• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Ron Paul, alas, is the Only choice.

Redress said:
Paul is the only choice...if you hate America,
Paul is the only choice...if you want to repeal the 20th and 19th century.
Paul is the only choice...except for all the other choices.
Click to expand...

All those arguments are bunk.

He doesn't hate America.
He wouldn't repeal the entire 20th and 19th century
And if you don't want more of the same he is the only choice.
 
Ikari said:
You do hit on one of the main points, many of his ideals are dramatic and much of what would be required for Congress to pass would be a hard battle. He will try for it, he said he would and unlike the rest of the GOP contenders, that means he's going to do it if given the opportunity. How much will he accomplish? Not as much as he wants, there will need to be compromise. Now does it mean that it will be more of the same? No I don't. I think that he has the ability to directly affect a lot and he would take those steps. I don't think that with Ron Paul, for instance, we'd see the continuation of our foreign wars. He may want to end the Fed and go the gold standard; but that won't happen. But what it could do is stir actual talk and debate about it and get people perhaps interested in what the Fed is doing. It could result in new regulations for the Fed and better oversight; which would be a good thing.

In the end, Dr. Paul does take an extreme stance on a lot of what he wants to do. But this is a democratic Republic, not some monarchy. So even if Paul wants to take these huge steps, he must be tempered with compromise. It won't be more of the same, but it will be a step in the right direction. A direction we haven't taken for quite some time.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see to what extent a President Paul would accept compromise. Certainly he has made his reputation on a complete unwillingness to compromise. I suspect we would see all time records for vetoes and veto overrides.
 
Ikari said:
They're already spying, we are already at war, and we're already bankrupt. If that's what they are saying, then they need to get with the times.
Click to expand...

The US is not spying on me, nor will they ever.

We are at war in one place, not with every one.

We are not bankrupt.
 
AdamT said:
It would be interesting to see to what extent a President Paul would accept compromise. Certainly he has made his reputation on a complete unwillingness to compromise. I suspect we would see all time records for vetoes and veto overrides.
Click to expand...

Actually he has comprised plenty of times.
 
They are spying on people right now. Here is two easy ways that are right off the top of my head

Cameras on streets, listening to phone calls.

There that was easy and there is plenty of other ways as well.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
They are spying on people right now. Here is two easy ways that are right off the top of my head

Cameras on streets, listening to phone calls.

There that was easy and there is plenty of other ways as well.
Click to expand...

with warrants. listening to phone calls with a warrant, is not spying.
 
Thunder said:
with warrants. listening to phone calls with a warrant, is not spying.
Click to expand...

They don't use or need a warrant in all cases according to the laws that are on the books.

Even with the warrant they are spying on people. I can't see how a warrant changes the facts of what they are doing.
 
Last edited:
Will Ron Paul crackdown on the terrorist nut jobs in Iran?
 
Henrin said:
They don't use or need a warrant in all cases according to the laws that are on the books.

Even with the warrant they are spying on people.
Click to expand...

no, they need a warrant anytime they conduct espionage operations in the USA.

and yes, they can get a retro-active warrant.
 
Thunder said:
no, they need a warrant anytime they conduct espionage operations in the USA.
Click to expand...

Not according to how they have used the Patriot Act or what it says.
 
AdamT said:
We don't need dramatic spending cuts. We need significant spending cuts and significant tax hikes. Trying to tackle the debt problem through spending cuts alone is idiotic.
Click to expand...

We need significantly more employed persons. The only way to safely creat new tax revenue, is to spur job creation, everywhere we can.

Why are there so many people that don't get that?
 
apdst said:
We need significantly more employed persons. The only way to safely creat new tax revenue, is to spur job creation, everywhere we can.

Why are there so many people that don't get that?
Click to expand...

because its simply incorrect. :)
 
Thunder said:
because its simply incorrect. :)
Click to expand...

It's not incorrect. What if raising taxes kills jobs? What's been accomplished?

And, there's no way you can say that it won't happen.
 
We need to layoff government workers so we will have higher employment.
 
Thunder said:
raising taxes has NEVER killed jobs.
Click to expand...

What if you're wrong? Then what?

More jobs will not hurt the economy. There's no way it can happen. Why not do what's good for the country?
 
Thunder said:
Clinton raised taxes. Nothing bad happened to our economy or jobs.
Click to expand...

So because taxes were raised once and it didn't kill jobs that means it is a universal rule? Let's of course not forget that there are more factors that effect the economy than just taxes and at that time we were going through the internet boom.
 
Thunder said:
Clinton raised taxes. Nothing bad happened to our economy or jobs.
Click to expand...

That was then. This is now.

Again, what if you're wrong?

It almost seems that you're arguing that more taxes and fewer jobs will improve the economy and create more revenue.
 
apdst said:
That was then. This is now.

Again, what if you're wrong?....
Click to expand...


and what if I'm right?

rich people don't spend more money because their taxes go down...and they don't spend less money because their taxes go up.

returning our tax-rates to Clinton-levels will not effect investment by the wealthy one single bit.
 
conservativeguy said:
Taking more money away from successful people to spend on the beggar class and fund the runaway bloated federal government is idiotic unless your only objective is to make the class envious tools feel better about their miserable stations in life......which is also an idiotic objective.

While not a fan of Ron Paul, I would crawl through broken glass covered in acid to vote for him over BO.
Click to expand...

Calling the middle class the "beggar class" is the attitude that will get the Dems back in power forever so keep it up. The GOP is a dead party with no ideas that will work anyway.
America was built by your " beggar class" and we wil not give it up to a bunch of greedy swindlers or an archaic old man
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom