why do people think Ron Paul is too extreme?

he is the one consistent politician, that is the point of his ad what is your point? do you know of a more consistent politician? obama i only the latest man in the position and thus the most applicable example of summarizing in advertising. so who is stawmanning here?surrealnumber5

Just say "I was wrong for bringing up Obama" and move on with the argument. As long as either one of you keeps centering on that, it's going to be a stalemate, and since you were the one that brought that up, it's only right for you to admit it and drop that issue.

Getting back to the main point, I definitely agree that Ron Paul is very consistent with what he says and has also been very specific about what he plans to do. I don't think really that majora's stating that Ron Paul is not stating things in detail, though he did use the word vague. He's saying that he's a politician like the rest of them, and that he doesn't expect him to be consistent on seeing his promises through. That's all I think he's really saying (correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Wrath). I can see why he would think that -- after all, what politician has been entirely consistent in your recent memory?

I hope Ron Paul will be different, but I wouldn't be terribly shocked if it didn't work out that way.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]he is the one consistent politician, that is the point of his ad what is your point? do you know of a more consistent politician? obama i only the latest man in the position and thus the most applicable example of summarizing in advertising. so who is stawmanning here?m0zart

Just say "I was wrong for bringing up Obama" and move on with the argument. As long as either one of you keeps centering on that, it's going to be a stalemate, and since you were the one that brought that up, it's only right for you to admit it and drop that issue.

Getting back to the main point, I definitely agree that Ron Paul is very consistent with what he says and has also been very specific about what he plans to do. I don't think really that majora's stating that Ron Paul is not stating things in detail, though he did use the word vague. He's saying that he's a politician like the rest of them, and that he doesn't expect him to be consistent on seeing his promises through. That's all I think he's really saying (correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Wrath). I can see why he would think that -- after all, what politician has been entirely consistent in your recent memory?

I hope Ron Paul will be different, but I wouldn't be terribly shocked if it didn't work out that way.

obama had the most effective advertising campaign in us history, it brought him from a laughable canidate to a winner, it is applicable to my argument i wont drop it.surrealnumber5

But it isn't applicable to his argument. His point is that Ron Paul seems like just another politician to him, and he used ads to demonstrate it. Since he never claimed Obama was any different (in fact, he claimed he said this very thing to Obama supporters), I can't see why you think that would in any way be applicable to his point. I didn't see his argument to be specifically about ads, rather the ads seem very familiar to him, so yes, concentrating on that IS a strawman, for all intents and purposes.

what is with this you cannot bring up history argument.....surrealnumber5

You can certainly bring up history when it's applicable. For instance, if he said "Obama never did that", then obviously you could bring that up. Not all history means anything to a discussion. If you had started talking about the Battle of Jericho, that also would have been non-sequitur.

In any case, I think the real issue here is why being a politician is a bad thing in this context. Sure politicians want to be elected. Anyone who wants to be elected, whether because they want to make real change or because they want to play the game for the hell of it, or any other reason in between, has to become a politician, campaign for an office, and WANT to be elected.

I think perhaps the problem is more that some are no longer interested in the system. It all looks the same to them. And I can hardly blame them for that.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]obama had the most effective advertising campaign in us history, it brought him from a laughable canidate to a winner, it is applicable to my argument i wont drop it.m0zart

But it isn't applicable to his argument. His point is that Ron Paul seems like just another politician to him, and he used ads to demonstrate it. Since he never claimed Obama was any different (in fact, he claimed he said this very thing to Obama supporters), I can't see why you think that would in any way be applicable to his point. I didn't see his argument to be specifically about ads, rather the ads seem very familiar to him, so yes, concentrating on that IS a strawman, for all intents and purposes.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]what is with this you cannot bring up history argument.....m0zart

You can certainly bring up history when it's applicable. For instance, if he said "Obama never did that", then obviously you could bring that up. Not all history means anything to a discussion. If you had started talking about the Battle of Jericho, that also would have been non-sequitur.

In any case, I think the real issue here is why being a politician is a bad thing in this context. Sure politicians want to be elected. Anyone who wants to be elected, whether because they want to make real change or because they want to play the game for the hell of it, or any other reason in between, has to become a politician, campaign for an office, and WANT to be elected.

I think perhaps the problem is more that some are no longer interested in the system. It all looks the same to them. And I can hardly blame them for that.

you cannot do more than that in ad space, ron paul has nearly all of his theories spelled out in his books, so you are telling me his argument is that "ron paul cannot spell out thousands of pages in a 30 second time frame there for he is no better than anyone else who has ever had a TVad" it i physically impossible to relate everything he has put into type into a 30 second ad, if that is his argument it is unreasonable, and no this is not a strawman this is what i got from your post, by all means correct me if i am wrong.surrealnumber5

Well you are wrong, yes. What you should get from my post is "Why did I bring up Obama with the assumption that my opponent considers Obama to be any different". And that's part of what I said in the other post.

A lot of people are disaffected with the political system. I think that's where the real issue is. They see an overwhelmingly messianic ad and think "sounds the same as before", and I just can't blame them for that. It's the "too many saviors" syndrome.

Obviously I believe Ron Paul is different, or I wouldn't support him. But even I have to cringe at ads like that one. If I had said "wow that's terrible, how terribly overdramatic", I wouldn't have understood if you had come back at me with "But Obama did the same". That's like... duh man.

so you have just claimed me falling into two fallacies, i am going to bed, tomorrow i will address all fallacies you assume i have made so if you could list them i would much appreciate it, and to the best of my abilities i will defend my self.surrealnumber5

I claimed you fell into two fallacies? Where? All I said was that bringing up Obama was a non-sequitur -- that's just one fallacy.

And it is because it has to be -- unless you think Majora is lying about not considering Obama any different.

Goodness, maybe the real issue here is that you just didn't communicate what you meant in enough detail for us to get it. I'd say come back to it fresh tomorrow and restate. Maybe we just didn't get it, but that's not always the fault of the listener.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]so you have just claimed me falling into two fallacies, i am going to bed, tomorrow i will address all fallacies you assume i have made so if you could list them i would much appreciate it, and to the best of my abilities i will defend my self.m0zart

I claimed you fell into two fallacies? Where? All I said was that bringing up Obama was a non-sequitur -- that's just one fallacy.

And it is because it has to be -- unless you think Majora is lying about not considering Obama any different.

Goodness, maybe the real issue here is that you just didn't communicate what you meant in enough detail for us to get it. I'd say come back to it fresh tomorrow and restate. Maybe we just didn't get it, but that's not always the fault of the listener.

you claimed i was strawmanning 1, and non sequitur 2, what else? surrealnumber5

I was merging strawman and non-sequitur because it could easily be either one. Again, if you can clarify, then I'll change my mind. I just don't see how it couldn't be at this point.

Just dropping that point could have prevented all this. Sticking to your guns for something that didn't fit the discussion just obscures the real meat of the discussion.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]you claimed i was strawmanning 1, and non sequitur 2, what else? m0zart

I was merging strawman and non-sequitur because it could easily be either one. Again, if you can clarify, then I'll change my mind. I just don't see how it couldn't be at this point.

Just dropping that point could have prevented all this. Sticking to your guns for something that didn't fit the discussion just obscures the real meat of the discussion.

m0zart, I've been wanting to ask you this - out of the GOP field, who do you believe can best debate Obama? I would venture to say Gingrich - not saying he'll win the nomination, just that he might be the best in debating.topsemag55

Hmmm... since you are talking about debating and not the integrity of the positions he'd hold, I think Gingrich would have a good chance to sway a debate. I can't answer specifically though because I don'treally know how well some of the others would do when facing a Democrat opponent, which is a whole other ball of wax from nomination debates.

Personally, I'd still be more influenced by Ron Paul's responses and challenges, but that's because I would likely share the views, giving them more weight. He isn't always the best and clearest public speaker though, so it would be entirely the weight of his positions, and not his tactics.

Hmmm... since you are talking about debating and not the integrity of the positions he'd hold, I think Gingrich would have a good chance to sway a debate. I can't answer specifically though because I don'treally know how well some of the others would do when facing a Democrat opponent, which is a whole other ball of wax from nomination debates.

Personally, I'd still be more influenced by Ron Paul's responses and challenges, but that's because I would likely share the views, giving them more weight. He isn't always the best and clearest public speaker though, so it would be entirely the weight of his positions, and not his tactics.

m0zart

I can't specifically point out a definitive reason, but deep down I get the impression that Obama could rattle Ron Paul in a debate, get him upset, cause him to stumble. I could be wrong, but I do get the impression Obama would best him.topsemag55

Obama is a very good public speaker. Ron Paul is not. Ron Paul can get excited sometimes and stutter. However, I have seen him for a long time and I've rarely seen him truly stumble in a debate. So I think he would at least hold his own, and he believes enough in his position to hammer it over and over again and not allow it to take second stage to theatrics.

But that's not as important to me. I am interested in the positions, not the glamour. I would never support a candidate, Democrat or Republican, based on his ability to perform in these debates.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]I can't specifically point out a definitive reason, but deep down I get the impression that Obama could rattle Ron Paul in a debate, get him upset, cause him to stumble. I could be wrong, but I do get the impression Obama would best him.m0zart

Obama is a very good public speaker. Ron Paul is not. Ron Paul can get excited sometimes and stutter. However, I have seen him for a long time and I've rarely seen him truly stumble in a debate. So I think he would at least hold his own, and he believes enough in his position to hammer it over and over again and not allow it to take second stage to theatrics.

But that's not as important to me. I am interested in the positions, not the glamour. I would never support a candidate, Democrat or Republican, based on his ability to perform in these debates.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i dont agree with him 100% but i agree with him far more than anyone else. i will be changing from independent to republican just to vote for him in the primary Vuurk

As it is mine.

[QUOTE="Vuurk"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]i dont agree with him 100% but i agree with him far more than anyone else. i will be changing from independent to republican just to vote for him in the primary Pikdum

As it is mine.

Same here actually. I wish Pennsylvania let independents vote in the primary, but it's fine.

I also agree with what surreal had to say: I'm not a 100% with him on everything, but I agree with him on many things, especially dealing with the economy and the role of the fed in monetary policy.

[QUOTE="HFkami"]

For me he seems to the best president if he would be elected,

he will end the fed which is a private corporation printing money, bringing the troops back to saving alot of money, cancelling the healthcare which is unnecessary at the time cuz america is bankrupt, mariuhana would be legal which isnt so strange ( many countries in europe have legelazid mariuhana) and it would end the drug wars were many people are dieng. And hes against abortion because he believes every person has a right to life which is why he also admited that he doesnt like the death penalty.

Also he would lower the taxes.

topsemag55

And they would be very very wrong. Ron Paul is far right.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]-I want the US to stay in the UN -I don't think airline passengers should be allowed to bring their loaded firearms onto airplanes -I think it was the right decision to cross into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden -I think it's worth our while to try to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives -I would not allow a state to nullify the 13th amendment -I would have prosecuted the Civil War to save the Union if I were president in 1861 -I believe in Evolution -I believe in basic standards of universal human rights -I am concerned when these rights are grossly violated, even in other countries All of these positions put me at odds with Ron Paul - and I am a conservative Republican. Dude's crazy.HFkami

he believes in evolution too, the rest i dunno but i think these are lies from you too except that for the UN which isnt so creazy counting the vetos america does for other countries instead for itself.

dont take everything he said into account hes for long time in politics and dont take the media serious they are the crazy ones pushing obama like a second jesus. And now they are ignoring Paul even when he makes succes.

[QUOTE="fidosim"]-I want the US to stay in the UN -I don't think airline passengers should be allowed to bring their loaded firearms onto airplanes -I think it was the right decision to cross into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden -I think it's worth our while to try to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives -I would not allow a state to nullify the 13th amendment -I would have prosecuted the Civil War to save the Union if I were president in 1861 -I believe in Evolution -I believe in basic standards of universal human rights -I am concerned when these rights are grossly violated, even in other countries All of these positions put me at odds with Ron Paul - and I am a conservative Republican. Dude's crazy.lloveLamp

Feel free not to pay taxes then

Ron Paul is amazingly talented at making bulls&*^ sound like common sense to stupid people.MetallicaKings

Or maybe the general public are so used to BS, they don't recognise sense when they see it?

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but all the US has to show for their last couple of presidents is a 14.6 trillion debt and ever diminishing liberty. You vote for a candidate vaguely promising change, and he just continues the status quo. Ron Paul is the only guy being clear and consistent about his views.

America cannot afford to simply continue the status quo, they need to take a gamble and try something new. The credit rating downgrade the US recently recieved should have sent alarm bells that the current path isn't working.

[QUOTE="MetallicaKings"]Ron Paul is amazingly talented at making bulls&*^ sound like common sense to stupid people.AnnoyedDragon

Or maybe the general public are so used to BS, they don't recognise sense when they see it?

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, but all the US has to show for their last couple of presidents is a 14.6 trillion debt and ever diminishing liberty. You vote for a candidate vaguely promising change, and he just continues the status quo. Ron Paul is the only guy being clear and consistent about his views.

America cannot afford to simply continue the status quo, they need to take a gamble and try something new. The credit rating downgrade the US recently recieved should have sent alarm bells that the current path isn't working.

Consistently crazy is still crazy. Were Ron Paul able to enact the policies he advocates as a whole, the results would be disastrous.mattbbpl

The US is already implementing policies that are leading to disaster, you are trying to loan your way out of debt; while burning through astronomical amounts of money.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Consistently crazy is still crazy. Were Ron Paul able to enact the policies he advocates as a whole, the results would be disastrous.AnnoyedDragon

The US is already implementing policies that are leading to disaster, you are trying to loan your way out of debt; while burning through astronomical amounts of money.

For me he seems to the best president if he would be elected,

he will end the fed which is a private corporation printing money, bringing the troops back to saving alot of money, cancelling the healthcare which is unnecessary at the time cuz america is bankrupt, mariuhana would be legal which isnt so strange ( many countries in europe have legelazid mariuhana) and it would end the drug wars were many people are dieng. And hes against abortion because he believes every person has a right to life which is why he also admited that he doesnt like the death penalty.

Also he would lower the taxes.

HFkami

That having been said, as much as I disagree with im, I think he is the most honest of anyone running.

Yes, we instituted deficit spending in the boom years when we should have been running a surplus. But abolishing the income tax, moving to a gold standard, and getting rid of industry regulations isn't the answer.mattbbpl

The US government doesn't see a penny of income tax, it just goes to feed the Fed for their unconstitutional loans to the US government. If you were on a gold standard, which would be government issued money, there wouldn't be a need to pay income tax; because you wouldn't be loaning currency into existence from the Fed.

A gold standard would also enforce economic discipline, as politicians couldn't simply create money to spend; stealing buying power via inflation. All spending would have to be justified, rather than a vote buying whim. It would also make the dollar the world's strongest and most stable currency again, rewarding the savings necessary for investment without debt.

In other words these policies would simply be returning America to its original state, before the currency was hijacked by private bankers; and the welfare state bankrupted the nation.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]Yes, we instituted deficit spending in the boom years when we should have been running a surplus. But abolishing the income tax, moving to a gold standard, and getting rid of industry regulations isn't the answer.AnnoyedDragon

The US government doesn't see a penny of income tax, it just goes to feed the Fed for their unconstitutional loans to the US government. If you were on a gold standard, which would be government issued money, there wouldn't be a need to pay income tax; because you wouldn't be loaning currency into existence from the Fed.

A gold standard would also enforce economic discipline, as politicians couldn't simply create money to spend; stealing buying power via inflation. All spending would have to be justified, rather than a vote buying whim. It would also make the dollar the world's strongest and most stable currency again, rewarding the savings necessary for investment without debt.

In other words these policies would simply be returning America to its original state, before the currency was hijacked by private bankers; and the welfare state bankrupted the nation.

And with the fall of mordor unicorns would prance around America once again....Please tell me you don't actually believe that

I used to be a pretty big Ron Paul guy, infact I was going to vote for him and even had a "ron paul 2012" T-shirt. That being said while I still agree with him on some things and I appreciate his honesty (he really is the most honest candidate out there) he also has zero birbes (aka lobbiests). Which no other politician can say otherwise...

The thing about him though is that there are certain issues in which he does go to an extreame on, and these simply wouldn't be realistic with the way he wants to go about things. I do think he should get more attention than he does, he has some pretty excellent ideas on some issues (like the gold standard) and I would like to see him in some sort of advisory role. Overall I think his philosophy is a pretty good one (just let you do what you want but don't bother other people) but there are certain aspects of it are unrealistic.

If he changed his stance on somethings though I would totally vote for him, but right now John Huntsman is my guy.

[QUOTE="lloveLamp"][QUOTE="fidosim"]-I want the US to stay in the UN -I don't think airline passengers should be allowed to bring their loaded firearms onto airplanes -I think it was the right decision to cross into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden -I think it's worth our while to try to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives -I would not allow a state to nullify the 13th amendment -I would have prosecuted the Civil War to save the Union if I were president in 1861 -I believe in Evolution -I believe in basic standards of universal human rights -I am concerned when these rights are grossly violated, even in other countries All of these positions put me at odds with Ron Paul - and I am a conservative Republican. Dude's crazy.UnknownSniper65

Feel free not to pay taxes then

[QUOTE="fidosim"]-I want the US to stay in the UN -I don't think airline passengers should be allowed to bring their loaded firearms onto airplanes -I think it was the right decision to cross into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden -I think it's worth our while to try to hunt down Al Qaeda operatives -I would not allow a state to nullify the 13th amendment -I would have prosecuted the Civil War to save the Union if I were president in 1861 -I believe in Evolution -I believe in basic standards of universal human rights -I am concerned when these rights are grossly violated, even in other countries All of these positions put me at odds with Ron Paul - and I am a conservative Republican. Dude's crazy.lloveLamp

The UN is full of crap, I agree. But you are dead wrong about Osama Bin Laden not being responisble for 9-11, he even admitted to plotting it. Wow, conspiracy theory much? I personally have no problem with having an armed security on board an airplane, I don't think pedestrians should be allowed to bring a gun on a plane, but there should be some armed personell on board. The US does partly encourage terrorism in some countries by setting up dictator regimes and I think we should just stop that imperilism and foreginwarsfor poltitical BS reasons andstuff, IMO we should only go to war if we are directly attacked or a counrty is doing massive human rights violations, otherwise we shouldn't get involved. But that is still no excuse for what the terrorists do, and they are going to hate us no matter what.

The income tax is theft, I agree. But some taxation is needed, otherwise we wouldn't have police, schools, fire departments ect... I don't know why people arn't aware of this. The best thing to do IMO is to get rid of the income tax and implement a 10% market sales tax on all goods besides essentials (like food, medicne ect..) this way everyone would pay there fair share and there would be no artificial tax increases, plus it would get rid of loopholes.

It is our duty as Americans to regulate the government not the other way around. We decide what and how much the government should do, and when the government wastes money we should put a stop to it. But since we don't do anything about it we only have ourselves to blame. If we did this we wouldn't have any of these problems going on...

[QUOTE="lloveLamp"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]

Feel free not to pay taxes then

UnknownSniper65

I understood you perfectly fine...you don't like paying taxes

boo hoo.

No..That was just one point he brought up, and it wasn't even his main point..

The UN is full of crap, I agree. But you are dead wrong about Osama Bin Laden not being responisble for 9-11, he even admitted to plotting it. Wow, conspiracy theory much? I personally have no problem with having an armed security on board an airplane, I don't think pedestrians should be allowed to bring a gun on a plane, but there should be some armed personell on board. The US does partly encourage terrorism in some countries by setting up dictator regimes and I think we should just stop that imperilism and foreginwarsfor poltitical BS reasons andstuff, IMO we should only go to war if we are directly attacked or a counrty is doing massive human rights violations, otherwise we shouldn't get involved. But that is still no excuse for what the terrorists do, and they are going to hate us no matter what.

The income tax is theft, I agree. But some taxation is needed, otherwise we wouldn't have police, schools, fire departments ect... I don't know why people arn't aware of this. The best thing to do IMO is to get rid of the income tax and implement a 10% market sales tax on all goods besides essentials (like food, medicne ect..) this way everyone would pay there fair share and there would be no artificial tax increases, plus it would get rid of loopholes.

It is our duty as Americans to regulate the government not the other way around. We decide what and how much the government should do, and when the government wastes money we should put a stop to it. But since we don't do anything about it we only have ourselves to blame. If we did this we wouldn't have any of these problems going on...

ShadowMoses900

A national sales tax would only end up helping the rich and put a further burden on the poor and middle class.

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

The UN is full of crap, I agree. But you are dead wrong about Osama Bin Laden not being responisble for 9-11, he even admitted to plotting it. Wow, conspiracy theory much? I personally have no problem with having an armed security on board an airplane, I don't think pedestrians should be allowed to bring a gun on a plane, but there should be some armed personell on board. The US does partly encourage terrorism in some countries by setting up dictator regimes and I think we should just stop that imperilism and foreginwarsfor poltitical BS reasons andstuff, IMO we should only go to war if we are directly attacked or a counrty is doing massive human rights violations, otherwise we shouldn't get involved. But that is still no excuse for what the terrorists do, and they are going to hate us no matter what.

The income tax is theft, I agree. But some taxation is needed, otherwise we wouldn't have police, schools, fire departments ect... I don't know why people arn't aware of this. The best thing to do IMO is to get rid of the income tax and implement a 10% market sales tax on all goods besides essentials (like food, medicne ect..) this way everyone would pay there fair share and there would be no artificial tax increases, plus it would get rid of loopholes.

It is our duty as Americans to regulate the government not the other way around. We decide what and how much the government should do, and when the government wastes money we should put a stop to it. But since we don't do anything about it we only have ourselves to blame. If we did this we wouldn't have any of these problems going on...

DroidPhysX

A national sales tax would only end up helping the rich and put a further burden on the poor and middle class.

The income tax already hurts poor and middle class americans and helps the rich. So it's obviously doing the exact thing your trying to argue against.

Rich people love the income tax because they don't pay it. They don't make a paycheck like everyone else does, they hide their money in off shore banks like Switzerland and investmant firms which you CANNOT tax. They also have personal accountants that know how to hide stuff.This is what's known as tax loop holes, andrich people exploit them like no tomorrow.

But guess what? Rich people still buy stuff andhaving a 10% sales/market tax would force them to pay their fair share just like everyone else. And people who are in poverty would be exempt from this system with some kind of voucher or something,they would be fine. In fact they would be better off, let me explain.

As I mentioned before the essentials like food and medicne ect... would be tax exempt. This would dirve the cost of these goods down in the market because the farmers who grow the food would'nt have to paythe income tax so they would'nt mark up their prices, and the stores that sell the food would do the same thing. Theywouldn'thave to raise the price of these things at all. The end result is that the food market would end up being low cost and more beneficail, plus the market would compete and drive pricesfurther down on all goods.

It's a shame thatpoor and middle income people gettrickedinto thinking the income tax benefits them.It doesn't, who are the people whokeep pushing forward for an income tax increase? Rich politicians, and you know why? Because they know they won't pay anything. Why would rich people support something that wouldn't benefit them? It doesn't make sense does it.

The income tax already hurts poor and middle class americans and helps the rich. So it's obviously doing the exactthing your trying to argue against.

Rich people love the income tax because they don't pay it. They don't make a paycheck like everyone else does, they hide their money in off shore banks like Switzerland and investmant firms which you CANNOT tax. They also have personal accountants that know how to hide stuff.This is what's known as tax loop holes, andrich people exploit them like no tomorrow.

But guess what? Rich people still buy stuff andhaving a 10% sales/market tax would force them to pay their fair share just like everyone else.And people who are in poverty would be exempt from this system with some kind of voucher or something,they would be fine. In fact they would be better off, let me explain.

As I mentioned before the essentials like food and medicne ect... would be tax exempt. This would dirve the cost of these goods down in the market because the farmers who grow the food would'nt have to paythe income tax so they would'nt mark up their prices, and the stores that sell the food would do the same thing. Theywouldn'thave to raise the price of these things at all. Theend result isthatthe food market would end up being low cost and more beneficail, plus the market would compete anddrive pricesfurther down on all goods.

It's a shame thatpoor and middle income people gettrickedinto thinking the income tax benefits them.It doesn't, who are the people whokeep pushing forward for an income tax increase? Rich politicians, and you know why? Because they know they won't pay anything. Why would rich people support something that wouldn't benefit them? It doesn't make sense does it.

ShadowMoses900

I never said the current income tax benefits them. I only pointed out that a national sales tax only hurts the poor and middle class at a greater level as they buy more goods than the rich.

The UN? They couldn't even save Somalia, Darfour Rwanda or Ethiopia. im sure theres more. And how can you as a republican conservative support globalism which is clearly what orgs like the UN are fighting for. good or bad. I'm sure Ron Paul doesn't want people to bring loaded firearms onto planes. But we wouldn't have terrorism in the US if we hadn't invaded/staged political coups and instated dictators in a ton of countries. and the federal goverment shouldnt be able to force airports to enact millions of dollars worth of unnecessary safety measures anyway. They still haven't been able to prove that Osama Bin Laden was even responsible for 9/11. Oh really? well show me the proof then. because there is none. Going into other countries with military force is what has brought a lot if not most of the world wide America hate anyway. Taxation is theft. this is the truth. if not for men in blue costumes ready to arrest me if i didn't pay taxes is the only reason i pay. this is just like organized crime. even if people have no problem paying their taxes, they are supporting the same system that is forcing other people to give up their money. which is IMMORAL. Human rights? The US goverment is the biggest it's ever been and hasn't been able to put a dent in ending human rights tragedies around the world. Just look at Somalia right now. It's time to let go of the dream that a massive goverment is going to be able to fix anything. lloveLamp

For those of you claiming that Ron Paul is the "reasonable" candidate for "reasonable" people, see above. You should be aware of what kinds of people populate the Ron Paul bandwagon before you give it your support. fidosim

I meet crazies who populate the Ron Paul bandwagon, but then I visit the more hardcore democrat and republican sites and realizes that they are in good company.

[QUOTE="lloveLamp"]The UN? They couldn't even save Somalia, Darfour Rwanda or Ethiopia. im sure theres more. And how can you as a republican conservative support globalism which is clearly what orgs like the UN are fighting for. good or bad. I'm sure Ron Paul doesn't want people to bring loaded firearms onto planes. But we wouldn't have terrorism in the US if we hadn't invaded/staged political coups and instated dictators in a ton of countries. and the federal goverment shouldnt be able to force airports to enact millions of dollars worth of unnecessary safety measures anyway. They still haven't been able to prove that Osama Bin Laden was even responsible for 9/11. Oh really? well show me the proof then. because there is none. Going into other countries with military force is what has brought a lot if not most of the world wide America hate anyway. Taxation is theft. this is the truth. if not for men in blue costumes ready to arrest me if i didn't pay taxes is the only reason i pay. this is just like organized crime. even if people have no problem paying their taxes, they are supporting the same system that is forcing other people to give up their money. which is IMMORAL. Human rights? The US goverment is the biggest it's ever been and hasn't been able to put a dent in ending human rights tragedies around the world. Just look at Somalia right now. It's time to let go of the dream that a massive goverment is going to be able to fix anything. fidosim

[QUOTE="lloveLamp"]The UN? They couldn't even save Somalia, Darfour Rwanda or Ethiopia. im sure theres more. And how can you as a republican conservative support globalism which is clearly what orgs like the UN are fighting for. good or bad. I'm sure Ron Paul doesn't want people to bring loaded firearms onto planes. But we wouldn't have terrorism in the US if we hadn't invaded/staged political coups and instated dictators in a ton of countries. and the federal goverment shouldnt be able to force airports to enact millions of dollars worth of unnecessary safety measures anyway. They still haven't been able to prove that Osama Bin Laden was even responsible for 9/11. Oh really? well show me the proof then. because there is none. Going into other countries with military force is what has brought a lot if not most of the world wide America hate anyway. Taxation is theft. this is the truth. if not for men in blue costumes ready to arrest me if i didn't pay taxes is the only reason i pay. this is just like organized crime. even if people have no problem paying their taxes, they are supporting the same system that is forcing other people to give up their money. which is IMMORAL. Human rights? The US goverment is the biggest it's ever been and hasn't been able to put a dent in ending human rights tragedies around the world. Just look at Somalia right now. It's time to let go of the dream that a massive goverment is going to be able to fix anything. fidosim

I personally am pretty dissapointed with the overall Republican line up. I would like John Huntsman to be the nominee but he doesn't get much media attention so most people arn't that aware of him. I was under the impression that Romney was the forunner for the GOP nominee, but apparently Perry is the hot shot right now. Which is a shame...

I think Romeny is so-so but he flip flops around a little too much for my tastes so I have no idea where he really stands on issues. Perry I hope never gets the nominee, look I believe in God too but this guy is goes too far about it. He isn't so much of a believer in God as he a beleiver in legalism, I see God as being a spirtual bond. I also hope Palin and Bachman drop out for aswell for that matter, I swear if Perry, Palin, or Bachman wins the GOP nominee I will vote for a 3rd party this election.