Mutt

would he be any worse than Barack Obama or Mit Romney or Newt Gingrich? if so, how and why?

__________________

Coup

His wife will eat us all

Black All Through

Not that much considering that the CIA will take him out in his first month of presidency

__________________
I want to buy contextual links on quality blogs
For both Adult and mainstream niche - Small to massive packages

StickyGreen

glamourmodels

The op asked seriously, and this is the best you can come up with. Proof positive that the best you can do is a baseless ad-hominem attack, completely without merit. Keep posting your drivel. You do more to bring people to Ron Paul than you realize LOL

__________________
Hot london escorts and international escort directory

StickyGreen

StickyGreen

?First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.?

This is exactly what is happening everywhere with Ron Paul.

glamourmodels

__________________
Hot london escorts and international escort directory

moeloubani

the healing process would begin

Coup

Ron Paul published racist newsletters

StickyGreen

Indeed...

StickyGreen

No, he didn't personally "publish racist newsletters." lol

He owned a company which had many other employees which published racist newsletters. He didn't even have much to do with the company because he was busy doing other things. He should have been more involved though so that he could have prevented the racist material from being published, as he has admitted.

Coup

Frank21

we would not have to be scared to have our sites taken offline because the FBI found some chatlog of you a decade ago wich may be seen as 'terrorism'.

__________________

StickyGreen

Frank21

you seem race obsessed man what happened....... got bullied by racist in your youth or what?

__________________

StickyGreen

From talking with him I've learned that he has a lot of pent up anger...

buzzard

Oh Chomsky... Chomsky.... settle down. It's gonna be ok Chomsky.

__________________

Coup

kane

In all honesty it would be gridlock. There are some things he could do with executive orders, but most everything else has to go through the house and senate and they simply won't play along. Just read his website. He wants to remove all taxes on fuel, income and capital gains. He says he wants a0% income tax rate on all Americans. While that is a great idea, it would never happen because it would require such deep cuts in spending that the house and senate would never be able to make them considering they are it he pocket of those they would then have to cut off.

He also wants to outright outlaw abortion. Never going to happen and if he tries he is just going to build up walls. Most of his presidency would be spent pounding his head against a house and senate that were unwilling to play along. While eventually he might convince the people that he is correct and we need to vote out all the senators and congressmen who are blocking him, more likely all that would happen is they would make him out to be a crazy person and work hard to make him a one term president and nothing would get done. It would be like the Obama VS Republican gridlock only times 20 because both the dems and repubs would not want to work with him.

StickyGreen

I bet you think income taxes go to pay for the operations of the government, don't you?

Did you know that the IRS was created in the same year as the privately owned Federal Reserve? 1913?

Why do you think that is?

It's because your income taxes are used to pay for the INTEREST on the money LOANED to our government by the Federal Reserve.

Before 1913 there were NO income taxes, and the government ran just fine.

These are simple truths that most Americans do not understand, and that is why most think Ron Paul's ideas are "crazy."

(if you want to get technical, yes there were temporary "war-time income taxes," but for the most part there was no income tax in the years before 1913)

Coup

But seriously.. Have you ever seen the movie mad max? It would be a lot like that.

Bill8

It would be an amazing disaster.

That's why he should be voted in. If you crazy froth-spewing republicans can get him nominated, I'll vote for him.

The republicans however will never go for it. They like guys like mitt and newt.

kane

So if you just shut the fed down completely and gave the money from income taxes directly to the government it doesn't change the fact that we spend a shitload of money. If you cut out all those taxes it would be billions and billions that would suddenly not be there. In order to avoid massive debt there would have to be enormous cuts. Some of the places he would cut I agree with, but some of them sound kind of crazy. It is because he has an undying faith in the free market and I happen to think in the modern age the free market is a rabid, hungry wolf that will eat her young and anyone without millions in the bank are the young.

It is all good in theory, actually carrying it out is another thing all together.

StickyGreen

The point is you don't give people's income to the government, you let the people keep it. lol

There are already thousands of other taxes that the government makes money from, they don't need your hard earned money.

kane

In theory this is a great idea. Put more money into people's hands. The problem, again, is that doing so would require large cuts from the government.

Here is the big question. Assume Paul wins and he starts to carry out his plan. People say they want change, hell they basically voted for the word Change in the last election. But deep down inside they don't really want change especially if things are good for them personally. When people start seeing all the changes that would happen and the services that would be cut from the government when it has to drastically cut back to meet its new lower income levels would they really want that? I'm sure some would and some wouldn't depending on what all they really ended up cutting. And, as I stated above, when it came time to make these cuts do you really think the house and senate could be able to agree on what to cut?

StickyGreen

Exactly, that's why Ron Paul's plan includes cutting ONE TRILLION dollars in the first year.

kane

And therein is the problem. If we are talking about theory, it is a decent idea. We trim all the fat and gut programs that are just wasted money. Great idea. In reality we are talking about what a Paul presidency would be like. Among the cuts he would immediately want to make are eliminated the department of energy, HUD, department of commerce, department of interior and the department of education. He would get rid of the transportation security administration, stop all corporate subsidies, stop all foreign aid and pull all our troops home, ending any and all conflicts.

Some decent ideas here, but honestly do you really think he could pull this off?

StickyGreen

Most people don't agree with eliminating certain bureaucracies because they get in a mindset that once something is created it's there to stay, and that getting rid of it isn't a viable option. Ron Paul explains this much better in his books than I can, and I'll make a new thread soon about this exact issue with parts from one of his books.

Oh, and do I honestly think he could pull it off? Well he would need congress to work with him, obviously. But if he actually won the presidency that would mean that many Americans "woke up," so that would give me hope that congress would also "wake up" and work to get these things done.

kane

While I agree with you that many people are of the mindset that once something is in place it is there forever and you can't remove it, I think there are a good number of people see benefit from some of these things. For example. If we pull all our forces home and stay out of foreign wars we will be able to greatly cut defense spending. With those cuts many defense contractors will close their doors and many people will lose their jobs. So while a person might agree with pulling our troops home, if they work for a defense contractor and doing so means losing their job, they likely won't be so gung ho about it. The same could be said if you work in the education system. The system is so bloated that many people now rely on it to live and those people are not going to take well to these changes.

I just think for him to be elected and then actually carry out any of his ideals here would have to be such a fundamental shift in ideology in this country that for it to happen is nearly impossible. Most people don't want to be told that they should take responsibility for themselves and think for themselves, they want it handled for them and Paul is just the opposite of that. He wants people to sacrifice in the short term for the ideal of longer term prosperity, liberty and self reliance and most people have no interest in that.

IllTestYourGirls

One of peace and prosperity?

__________________

seeandsee

Ron Paul Wave 2012 CAN'T BE STOPPED!

This will be real president, doing real stuff!

__________________
BUY MY SIG - 50$/Year

Contact here

Joshua G

What Paul could do would be entirely dependent on whether his candicacy generates coat-tails for down party candidates. If congress remains divided, he will be no more effective then obama.

even if he got the repubs in both chambers, he would still be limited by the fact repubs don't support some of his ideas, like ending the Fed & returning to gold.

He will also be limited because he does not have the charisma necessary to get congress to pass his agenda. Like Obama, i question whether he will be the leader of his party.

I think the budget would get balanced within his first term, assuming the economy is not knocked off its recovery by terrorism. Some of the dreams of killing the dept of education might actually come true. depends if dems use republican tactics in the senate to kill everything that happens there. most likely they will.

Obamacare would likely not be enforced, assuming it cant be repealed.

His isolationist foreign policy will be welcomed by our enemies, & hated by the europeans & countries that are freeloading off american foreign aid (cough, israel) I think many of the cold war troops, sitting in germany, korea for nothing, would wind down. I would hope the ridiculous military projects like missile defense, & building a new nuclear arsenal, will get killed. Depends on if Paul sticks to principle in the face of the defense lobby. as you can read i am projecting my hopes on him.

i would agree with dems that his policies will likely make the income gap even worse. He remains in support of free trade, & deregulating banks, so another round of wall street gambling/bubbles is likely.

i like him because my pet issue is a balanced budget. & he is radical enough to make the difficult decisions to fix the bleeding. I also like his isolationist foreign policy. But most likely his agenda will be limited by an uncooperative congress. Sadly its the congress that is the main problem with the government, not the executive.

PR_Glen

probably exactly what would happen, which SHOULD come into consideration when people make their vote as well shouldn't it?


who said he'd be assassinated? seriously?? the security they have now is pretty air tight these days... that isn't going to happen..

__________________
webmaster at pimproll dot com

raymor

We'd get to found out if he really believes some of the.more off-the-wall stuff he's saying or if he's just playing to a certain crowd.

__________________
For historical display only. This information is not current:
support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627
Strongbox - The next generation in site security
Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control
Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids

SuckOnThis

What? He doesnt want to eliminate the FBI?

BFT3K

^^^ this ^^^

Tempest

For awhile, there would be gridlock... Ron Paul will veto all the bills that come across his desk.. That will force the congress and senate to work together to get the votes they need to pass it without his approval.. And so things will continue on as they are now.. Ron Paul has stated he won't use executive orders other than things that are specific to what his constitutional responsibilities are. So at the end of the day, it will be business as usual for the most part and he will weaken the office of the President from what it is now.

BV

and he's not against abortion Kane, he just want's the federal govt out of it and wants each state to decide on their own, same with drugs, etc...

i can't wait for this country to vote him in office, granted it's not going to be pretty, but hey, "we the people" need to get this country back under control and get rid of all the bureaucratic bull shit!

this will never be a pretty task by whomever tackles it

porno jew

educate yourself about his positions. he is extremly against the right for a woman to choose.

$5 submissions

Seriously, Ron Paul's ideas aren't just great for the US, it would help Third World countries too. For example, I live in the Philippines where vast swathes of the economy are so monopolized as to make it really tough for the poor, the working class, and the (quickly vanishing) middle class. Ron Paul's focus on open markets and competition would go a long way in breaking the ideological chains holding this country down (fake notions of nationalism which only work to cripple foreign investment)

__________________

porno jew

baddog

Why haven't you answered the question?

Not good enough excuse for Murdoch, certainly not for Ron Paul.

We can stop here. Bingo.

Where do they go?

No, the point is, you do not get a free ride. Services cost money.

And this is why I ask you who to vote for to help him make it happen. You respond with he will not get elected or will die first. So, your point?


Disagree. It will be worse. Having the funeral right after he is sworn in would be devastating.

kane

In an Oct. 27, 1999 speech to Congress, Ron Paul said:

?I am strongly pro-life. I think one of the most disastrous rulings of this century was Roe versus Wade. I do believe in the slippery slope theory. I believe that if people are careless and casual about life at the beginning of life, we will be careless and casual about life at the end. Abortion leads to euthanasia. I believe that.?

At the GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate on Sep 17, 2007, Ron Paul was asked what he will do to restore legal protection to the unborn:

?As an O.B. doctor of thirty years, and having delivered 4,000 babies, I can assure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there?s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there?s an injury or a killing, there is a legal entity. There is no doubt about it.?

That sounds an awful lot like someone who is against abortion to me.

porno jew

Frank21

Right... because Obama has kept how many of his promises?
Guantanamo bay closed?
All soldiers out of iraq in 2008?
No wallstreet in the whitehouse?
No spying on American citizen.


Obama has only sped up the spyprograms of Bush not a single of his own poins got realized.

Ron Paul DOES has charisma instead of the telepromt reader Obama.

If Ron Paul does get elected he will force hundreds of millions of Amercans to read the actual constitution and energize the population with lerberty knohow for the next 50 years.

__________________

StickyGreen

Nevermind... thought you were saying there's no wall street in the White House lol, was gonna say...

Frank21

Thats what he promised before he was President.

Just like he promised to be the most transparent government ever ........

But 4 years later he has kept 0 (zero) NULL of his promisses.

__________________

porno jew

a vote for ron paul is a vote for lerberty.

baddog

Why have none of you Ron Paul supporters answered the question?