Has Ron Paul reached you yet?

[CptColumbo]

Well if you like the idea of bringing the troops home, ending the fed and the CIA, having a strong national defense, cutting spending and taxes, getting rid of the IRS and the income tax, more money for your pay-check,legalization of marijuana and protection of the 2nd amendment, then vote for Ron Paul.

I voted for him. A true patriot.

1. Bringing the troops home = Neutral. I'm all for it, but there are other candidates who also support that.

2. Legalization of Marijuana = Negative. It's not that I'm for or against the use of marijuana, but making this one of the main platforms of your campaign IMO is pandering.

3. Ending the Fed = Negative. No reason to do this.

4. Strong National Defense = Neutral. I'm for it, but some of the other planks in the platform mentioned above seem to contradict this stance.

5. Get rid of the CIA = Negative. See number 4.

6. Cutting spending = Negative. See number 4.

7. Cutting taxes = Negative. See number 4. Also, which candidate is promoting higher taxes?

8. Getting rid of the IRS = Negative. Pandering to those who don't understand what the IRS does.

9. Getting rid of the income tax = Neutral. I'm for it, but I need to see a plausible alternative that doesn't cost me more money in other areas.

10. Protection of the 2nd Amendment = Neutral. As an amendment to the Constitution of the United States it is already protected, so there is no real issue there. What you are most likely advocating is a particular interpretation of the amendment.

0 out of 10 = Positive
4 out of 10 = Neutral
6 out of 10 = Negative

So, I'm sorry based on the issues you mention above (not including anything else mentioned in this thread) there is no particular reason for me to vote for Ron Paul and/or support him over other candidates.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Actually, I smoked for many years and when I wanted a match, I said, "Do you have a match?" My husband still smokes and has never heard of asking for a timber when one wants a match. Do you perhaps live on Diego García or some other remote and isolated small piece of land?

I live in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. People wanting a match ask for a timber.

Most of the time I don't even know what you're trying to say.

I am truly sorry about that, but it does explain a great deal.

That's my point, Humpty-Dumpty. (And before anyone reports this, it is not an insult but instead a reference to Through the Looking-Glass. "Glory! There's a nice knock-down argument for you!")

I think you are using this in the wrong context, it is not taken as an insult, it is rather good.

But I'll bet very few - if any - are women.

Now this is just sandbox.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

1. Bringing the troops home = Neutral. I'm all for it, but there are other candidates who also support that.

Only in vague terms are other candidates for this.

2. Legalization of Marijuana = Negative. It's not that I'm for or against the use of marijuana, but making this one of the main platforms of your campaign IMO is pandering.

This is about prohibition and the lost rights due to the drug war.

Ever notice all these never ending WARS we have? How does one defeat poverty, drugs, or terrorism?

3. Ending the Fed = Negative. No reason to do this.

For the 100 years prior to the Fed being created in 1913 the average inflation in America was nil. Since the creation of the Fed inflation has been 3% a year. This 3% represents a devaluation of each person's past labor.

4. Strong National Defense = Neutral. I'm for it, but some of the other planks in the platform mentioned above seem to contradict this stance.

Such as?

5. Get rid of the CIA = Negative. See number 4.

The CIA initiated the problems with Iran 50 years ago which continue today, were you not aware?

6. Cutting spending = Negative. See number 4.

What percentage of a nations economy do you believe should be the government?

7. Cutting taxes = Negative. See number 4. Also, which candidate is promoting higher taxes?

What is the proper percentage of a person's labor that should be taken by government?

All candidates that are proposing new programs are by default promoting higher taxes, either today or in the future as these new programs will need to be payed for in some manner.

8. Getting rid of the IRS = Negative. Pandering to those who don't understand what the IRS does.

What do you think the IRS does?

9. Getting rid of the income tax = Neutral. I'm for it, but I need to see a plausible alternative that doesn't cost me more money in other areas.

Getting rid of the income tax would only cause the government to return to 2000 spending levels.

10. Protection of the 2nd Amendment = Neutral. As an amendment to the Constitution of the United States it is already protected, so there is no real issue there. What you are most likely advocating is a particular interpretation of the amendment.

Keep in mind that without citizens having the ability to protect themselves there will eventually be no liberty. This is evidenced in history.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

2. Legalization of Marijuana = Negative. It's not that I'm for or against the use of marijuana, but making this one of the main platforms of your campaign IMO is pandering.

Exactly the opposite.
This is a very important topic that most candidates are afraid to talk about.
It's the "elephant in the room" of US politics.

 

[Corsair 115]

I made myself perfectly clear on education.

This from the fellow who claimed in another thread that the reason the U.S. engaged in the space race to the Moon was to be the first to put nuclear weapons there.

 

[Tippit]

There is nothing wrong with counterfeiting per se.

If there is nothing wrong with counterfeiting, then what is the legal and moral basis for anti-counterfeiting law?

All goods inevitably fluctuate in value, money is no different, whether or not counterfeiting is going on. If I were to counterfeit a thousand dollars, it would benefit me quite a bit and the impact on everyone else would be insignificant compared to the natural fluctuations of life.

What exactly are the "natural fluctuations of life" that you speak of? If you were to counterfeit a thousand dollars, you would in a broad sense be stealing one thousand dollars worth of purchasing power collectively from all dollar holders. In a specific sense you would be defrauding the first recipients of the counterfeit money, as if they are caught with it they run the risk of losing the entire face value. In addition, if they are not caught, they actually become a beneficiary, as they are using the money to purchase goods and services at prices which haven't adjusted yet for the inflation.

The only problem with counterfeiting is that if everyone was able to counterfeit whenever they wanted, there would be monetary chaos as more money is created whenever the hell people want stuff, which would create a complete failure of trust in the money and the money would quickly become worthless. But if the ability to counterfeit money is concentrated in a single accountable body, that's not a problem, since they can counterfeit money at a smooth predictable pace, allowing people to predict with a fair degree of precision what their money will be worth in the future.

So in other words, an equitable distribution of monetary inflation is out of the question, but you're quite comfortable with a few banking elites inflating the money supply for their own personal benefit, as long as it's not enough so that the general public catches on to the scam. The Federal Reserve isn't accountable to me at all. They hold a few meetings in front of the house banking committee where a few irrelevant softball questions are asked of the Fed Chairman, and that's it.

[ETA: In a sense counterfeiting is theft, but there's nothing inherently wrong with theft either. One person benefits, one person loses, so it's a wash and then you can quantify how much the benefit was and how much the loss was and decide if it's a good thing or a bad thing. The main problem with theft is again, if people can steal indiscriminately, it would destroy the stability of the market and a lot of time would be wasted with people stealing stuff back and forth.]

I think that bit of inanity sums up the mentality of most Federal Reserve apologists and supporters. There is nothing inherently wrong with theft? One person benefits, one person loses, so it's a wash? What the hell are you talking about? You fail.

 

[LostAngeles]

Wait, so we should be free to smoke our weed, have our guns, and not pay taxes, but we can't be free to have an abortion if needed?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Wait, so we should be free to smoke our weed, have our guns, and not pay taxes,

So far, so good, sister in Liberty.

but we can't be free to have an abortion if needed?

Pay for your abortion with your own money, not tax dollars, and you'll find a lot of the argument against shrivels. While I'm not a huge fan of abortion (I am pro prevention of unwanted pregnancies as a better idea for a lot of reasons) I appreciate that my PoV is not the only one out there.

Granted, there are some who will demand that you not have one due to their moral superiority, in which case, can one have discourse with that faction at all?

Pay for the elective procedure yourself (or have semen provider pay for it, or split it 50-50 with you, whatever) and you get no objection from me.

As far as I know, you are free to have an abortion. Is there somewhere that this is not true in the US?

DR

 

[Finnegan]

This is quite interesting. Not in a particularly controversial way, it's just an individual tactic in running a campaign.

"Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting." ​

 

[LostAngeles]

So far, so good, sister in Liberty.

Pay for your abortion with your own money, not tax dollars, and you'll find a lot of the argument against shrivels. While I'm not a huge fan of abortion (I am pro prevention of unwanted pregnancies as a better idea for a lot of reasons) I appreciate that my PoV is not the only one out there.

Granted, there are some who will demand that you not have one due to their moral superiority, in which case, can one have discourse with that faction at all?

Pay for the elective procedure yourself (or have semen provider pay for it, or split it 50-50 with you, whatever) and you get no objection from me.

As far as I know, you are free to have an abortion. Is there somewhere that this is not true in the US?

DR

Well, I was attempting to summon RPIR's version of Ron Paul's position, but I appreciate the input.

I'm all down with preventing the unwanted pregnancies as well. *pats her IUS that was, yeah, paid for by tax dollars. I pay the insurance company via the school via financial aid* The trouble with that is that the best non-abstinence methods are opposed by the hardline pro-lifers who call them, "abortificants." While it's true that my IUS and other hormonal methods will thin the lining so a zygote can't implant, my body would flush something like one fertilized zygote a year or so? I forget what the actual number is.

As for being free to have an abortion in the US, there're a few rural pockets where it's substantially more difficult than say, L.A., to get an abortion, but generally, yes, we're free to have an abortion.

But we're here to poke at the holes in RPIR, not discuss abortion.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Wait, so we should be free to smoke our weed, have our guns, and not pay taxes, but we can't be free to have an abortion if needed?

That is a silly misstatement of his positions.

Would you like a second chance to prove that you can understand words that are written?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is quite interesting. Not in a particularly controversial way, it's just an individual tactic in running a campaign.

"Paul's granddaughter Valori Pyeatt helps organize fundraising receptions and has been paid $17,157. Another granddaughter, Laura Paul ($2,724), handles orders for Ron Paul merchandise. Grandson Matthew Pyeatt ($3,251) manages Paul's MySpace profile. Daughter Peggy Paul ($2,224) helps with campaign logistics. The candidate's sons Randall and Robert and his daughter Joy Paul LeBlanc have all been paid for campaign travel and for appearing as surrogates at political events.

Who keeps track of all these finances? Paul's brother and daughter, naturally, who have been paid a combined $62,740 to handle the campaign's accounting." ​

Are you kidding?

Would you like to compare those numbers to other campaigns?

 

[LostAngeles]

That is a silly misstatement of his positions.

Would you like a second chance to prove that you can understand words that are written?

Sure. As soon as you can explain what gravity and forces are.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sure. As soon as you can explain what gravity and forces are.

You have already established yourself as a misstater. Now you desire to establish yourself as an off-topic misstater?

 

[Darth Rotor]

But we're here to poke at the holes in RPIR, not discuss abortion.

Well, it's all that poking that leads to the condition that leads to abortion . . . but yeah, our chew toy seems to have been suspended.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Apologies, double post, IE 7 stinks to high heaven.

 

[Lonewulf]

You have already established yourself as a misstater. Now you desire to establish yourself as an off-topic misstater?

If anything, (s)he learned from you.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If anything, (s)he learned from you.

I know you are but what am I...



I have seen many primary school tactics used, this is new!

 

[LostAngeles]

You have already established yourself as a misstater. Now you desire to establish yourself as an off-topic misstater?

You know, it wasn't really a statement, so much as it was asking a question to see if I understood what he was saying properly. If you could have answered it, rather than just saying, "That's a misstatement," we could have a conversation.

As it stands now, there's nothing to really discuss, but then I've noticed most threads with you tend to be one way.

Do you have something to add? Clarify?

 

[Lonewulf]

I know you are but what am I...

I have seen many primary school tactics used, this is new!

Considering that elementary school tactics are the only tactics in your repertoire, and every other kind of argument you ignore, it's no skin off my nose.