Why NOT Ron Paul.

[Technosoul]

What impact would Ron Paul have on society if elected.

Here are the things that I personally believe might happen if Ron Paul was elected and Congress and the Senate supported his viewpoints. Relative to what I think would have a negitive impact.

His gun policy would result in more urban gang violence. It would present a greater risk to policemen who must deal with enforcing laws.
and it would increase the risks of an incident happening involving guns at our schools. People would be more likely to take the law in thier own hands and so our courts and judges would have to handle more cases at taxpayer's cost.

Although a few odd duck scientists have debated the facts we now know that Global Warming is a threat and Ron Paul wishes to ignore it and would take no steps to deal with the problem.

His free trade polices would encourage more out-sourcing of jobs which would result in less 'made in the USA' production, having a negitive effect on our economy as unemployment lines become longer.

The elemination of federal income taxes would distroy the federal budget and so we would have no way of funding the federal government unless he robbed (abducted monies) from the state sales taxes.

His policy that we cannot "police the world" could, for example, allow Cuba or a South American a country to install missle bases pointed our way.

His departure from the U.N. would allow other nations to organize collective policies for which we had no in-put, that could impact us in the long run relative to our dealings and businesses ventures outside of the USA.

His wish not to regulate private busnesses concerning polution would result in more cancer deaths, and/or more need for medical care.

His ideas about getting rid of federal lands and not funding them would mean that private developers could buy the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone Park, and build factories, houses, shopping centers, or use the land for oil pumping stations. I do not like the potential idea of the Grand Canyon being turned into a gaint Walmart superstore.

His idea that some states, if by public opinon at the voting booth, can permit the use of unlawful drugs, this could result in more road accidents and increase cases of domestic violence, and increase the chances that more people become addicted and therefore less able to become productive members of the work force. likewise resulting in more court cases due to drug-related crimes at taxpayer cost. (although a non-addictive product like pot might be an exception to that potential problem, other drugs would have a negitive effect on society).

His ideas about not having a tax funded health care system means that helping those without insurence would fall in the lap of private charity. In the past private charity has not been able to cover such costs and is not affective, in part because charity groups have no controlling infuence over what drug compaines and hospitals can charge for such care or treatments, if they inflate those costs.

His view to remove the federal department of education and have it funded only by the states would mean that public schools would have much less money to operate on in poorer states And that would mean less chances or means by which to improve public education or to correct some of it's current imperfections. Meanwhile Japan, China, and other countries would be cranking out smart kids while we fall behind and that could impact our ability to stay competitive globally, making us more dependant on external technologies just like we are now dependant on external oil resources.

His view about only doing what is writen in the Consitution would limit our abilty to deal with newer problems that the writers of the Consitution did not invision, or what they did not know would ocur later on.

His view of limiting the authority of the federal government would mean that voters, via their representives, would no longer have a way to affect solutions for national problems that impact all citizens, and leave us only with a state government and our ability to deal with local problems only.

[Jack]

Who's your preferred alternative, and where do they stand on those same issues?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood Who's your preferred alternative, and where do they stand on those same issues?

Hillary Clinton

Global Warming -

HillaryClinton.com - Issues - Promoting Energy Independence and Fighting Global Warming

Gun Control -

Gun Control: 2008 contenders' views

In additon to that she did not advocate allowing weapons now banned to become being legally marketed.

Hillary Clinton - Fair Trade - history

Hillary Clinton on Free Trade

Drugs

Hillary Clinton on Drugs

She did not advocate making hard durgs legal and maintains that drugs used for medical purposes should be controlled (prescribed).

She did not advocate getting rid of income taxes, she did not advocate pulling out of the U.N. She did not advocate getting rid of the federal Department of Education. She advocates a sensible health care system.

Homeland security (history)

Hillary Clinton on Homeland Security

End war in Iraq.

HillaryClinton.com - Issues - Ending the War in Iraq

[Milton Bradley]

So Hillary can speak for herself, but you would prefer to do the talking for Dr. Paul?


Is that what we're seeing here?

[HelioPrime]

I wonder how a lack of the CIA, Education dept, world military would save every year? Close to the amount the government draws in from income taxes?

Many Eyes : US government expenses 1962-2004

Aged graph, but If you took out the expenses Ron Paul would support removing...well thats what a reduction of 60% give or take? Perhaps more than enough to allow for a removal of the income tax.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime I wonder how a lack of the CIA, Education dept, world military would save every year? Close to the amount the government draws in from income taxes? Many Eyes : US government expenses 1962-2004 Aged graph, but If you took out the expenses Ron Paul would support removing...well thats what a reduction of 60% give or take? Perhaps more than enough to allow for a removal of the income tax.

It is true, if we stopped funding for defense, closed all our military bases overseas, cut back on military expenses. And if we stopped spending money on public education and related programs, and stopped funding our Intelligence gathering operations. That would remove the need for collecting income taxes, just enough taxes to support the President and Congress, etc.

The states might wish to follow that example. Stop funding the police departments and emergency response teams, and stop funding education.

Then we can have more money in our pockets.

I do not favor that idea. Would suggest that you give the idea a 2nd look and picture what impact that would have.... other then putting a few bucks in your pocket.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So Hillary can speak for herself, but you would prefer to do the talking for Dr. Paul? Is that what we're seeing here?

I cannot bring eyesite back to the blind sheepe. Sorry.

The O.P. clearly stated that I was speaking for my self about Ron Paul and the impact I think he would have. We have lots of Ron Paul speaking for his self on the many Ron Paul threads here in this forum, based on those threads I made my observations.

Someone asked who I support as the alternative to R.P. and to compare the two, so I answered that request. But deing this is not a thread about Hillary or how they compare I did not go into details, just posted links so he could do his own comparing.

If you think that is unfair talk to your local leberal friend and find out how to protest for your rights.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Technosoul It is true, if we stopped funding for defense, closed all our military bases overseas, cut back on military expenses. And if we stopped spending money on public education and related programs, and stopped funding our Intelligence gathering operations. That would remove the need for collecting income taxes, just enough taxes to support the President and Congress, etc. The states might wish to follow that example. Stop funding the police departments and emergency response teams, and stop funding education. Then we can have more money in our pockets. I do not favor that idea. Would suggest that you give the idea a 2nd look and picture what impact that would have.... other then putting a few bucks in your pocket.

Yeah, I think I should start following that example as well. If I don't pay my water bill or to put food in my refrigerator, think of all the money I'll save! Hell, why stop there? What if I SOLD my refrigerator too! Of course if I don't pay for food I'll probably starve but at least I'll be rich while I'm suffering!

[bishop]

i always love how the examples are taken to the extreme...

why do we need the federal pig to "take care of us"? why can't states be allowed to govern themselves as their citizens see fit? why does the public have to have a federal system that redistributes money from one state to another through its corrupt appropriations process? etc...

and on foreign affairs, why do we need to remain committed to an imperialist foreign policy? the western nations don't dominate the world with their military bases, and they don't seem to be any more/less secure than us.

[Contumacious]

Quote by: Technosoul What impact would Ron Paul have on society if elected. .....His gun policy would result in more urban gang violence. It would present a greater risk to policemen who must deal with enforcing laws.

I have a right to life and to defend the same.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men

[Osborn F Enready]

Contumacious, welcome to Volconvo, and I fully agree.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Contumacious I have a right to life and to defend the same. We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men

This is true. The state and federal governments were institute among men to secure these rights not the NRA nor the gun lobby.

Welcome to this debate forum.

[Osborn F Enready]

Guess what Techno.....

The NRA and Gun Lobby exist to STOP the infringement of government on the second amendment, something they(the government) have been doing for the last 150 years. (infringing individual rights)

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Guess what Techno..... The NRA and Gun Lobby exist to STOP the infringement of government on the second amendment, something they(the government) have been doing for the last 150 years. (infringing individual rights)

Then find a debate topic about gun control and gripe away to your heart's content.

If the NRA really thinks they can attack the White House with all their weapons to protect us so that they can become our next government, then all I can say about that idea is 'la dee da". Do you have any link that discribes how they plan to that conduct that civil war for their revolution?

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno, I don't know what your talking about, or what this has to do with a damn thing.

Painting from your imagination again, are you?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Techno, I don't know what your talking about, or what this has to do with a damn thing. Painting from your imagination again, are you?

Then please elaborate on how you would end urban terroism (gang violence) and drive-by shootings and still arm the population to the teeth?

Hillary Clinton supported bills about back-ground checks and so forth.
What she termed 'sensible gun control'.

Do you see those proposals as unconsitutional? (link provided already about her gun control ideas she supported). Would Ron Paul advocate any kinds of gun control measures at all?

Keep it simple if you would as this is not a topic about gun control only.

The 2nd Amendment is clear. It is still part of our Consitution and must be honored by the Federal Government. And I assume the Federal government is required to make sure that the Consitution is likewise honored by city governments and their police force, and by state governments. But as you can see ( I hope ) that this right has it's problems also. Jessie James started robbing trains and banks. Guns were being used for the wrong reasons - reasons that violated other rights also in the Consitution, people got upset about beinng robbed at gun point, etc. That resulted in laws that might of conflicted with the idealism of the 2nd amemdment. The criminals and the "few nuts" that get guns became a bigger threat then the one presented by our government. We got caught up in a "evolution" or "arms race" between the criminals and the police departments. Now we got too many criminals with high-tech weapons and too many policemen with high tech weapons and us "normal people" are in that crossfire. Along with an overstressed justice system and prison system.

Just repeating quotes from the Consitution does not change the situation that I just discribed.

Tell me please... what is the sensible solution - or is it too late to put our house in order?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul What impact would Ron Paul have on society if elected. Here are the things that I personally believe might happen if Ron Paul was elected and Congress and the Senate supported his viewpoints. Relative to what I think would have a negitive impact. His gun policy would result in more urban gang violence. It would present a greater risk to policemen who must deal with enforcing laws. and it would increase the risks of an incident happening involving guns at our schools. People would be more likely to take the law in thier own hands and so our courts and judges would have to handle more cases at taxpayer's cost.

Do you have evidence to show that there was more urban violence in the days before your unconstitutional federal gun control? Do you have evidence to show that people would be more likely to take the law into their own hands as a direct result of there being no more unconstitutional federal gun control laws?

Although a few odd duck scientists have debated the facts we now know that Global Warming is a threat and Ron Paul wishes to ignore it and would take no steps to deal with the problem.

So, if the majority of scientists say the earth is flat or that the moon is made of cheese, we have to believe them because they're in the majority? Being in the majority doesn't mean you're right.

His free trade polices would encourage more out-sourcing of jobs which would result in less 'made in the USA' production, having a negitive effect on our economy as unemployment lines become longer.

Would it? Don't you think maybe the main reasons for all this outsourcing is all that damned government regulation and intrusion that you treasonously support (the rest of the reasons having to do with labor unions making their demands as if they were the owners of the companies)?

The elemination of federal income taxes would distroy the federal budget and so we would have no way of funding the federal government unless he robbed (abducted monies) from the state sales taxes.

I'm not familiar with the word distroy and none of my dictionaries have it. What do you mean by it? (And, no, giving me a definition for a different word doesn't count). Your statement "we would have no way of funding the federal government unless he robbed...from state sales taxes" shows your ignorance. Maybe you should go read in the Constitution how Congress was allowed to raise taxes in the days before the 16th amendment.

His policy that we cannot "police the world" could, for example, allow Cuba or a South American a country to install missle bases pointed our way.

Yes, and if they try to attack then Congress has the Constitutional authority to repel invasions and to declare war.

His departure from the U.N. would allow other nations to organize collective policies for which we had no in-put, that could impact us in the long run relative to our dealings and businesses ventures outside of the USA.

What was to stop other nations from doing so prior to the creation of the United Nations? What was to stop them from doing it back in the days when it was our foreign policy not to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations?

His wish not to regulate private busnesses concerning polution would result in more cancer deaths, and/or more need for medical care.

Can you provide credible evidence to show that there were more cancer deaths in the late 1800s prior to the enacting of federal environmental regulations? What's to stop the individual states from enacting their own regulations? Why must the federal government take upon itself authority the Constitution does not give it?

His ideas about getting rid of federal lands and not funding them would mean that private developers could buy the Grand Canyon, or Yellowstone Park, and build factories, houses, shopping centers, or use the land for oil pumping stations. I do not like the potential idea of the Grand Canyon being turned into a gaint Walmart superstore.

What's to stop the states from turning them into state parks?

His idea that some states, if by public opinon at the voting booth, can permit the use of unlawful drugs, this could result in more road accidents and increase cases of domestic violence, and increase the chances that more people become addicted and therefore less able to become productive members of the work force. likewise resulting in more court cases due to drug-related crimes at taxpayer cost. (although a non-addictive product like pot might be an exception to that potential problem, other drugs would have a negitive effect on society).

Not that you have any real evidence that repealing drug laws will automatically result in more accidents, etc. (much like the stupidity of "let's get rid of the guns because guns kill people") but if individual states want to take that risk that's their business; if you don't like it, don't live in a state that permits the use of such substances (not that people really need permission - there is no constitutional authority for governments to make laws protecting people from themselves).

His ideas about not having a tax funded health care system means that helping those without insurence would fall in the lap of private charity. In the past private charity has not been able to cover such costs and is not affective, in part because charity groups have no controlling infuence over what drug compaines and hospitals can charge for such care or treatments, if they inflate those costs.

Why shouldn't people's families and private charities take care of such things for people who can't afford it themselves?

His view to remove the federal department of education and have it funded only by the states would mean that public schools would have much less money to operate on in poorer states And that would mean less chances or means by which to improve public education or to correct some of it's current imperfections. Meanwhile Japan, China, and other countries would be cranking out smart kids while we fall behind and that could impact our ability to stay competitive globally, making us more dependant on external technologies just like we are now dependant on external oil resources.

The federal government doesn't provide a whole lot of money to the states for education. Of course, I think the federal and state governments should get out of the education business entirely. Close all those government indoctrination centers (public schools) and let parents take their rightful responsibility for educating their children.

His view about only doing what is writen in the Consitution would limit our abilty to deal with newer problems that the writers of the Consitution did not invision, or what they did not know would ocur later on.

Here's a really novel idea: if you think there's something the Constitution didn't cover, AMEND THE DAMNED CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

His view of limiting the authority of the federal government would mean that voters, via their representives, would no longer have a way to affect solutions for national problems that impact all citizens, and leave us only with a state government and our ability to deal with local problems only.

Most of what you're calling national problems are not national problems.

You are a traitor to the United States of America and I demand your immediate emigration to some socialist European country where I'm sure you'll be quite content with their federal governments butting into every aspect of your life, regulating you from cradle to grave! The founding fathers intentionally gave us a limited federal government: why do you want to throw all that they fought for away?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Technosoul Then please elaborate on how you would end urban terroism (gang violence) and drive-by shootings and still arm the population to the teeth? Hillary Clinton supported bills about back-ground checks and so forth. What she termed 'sensible gun control'.

Kids in the street gangs aren't going to give a rat's behind about gun registration, background checks, etc. They're going to find a way to get guns if they want them badly enough. Carpetbagger Hillary's policies are going to affect no one except law-abiding citizens (by making it all that much harder for them to exercise their right to bear arms).

Do you see those proposals as unconsitutional? (link provided already about her gun control ideas she supported). Would Ron Paul advocate any kinds of gun control measures at all?

Your proposals are unconstitutional because the federal government does not have the authority to impose these kinds of policies.

Keep it simple if you would as this is not a topic about gun control only. The 2nd Amendment is clear. It is still part of our Consitution and must be honored by the Federal Government. And I assume the Federal government is required to make sure that the Consitution is likewise honored by city governments and their police force, and by state governments.

Then stop trying to violate the amendment!!!!!

But as you can see ( I hope ) that his right has it's problems also. Jessie James started robbing trains and banks. Guns were being used for the wrong reasons - reasons that violated other rights also in the Consitution, people got upset about beinng robbed at gun point, etc.

Ah, another leftist with the stupid (and it is stupid) "he wouldn't have committed that robbery if guns were made illegal" argument!

That resulted in laws that might of conflicted with the idealism of the 2nd amemdment.

Your proof of this is?

The criminals and the "few nuts" that get guns became a bigger threat then the one presented by our government. We got caught up in a "evolution" or "arms race" between the criminals and the police departments. Now we got too many criminals with high-tech weapons and too many policemen with high tech weapons and us "normal people" are in that crossfire. Along with an overstressed justice system and prison system.

Do you realize the stupidity of what you're saying here? It isn't GUNS that kill people, it's PEOPLE who kill people. Guns aren't the threat, people are!

Just repeating quotes from the Consitution does not change the situation that I just discribed.

Because you have nothing but the utmost contempt for the Constitution.

Tell me please... what is the sensible solution - or is it too late to put our house in order?

Get the federal government out of our lives!

[Contumacious]

Quote by: Technosoul This is true. The state and federal governments were institute among men to secure these rights not the NRA nor the gun lobby.

Those organizations are just there to make sure that the politicians are reminded that those rights are unalienable. That's all.

As you probably know there are people out there who are naive, gullible and suicidal hence they advocate that guns be controlled.

Welcome to this debate forum.

Thank you.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Contumacious Those organizations are just there to make sure that the politicians are reminded that those rights are unalienable. That's all. As you probably know there are people out there who are naive, gullible and suicidal hence they advocate that guns be controlled. Thank you.

I agree that life, liberty, and the desire to be happy are unalenable rights.

I agree also that the right to defend our self and our family is an unalenable right.

You can arm your self for that purpose with options that do not include guns. There is nothing unalenable about gun ownership per-see. A gun is just another object. You were not born with a gun in your hand, no Creator handed them out to the cave men, they are not a product of nature.

We were born with a brain and using it is the unalenable right. We use it to seek happyness, we use it to find security for our self, we use to live our life. Without the brain you have no life. And we can also use it if we happen to be part of the Federal Government. Arm your self with wisdom.

Show me the word "gun" in the Consitution. If the word "Gun" is not to be found in the words of the Consitition then... according to Ron Paul philosophy.... the Consitution does not protect that item.