat money to be used as legal tender, not the states.

So basically what you're saying is that when the writers of the constitution specifically said that states couldn't make anything but gold/silver legal tender, what they meant was that they just wanted someone else to print paper that wasn't backed by gold/silver, and then have all the states use that. Please explain how that makes sense.
#-45 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.nocoolnamejim
According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

Oh really?

Well he does have valid points... That being said, there's no such thing as 'rights'.
#-43 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]
Considering how out of context and brief those video clips are, it's difficult to tell what he's even saying. For example, at one point he says "It's clearly unconstitutional to issue these executive orders", and then a little sign appears stating that Ron Paul thinks executive orders are unconstitutional, even though it appears he was talking about specific executive orders rather than executive orders in general. We can't tell for sure though, since that entire clip lasts about 3 seconds.

Concerning paper money: Article 1, section 10No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Though the allegation against Ron Paul is still misleading, because he has no problem with using paper as long as they're backed up by gold/silver.

If you find something that's more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips that are devoid of any context (so basically if you find something that has any meaning) then maybe it will be possible to form a response to it.

Laihendi
I'm sorry that I quoted Ron Paul in his own words claiming virtually everything that modern society is based on is unconstitutional. That was really unfair of me. :lol: It's not up to me to explain why Ron Paul finds all those things unconstitutional and is calling for the abolition of pretty much every government department that exists. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Why are you asking me to tell YOU why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them eliminated? Shouldn't you be more familiar with his positions than I am? Though, I acknowledge the point about paper money. He does advocate a return to the gold standard, which is also a lunatic position...but you're right that overall Paul has no problem with paper money in and of itself. But here's the thing: As Abbeten mentioned, the Supreme Court (which, contrary to Ron Paul supporters' belief is the ultimate authority over issues of constitutionality, not Ron Paul) has ruled on pretty much everything on that list. Which means that Ron Paul is really nothing more than a demented old nutcase who does happen to have a few good ideas here and there.

Once again, that video does not accurately represent what Ron Paul's positions are, because it is nothing more than a collection of 3-5 second video clips. And most of the stuff he is saying is unconstitutional are things that aren't even mentioned in the constitution. You can't say that something is constitutional if it's not even in the constitution. Have you even read the constitution?

"Let's end the Fed" (referring to the Federal Reserve) -Ron Paul "Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments including the Department of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Labor?" -Ron Paul I'm not sure what context you're looking for. Sure the video doesn't explain the "why" behind why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them gone, but I'm not seeing any ambiguity. He wants these things gone. He EXPRESSLY SAYS SO. In his own words. In speeches before Congress. Ron Paul supporters may not like hearing it, but this is their guy.
#-42 Posted by Aljosa23 (24747 posts) -

"Let's end the Fed" (referring to the Federal Reserve) -Ron Paul "Will we end all the unconstitutional federal departments including the Department of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Labor?" -Ron Paul I'm not sure what context you're looking for. Sure the video doesn't explain the "why" behind why he finds these things unconstitutional and wants them gone, but I'm not seeing any ambiguity. He wants these things gone. He EXPRESSLY SAYS SO. In his own words. In speeches before Congress. Ron Paul supporters may not like hearing it, but this is their guy. nocoolnamejim
Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

#-41 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Can someone explain to me why some Americans swear by the constitution 100% like it's some infallible document and praise the founding fathers as near-mythical figures? It just makes no sense to me that someone would invoke the second amendment as a legit reason to justify their AK47.

Aljosa23
It's pretty much the foundation on which America is suppose to be founded upon, granted I doubt the founding fathers had any ideal that something like a machine gun would be created in merely 80 years since the signing.
#-40 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Yes, and right now all 50 states are breaking that rule.Laihendi
No they aren't. The federal government is the entity that authorizes fiat money to be used as legal tender, not the states.

So basically what you're saying is that when the writers of the constitution specifically said that states couldn't make anything but gold/silver legal tender, what they meant was that they just wanted someone else to print paper that wasn't backed by gold/silver, and then have all the states use that. Please explain how that makes sense.

Article 1 Section 10 was intended to lay out limitations on the states. The Constitution specifically bars the states from authorizing anything from being legal payment of debt because this was a power reserved for the Federal government, no doubt to ensure uniformity across the country. This makes plenty of sense.
#-39 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

Why don't we just let the states regulate laws?

Like instead of having federal laws, just have the states administer the laws, that way if you disagree with a particular law/set of laws you can just move to a different state. Like how the Federal government lets states control guns.

#-38 Posted by Person0 (2944 posts) -

Why don't we just let the states regulate laws?

Like instead of having federal laws, just have the states administer the laws, that way if you disagree with a particular law/set of laws you can just move to a different state. Like how the Federal government lets states control guns.

Fightingfan
Thats worked out great in the past, especially for minorities in the south.
#-37 Posted by Chemistian (635 posts) -
[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

Why don't we just let the states regulate laws?

Like instead of having federal laws, just have the states administer the laws, that way if you disagree with a particular law/set of laws you can just move to a different state. Like how the Federal government lets states control guns.

Person0
Thats worked out great in the past, especially for minorities in the south.

Person0 nailed it. The best examples of why the federal government must enforce certain laws were demonstrated in the 1960s. Once Governor George Wallace stood between two black students and the entrance to the Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama, having stated "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", the need to have a federal government able to override state laws became absolute. And unlike segregation, permanent.
#-36 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3788 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]No chance. He's no moderate.XaosII

According to the standards set by our constitution, Ron Paul is a moderate and Obama/Romney are extremists.

I dont think anyone cares anachronistic definitions of moderate and extremist. Ron Paul is not a moderate.

I think by founding father standards, wanting equal rights for women gays and different races was extremist.

Let's not pretend they were perfect.

#-35 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

[QUOTE="Fightingfan"]

Why don't we just let the states regulate laws?

Like instead of having federal laws, just have the states administer the laws, that way if you disagree with a particular law/set of laws you can just move to a different state. Like how the Federal government lets states control guns.

Person0

Thats worked out great in the past, especially for minorities in the south.

Though that was due to the south seceding, as it not part of the union.

I think it would be an interesting idea to have the states make the laws, and maybe just have the fed 'moderate' civil laws.

#-34 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] No they aren't. The federal government is the entity that authorizes fiat money to be used as legal tender, not the states.

So basically what you're saying is that when the writers of the constitution specifically said that states couldn't make anything but gold/silver legal tender, what they meant was that they just wanted someone else to print paper that wasn't backed by gold/silver, and then have all the states use that. Please explain how that makes sense.

Article 1 Section 10 was intended to lay out limitations on the states. The Constitution specifically bars the states from authorizing anything from being legal payment of debt because this was a power reserved for the Federal government, no doubt to ensure uniformity across the country. This makes plenty of sense.

Where does it say that that power is reserved for the federal government?
#-33 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

Aljosa23

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

#-32 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

Laihendi

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?
#-31 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

chessmaster1989

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?

Wonder if thought of filing a lawsuit against the government for stealing money.
#-30 Posted by mattbbpl (10572 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

chessmaster1989

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?

And if we posit that taxation is theft, how does one support any function of government at all?
#-29 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36779 posts) -
I reckon he could have one this election If he got 270 EVs
#-28 Posted by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

Americans should be happy this guy has no chance of reaching the White House, his economic policies would completely wreck the U.S.

#-27 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]Don't even bother. You're talking to someone who believes roads should be privatized.

chessmaster1989

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?

Wait, you mean forcefully taking money from someone isn't theft as long as the people taking the money decide that it's okay for them to? Nope, that doesn't make sense at all.
#-26 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So basically what you're saying is that when the writers of the constitution specifically said that states couldn't make anything but gold/silver legal tender, what they meant was that they just wanted someone else to print paper that wasn't backed by gold/silver, and then have all the states use that. Please explain how that makes sense.

Article 1 Section 10 was intended to lay out limitations on the states. The Constitution specifically bars the states from authorizing anything from being legal payment of debt because this was a power reserved for the Federal government, no doubt to ensure uniformity across the country. This makes plenty of sense.

Where does it say that that power is reserved for the federal government?

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to...borrow Money on the credit of the United States...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." It would help to look up Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis, and Juilliard v. Greenman.
#-25 Posted by whipassmt (13995 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] Article 1 Section 10 was intended to lay out limitations on the states. The Constitution specifically bars the states from authorizing anything from being legal payment of debt because this was a power reserved for the Federal government, no doubt to ensure uniformity across the country. This makes plenty of sense. Abbeten
Where does it say that that power is reserved for the federal government?

Article 1, Section 8: "The Congress shall have the power to...borrow Money on the credit of the United States...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof..." It would help to look up Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis, and Juilliard v. Greenman.

Juilliard v. Greenman, who is this racist Juilliard who picks on Green men?

#-24 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]

The government has no right to property that it bought with money stolen from its constituency.

Laihendi
Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?

Wait, you mean forcefully taking money from someone isn't theft as long as the people taking the money decide that it's okay for them to? Nope, that doesn't make sense at all.

Apparently you don't understand how our government works. By living in the US, you are implicitly agreeing to the laws outlined in the Constitution and in the legal code. These laws include the ability for the Federal Government to levy taxes. If you dislike this, you can attempt to change the law or you can leave the country. However, the government only has the power to levy taxes because the people it governs have granted it that power.
#-23 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Given that the government is legally authorized to levy taxes, how is it stolen money?

Wait, you mean forcefully taking money from someone isn't theft as long as the people taking the money decide that it's okay for them to? Nope, that doesn't make sense at all.

Apparently you don't understand how our government works. By living in the US, you are implicitly agreeing to the laws outlined in the Constitution and in the legal code. These laws include the ability for the Federal Government to levy taxes. If you dislike this, you can attempt to change the law or you can leave the country. However, the government only has the power to levy taxes because the people it governs have granted it that power.

I never granted the government the power to levy taxes on myself. The same can be said for pretty much every taxpayer today, so your argument doesn't hold up well at all.
#-22 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Wait, you mean forcefully taking money from someone isn't theft as long as the people taking the money decide that it's okay for them to? Nope, that doesn't make sense at all.Laihendi
Apparently you don't understand how our government works. By living in the US, you are implicitly agreeing to the laws outlined in the Constitution and in the legal code. These laws include the ability for the Federal Government to levy taxes. If you dislike this, you can attempt to change the law or you can leave the country. However, the government only has the power to levy taxes because the people it governs have granted it that power.

I never granted the government the power to levy taxes on myself. The same can be said for pretty much every taxpayer today, so your argument doesn't hold up well at all.

You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Like I said before, if you disagree with it, you can try to change the law. You can also always just leave.

Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.

#-21 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23460 posts) -

ron paul is a joke
against the fcc

against net neutrality
??
garbag

#-20 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Apparently you don't understand how our government works. By living in the US, you are implicitly agreeing to the laws outlined in the Constitution and in the legal code. These laws include the ability for the Federal Government to levy taxes. If you dislike this, you can attempt to change the law or you can leave the country. However, the government only has the power to levy taxes because the people it governs have granted it that power.

I never granted the government the power to levy taxes on myself. The same can be said for pretty much every taxpayer today, so your argument doesn't hold up well at all.

You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.

I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.
#-19 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I never granted the government the power to levy taxes on myself. The same can be said for pretty much every taxpayer today, so your argument doesn't hold up well at all.Laihendi
You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.

I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

#-18 Posted by nocoolnamejim (15136 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.chessmaster1989

I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

I'm being a hypocrite in saying this since I do the same but...let me know when you're done banging your head against a wall.
#-17 Posted by chessmaster1989 (29105 posts) -
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.nocoolnamejim

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

I'm being a hypocrite in saying this since I do the same but...let me know when you're done banging your head against a wall.

Yeah it's hard to resist though.
#-16 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -
Ron is more socially liberal than obama, more economically conservative than romney. i think he would have had a good chance
#-15 Posted by Socijalisticka (1621 posts) -

Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.Laihendi

I would argue the contrary.

#-14 Posted by GreySeal9 (24071 posts) -

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

chessmaster1989

I'm being a hypocrite in saying this since I do the same but...let me know when you're done banging your head against a wall.

Yeah it's hard to resist though.

Ugh, young libertarians might be the most annoying people on the internet.

#-13 Posted by Allicrombie (25128 posts) -
Ron Paul couldn't find a needle in a stack of needles.
#-12 Posted by Brendissimo35 (1930 posts) -

I needed a good laugh. Thanks.

#-11 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3788 posts) -

ron paul is a joke
against the fcc

against net neutrality
??
garbag

JigglyWiggly_

He's against net neutrality?

#-10 Posted by MakeMeaSammitch (3788 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'm being a hypocrite in saying this since I do the same but...let me know when you're done banging your head against a wall.GreySeal9

Yeah it's hard to resist though.

Ugh, young libertarians might be the most annoying people on the internet.

To think I once found creationists annoying.

It's like the difference between college football and the NFL in irrationality.

#-9 Posted by sSubZerOo (43075 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.chessmaster1989

I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

If only he could move to Somalia! Think of the paradise it must be with no government.
#-8 Posted by imaps3fanboy (11172 posts) -
him and his austrian economic bullsh** can gtfo. Paraphrase: "What if a man has a coma and doesn't have health insurance, should they pull the plug?" RP: "Let the churches and charities take care of him" Anyone that runs on that sort of platform doesn't deserve to even be mentioned on the national stage
#-7 Posted by CongressManStan (918 posts) -
[QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

I agree completely, his biggest flaw was that most people didn't know anything about him. If he were nominated, I think he could have won. This isn't naive, it's common sense because the word he spreads is common sense.
#-6 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="CongressManStan"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

I agree completely, his biggest flaw was that most people didn't know anything about him. If he were nominated, I think he could have won. This isn't naive, it's common sense because the word he spreads is common sense.

mmmmmm not so much
#-5 Posted by mingmao3046 (2482 posts) -
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]him and his austrian economic bullsh** can gtfo. Paraphrase: "What if a man has a coma and doesn't have health insurance, should they pull the plug?" RP: "Let the churches and charities take care of him" Anyone that runs on that sort of platform doesn't deserve to even be mentioned on the national stage

Ron Paul was a doctor and frequently said that they would take care of people and work out a payment plan afterwards
#-4 Posted by Abbeten (2803 posts) -
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]him and his austrian economic bullsh** can gtfo. Paraphrase: "What if a man has a coma and doesn't have health insurance, should they pull the plug?" RP: "Let the churches and charities take care of him" Anyone that runs on that sort of platform doesn't deserve to even be mentioned on the national stage

Ron Paul was a doctor and frequently said that they would take care of people and work out a payment plan afterwards

surely the best macro-scale healthcare policy we could possibly adopt
#-3 Posted by DroidPhysX (17089 posts) -
[QUOTE="CongressManStan"][QUOTE="Jebus213"]if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.

I agree completely, his biggest flaw was that most people didn't know anything about him. If he were nominated, I think he could have won. This isn't naive, it's common sense because the word he spreads is common sense.

lol no
#-2 Posted by imaps3fanboy (11172 posts) -
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]him and his austrian economic bullsh** can gtfo. Paraphrase: "What if a man has a coma and doesn't have health insurance, should they pull the plug?" RP: "Let the churches and charities take care of him" Anyone that runs on that sort of platform doesn't deserve to even be mentioned on the national stage

Ron Paul was a doctor and frequently said that they would take care of people and work out a payment plan afterwards

Awesome. Do you think every doctor in the nation will abide by that honor code?
#-1 Posted by Laihendi (5810 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] You grant the government that power by choosing to live in the US. Funny though I always see you invoking the Constitution in other threads, I guess you only think it's important when you agree with what it says.chessmaster1989

I invoke the constitution to point out when the government is being criminal even by its own standards. I also freely acknowledge that it is flawed. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of its constituency. Coercive taxation by threat of imprisonment is a violation of that purpose. The only reason to comply is fear of punishment from the state. Any government that uses fear to control people is illegitimate.

So, how does the government protect the rights of its constituents without a military force, which must be funded somehow (i.e. by collecting taxes). And in that case, you could argue that it protects these rights by enforcing punishment on those who violate them, hence, well, it's using fear to control people.

In other words, a government cannot exist without doing exactly what you're arguing shouldn't happen.

I have never suggested that a country shouldn't have a military force. Using force to collect money to fund the military does nothing to protect rights. For such an act to occur, there can be no legally recognized property rights among private citizens, as the government (and only the government) has the legal right to take whatever it wants from whoever it wants. In such a situation, property for private citizens in merely a privilege rather than a right. Something cannot protect people's rights if it necessitates there being no rights to protect.
#0 Posted by radicalcentrist (320 posts) -

if he were the Republican nominee. Without a doubt he could have one this.Jebus213
without a doubt you say? So my disbelief of the proposition "If Ron Paul were the 2012 Republican nominee, he could have won the presidential election" is not a doubt.

interesting, interesting indeed.

Smartass remarks aside, no, Ron Paul absolutely could not have won this election. Mitt Romney had some (I think) sensible plans for reforming medicare and medicaid and tax policy, and he lost because those positions were too far to the right. Voters knew that they would bear some pain in cuts to planned medicare and medicaid spending.

Ron Paul's "plans" are basically a total abolition of those programs.

You're trying to tell me that voters don't want moderate cuts to medicare and medicaid, but they want to completely gut them?

Eh, not buying it.