Forum Post: When will OWS support ron paul no one is left that support the people obama is about to sign in NDAA
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 15, 2011, 12:21 a.m. EST by newjustice22
(49)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
He is the only one running that wants to stop all of the gop neo con wars they want this bill. He is the only one warning about it. And obama is a trader, forget left or right. Its time to vote for the right people. who cares what letter is by their name. Lets look at deeds The shit is to crazy to be fucking around sorry but its true.
ron paul talking about ndaa http://youtu.be/Z6pnSHyOG-Y
Ron Pawl is great
he wants to overturn Rove v Wade
if you neigbor wants to go fracking on his land and your tap water starts to burn, move
if you dont want to serve a __ man at your lunch counter - THATS YOUR BUSINESS
NDAA has pass BOTH houses....what a joke...those politicians who agreed to it should have their names release now...
But now its to Obama to sign it anytime now..
Lets see how OWS people will react......storm the white house.
you can go online and find their names
The right to arrest and hold an American citizen is already approved by the supreme court. I dont like putting it in a law - but what does this actually CHANGE?
You get no trail so I can just arrest you for no reason and throw away the key no judge no jury
sorry - I still dont understand how this law is different than the pre vious supreme court decision that is already the law of the land. I also dont understand how any "law" can override the constiitution The activist s.c. can and does. Thats the best reason to elect democrats. Or do you want another scalis-thomas-roberts ?
It actually does override the constitution and the reason many aren't taking notice is media blackout and many who do know say it's for safety.
Even though we face no real terrorist threats.
So if I get a law passed that said I had the right to order American troops in to country X, that would be a legal - unconstitutional law?!?!?!?
It can't override the constitution you will have to go to the supreme court but this law is different bc you get no trail you do know what that means right.
I would be open to a public audit of the Fed, and if it shows significant dishonesty and irresponsibility I would be open to nationalizing it and handing its functions over to the US Treasury Department. As far as tariffs on imports go, that's the only way I can think of to begin the process of bringing jobs back to America and raising the wage of the average worker. If he's not going to work to address one of the major causes of long-term unemployment and wage losses then I fail to see how it's a good idea to vote for him.
I'd also like to see a great deal more clarification from Mr. Paul on which sets of regulations he considers outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the government and which ones he considers vital reforms that need to stay in place. Honestly, given his rhetoric on the matter I don't know what to believe and I don't want to believe he's one thing only to find out the hard way that he's another. I want the Patriot Act gone and the TSA dismantled, and I think he and I can agree on that. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley vote is a good sign but until I can square that with his rhetoric and get an actual platform from the man I'm not going to consider voting for him.
His comments on the EPA scare the shit out of me; Essentially most of eastern North Carolina stinks to high heaven because of hundreds of millions of gallons of pig crap from factory farms is being let to marinate in open-air lagoons and/or sprayed into the air as an aerosol. It's actually gotten to the point of ruining something like nine or ten waterways and causing China-esque air quality problems. What really takes the cake, though, is the leaky nuclear waste dump in Andrews County, Texas that happens to be sitting on the aquifer that provides drinking water to seven different states. This is the kind of crap the EPA belongs fighting, and eliminating the one agency that wants to clean up the environment is an enormous step in the wrong direction.
On top of that his talk of flat taxes and imposition of the gold standard makes me profoundly uncomfortable. A flat tax is by its very nature a regressive tax, and in order to bring in the same revenue as the current system it would have to take the difference out of the hides of the people who can afford it the least. He also wants to tax capital gains (essentially money created without any actual work being done to earn it) at a lower rate than regular income, which is just plain incentivization of laziness on the top end. As far as the gold standard is concerned, the first thing you learn in economics 101 is that credit needs to be relaxed rather than tightened to deal with a recession, and moving to a gold standard would pretty much strangle credit at the time when that would hurt us the most. Once again, bad policy.
Besides, the man's apparently a young-earth creationist. That pretty much tears it for me. I don't care what else he is, if he deliberately shuts his eyes to basic science (whether it's to pander to the religious right or, even worse, if that's an accurate reflection of where he stands) there's no way in hell I'm going to trust him with the country. If the man decides that continually verified truth doesn't matter because it conflicts with his beliefs then on some level something has gone very wrong.
Bringing the troops home is fine and dandy, but we're already well on our way to doing that; there's a very good chance that pretty much all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011, and we're going to have all of our combat people out of Afghanistan by sometime in 2014.
So far, I see a man who's gotten one, maybe two things right (his no votes on Gramm-Leach-Bliley and S.1867, and his desire to put the Fed under a microscope). However, those two things are pretty small when you consider the number of things he seems to be promising to get wrong as president.
Given all that, why do you still push us to vote for him? Do you disagree with the facts below, and if so where do you claim I've gone wrong? Do you want to see a chunk taken out of the Pentagon's budget so badly you're willing to do it at such a high cost to the rest of the country? Or do you believe that we should support him because neither establishment Democrats nor establishment Republicans can stand him and you want to make those two groups squirm no matter what happens to you or the people?
"As far as tariffs on imports go, that's the only way I can think of to begin the process of bringing jobs back to America and raising the wage of the average worker. If he's not going to work to address one of the major causes of long-term unemployment and wage losses then I fail to see how it's a good idea to vote for him."
Tariffs are actually Constitutional, and a proper way for the federal government to raise revenue. He could not unilaterally impose them, however. You'd have to get some support from Congress for that.
As far as unemployment/wage losses, he regularly cites the Fed as the primary agent of what he calls, "the business cycle" -- booms and busts caused by credit bubbles, bailouts, distortions caused by attempts at social engeneering through the tax code, and deficit spending.
"I'd also like to see a great deal more clarification from Mr. Paul on which sets of regulations he considers outside the constitutional jurisdiction of the government and which ones he considers vital reforms that need to stay in place. Honestly, given his rhetoric on the matter I don't know what to believe and I don't want to believe he's one thing only to find out the hard way that he's another."
Well, his standard is the Constitution. If the authority is there to regulate something, then it is OK. Otherwise, the 9th and 10th amendments make it abundantly clear that the States need to pick up the ball and decide their regulatory role within their own state.
He has also said, however, that there are instances, like with regards to rivers that cross state lines, or air pollution that does the same, that it is the responsibility of the federal government to step in if there is a dispute between/among states.
"On top of that his talk of flat taxes and imposition of the gold standard makes me profoundly uncomfortable. A flat tax is by its very nature a regressive tax, and in order to bring in the same revenue as the current system it would have to take the difference out of the hides of the people who can afford it the least. He also wants to tax capital gains (essentially money created without any actual work being done to earn it) at a lower rate than regular income, which is just plain incentivization of laziness on the top end. As far as the gold standard is concerned, the first thing you learn in economics 101 is that credit needs to be relaxed rather than tightened to deal with a recession, and moving to a gold standard would pretty much strangle credit at the time when that would hurt us the most. Once again, bad policy."
On the gold standard, he has refined his views over the years. What he talks about more often now is "sound money" and "competing currencies." His hope is that if we simply legalize the use of gold/silver or anything else, that competition would serve to drive out the infinitely inflatable fiat we borrow from bankers at interest to use today.
On taxes, he's fairly cautious, because his goal is to drastically reduce the role and cost of the federal government back to within its constitutional limits, and to pay off the national debt. But he is well aware that we have a more-or-less permanent dependent class, as well as many elderly and disabled that we have promised to take care of, and he is not willing to leave those folks in the lurch just to be able to give tax breaks. Although he's never voted to raise taxes, he is well aware that with 15 trillion in debt, we are going to need revenue to pay that down.
Flat taxes aren't always regressive. It depends on how you structure them. I have not heard him talk about flat taxes, but he is deadly against the compulsory financial reporting and social and economic engineering represented by the current IRS tax code.
"Bringing the troops home is fine and dandy, but we're already well on our way to doing that; there's a very good chance that pretty much all troops will be out of Iraq by the end of December 2011, and we're going to have all of our combat people out of Afghanistan by sometime in 2014."
I doubt that "we're well on our way" towards a non-interventionist foreign policy. Seems like for every underpaid soldier we pull out, we replace with an over-paid contractor. And leaving permanent bases after the first gulf war is part of what stirred up so much angst against us to begin with.
That was a pretty long post, and my answers weren't entirely short, either, but I hope I cleared some things up a bit.
There is no other candidate that has been talking about corporatism, undue influence of money/lobbyists, the inefficacy of our regulatory commissions due to regulatory capture, and the worst tax of all, expansion of the money supply. He called the 2007 housing crisis in 2002, and has been a stalwart supporter of civil liberties, one of the most vocal critics of the patriot act and related police state policies including the war on drugs, has always been against torture, and has stood up for religious liberty when no one else would. He also is the one candidate that I have noticed actually understands why healthcare and education costs have skyrocketed, but I'll leave that discussion for some other time.
OK; I don't completely agree with you but you're one of the first Paul supporters to give me an honest, well-thought-out answer. Thank you. I need to go to bed, but I'll probably post more in the morning.
Have you ever spoken to him about his views of the people simply detaching from DC's government and leave them to their own devices as well as poor choices? Our nation's capital was originally in Philadelphia, fwiw.
OK: The man you're describing above is someone who is fundamentally different from the Ron PauI that's been promising to strip out the EPA, who has a burning and somewhat irrational hatred of government and taxes, who wants to pretty much dispose of Social Security and Medicare, who panders to the worst of the anti-intellectualism and biblical literalism coming from the evangelical crowd, and who says unnecessary, inflammatory, and corrosive things like this when you put him in front of an audience: http://occupywallst.org/forum/ron-pauls-texas-straight-talk-christmas-edition/
My question to you is this: which of these two men is the real Ron PauI? They're different enough that they can't be one person; this is not a case of one man with one platform and two different marketing agendas. This is actually a case of two platforms being put forth by the same man to appeal to different voter demographics. This means one of two things; either one group has decided on what Paul "should be" to catch their eye and has twisted his statements until those statements reflect their beliefs, or Paul is only being honest with one voter group and is intentionally selling a line of hooey to buy votes from the other.
Honestly, both of those possibilities make me quite leery of the man. Here's why: If one side is seeing the Ron PauI they want to see and the other is being honest, then I figure that it's most likely the moderates who are seeing the man they want to see. Why? Because there are a lot of people out there who are really pissed off that neither party's candidate has been able to fix things so far, and wants someone who is fundamentally from outside the system: a "Mr. Deeds" if you will, to come in and clean things up. It's the reason that people like Lyndon LaRouche and David Icke and Alex Jones and at one point even David Duke (all of whom most people wouldn't even give the time of day before the crash, in many cases with good reason) have started to develop actual supporters who are in many cases moderate, rational people. How do they do this? They pick the statements that they agree with that make sense and tout them as the specific high-priority planks of their man's platform, and then when the person says crazy things those statements are either qualified or hypercontextualized by people who really, really want to be able to support him but can't agree with the crazy things he says.
The other possibility is that Paul is in fact running on two different platforms pitched at two different voting demographics (he's running as a fed-up moderate in the national race and as a conservative nutjob in the Republican race) and that is disturbing for its own reasons. The one thing that has made Ron PauI attractive right now is the belief that he is consistent; that is that President Paul would fight tirelessly for everything candidate Paul says. If we haven't even had the primaries yet and there are already systemic, intentional discrepancies within his promises, let alone between promises and policy, then Ron PauI the uncompromising truth-teller is gone and his replacement has no more integrity than any other politician. At that point we're stuck voting once more for the guy who talks the best game, and the whole thing has been for nothing.
Here's what I consider to be the relevant quote from that article:
"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.
The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
Think of his audience in his "Straight Talk" series. It is and has always been part of his remaining connected with his congressional constituency. And, as usual, he's being a teacher. Remember, the Republican party is infested with undue intolerance of other religions, lifestyles, etc. Being ecumenical in his examples to teach, he uses this opportunity to teach tolerance, both to those who may wish government to overstep its bounds with regards to religion, either for or against. Sure, this is meat for the Christians who rightly believe their religion is being attacked by their government. But look how he turns it right back around on those same folks who may ALSO wish their government to intervene with regards to religion: http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-08-20/ron-paul-sunshine-patriots-stop-your-demagogy-about-the-nyc-mosque
His principle is the same. The 1st amendment is not for messing around with, whether it be to impose or discriminate against religion. It seems like he's on two sides of the issue, when in reality he is sticking by his principles, which are firmly grounded in the belief that religion is simply none of the business of the government. Period.
The key to Ron.Paul is the Constitution. He believes that not only does it require tolerance, but restraint, whether your religion be athiesm or some other fairy tale.
And to that end, a huge problem is so few are actually educated on the subject of both Constitutions, or even how either came into being. Both were bankruptcy pacts of which carried quite a bit of implied consent. The later version covering the still unpaid Civil War debt was slipped in with at least one very serious flaw, allowing attorneys and such to hold office.
Up until that point, legislation was written by regular people in plain English and very few bills or laws came even close in onerous tedium legalese, and pork for days, that a small bill these days does, and as the rule.
Christianity is not being attacked by the government, it is merely no longer being publicly endorsed. There is no reason that we should consider ourselves obligated to maintain a Christian state, and Christianity should no more be used to define the laws and customs of this country than Judaism or Islam should be. Where there are common general principles that people of every faith and no faith at all can agree are important to maintaining a functional society, then those things should be written into our legal code no matter how many or how few holy texts they come out of.
As far as the churches are concerned, the answer is no, plain and simple. Religious institutions have a place acting as a central point for community gatherings, collective action, and the creation of strong, bonding social capital, but that is their only legitimate function and any secular nonprofit institution capable of serving that function deserves the same treatment as a religious institution.
Incidentally, this has nothing to do with complaining about the fact that Christmas has turned into a month-long festival, or with private citizens (including off-duty government officials) sharing whatever beliefs they choose with each other: I would not attempt to suppress or curtail either of those things and I use "Merry Christmas" as freely as the rest of us do. My point is that religion has no place in the government, be it Christianity or whatever else.
As to the argument that it's just Christianity so it doesn't matter, I ask you just how specific we should get. We've already had a number of statements by large chunks of the Republican electoral field that they believe in effectively resetting this nation's legal code to be in line with their interpretation of biblical law, complete with overriding states' rights in the name of said interpretation. What these people are effectively arguing for is a Christian version of Iran, and I'd rather live in a libertarian dystopia than to see such a thing come to pass. Hell, I know Christians of all stripes and denominations that see this rhetoric as needlessly belligerent and morally repugnant.
We seemed to have talked past each other on this last exchange. I don't disagree with much of what you wrote above. I don't think the Dr. does, either.
You said: "My point is that religion has no place in the government, be it Christianity or whatever else."
I said: ". . .in reality he is sticking by his principles, which are firmly grounded in the belief that religion is simply none of the business of the government. Period."
The difference seems to be, you said: "Where there are common general principles that people of every faith and no faith at all can agree are important to maintaining a functional society, then those things should be written into our legal code no matter how many or how few holy texts they come out of."
And I read the 1st Amendment that says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. I'm against censorship, and for a free press.
And as for your last paragraph. My previous comment offered another example of Ron.Paul's stance on religious liberty, and I don't think what you wrote applies. I agree that sometimes people go too far. Happens all over the political spectrum once we avail ourselves of the Bill of Rights. NDAA anyone?
I just heard Christopher Hitchens died Thursday. With regards to what damage religion can do, especially in the political arena, I think he was an extremely important voice in this arena.
My apologies; I'd been going through one of the articles on the Internet that pretty much stated that the entire Republican field of 2012 was attempting to push for a return to biblical law even at the expense of judicial witch hunts and overrides of states' rights and I got angry enough I missed one of the lines in there that stated that Ron PauI seemed to be steering clear of the worst of that behavior. He's still a lot better than the alternatives in the GOP primary as far as this is concerned, and I must admit I'm pleasantly surprised by that. I still have serious concerns about Mr. Paul's candidacy, but that was one of the most severe ones and it seems to be at least partially unfounded.
I appreciate that, ARod. Thanks for the discussion, especially. I think it's been worth it.
he is a goddamned repelican
he wants to abolish fema
this isn't the forum for political advertising for a single candidate
but since you insist - I'm voting for the President.
If you do not like the slate of candidates, I will gladly accept your support and your vote.
and you can get your bumper sticker in the foyer
He has a fema district people in his district ask him to get rid of fema because believe it or not fema cause more trouble than they solve.
as soon as he stop saying government is bad and the free market is good
Big government is bad free market is you and me I think you should understand we are not in a free market. Thats why everything is bad they just call it free market but if you look up free market its clear we are not practicing it.
because they did that at the turn of the last century they tried it and people were dying at factories and products were killing people and shit was even more inequitable than it is now monopolies and unfair labor practices no social safety net no regulations yeah you prob would like to go back to that weirdo sociopath
You would still have those protections their is such a thing a to much regulations. For example do you know that all the new regulations are made by big business to crush their competition. For example GE has coal power plants obama made new regulations that crush that industry guess what. Because GE gives money to obama they have a waiver on the new regulations. Thats why you see record profits for GE now they are getting most of the business thats just one example.
I'm not gonna raul on the LawLn with you
Even murderers stop at red lights. Geez, overall, RP is HORRIFIC, so what if he got it right once.
RP didnt even bother to vote and is just as much a POS as any of them!
He can't when he is running for president its the rules
Thats why his son rand pual try to make a bill to stop it.
OH! I am corrected, thank you! That makes TOTAL sense, as he loves to be ambiguous.
I am President of the I Hate Ron Lawl society.
I will not vote for Ron Paul. My family will not vote for Ron Paul. My friends will not vote for Ron Paul. You guys have been all over the net for the past several years and the reaction is he is now the most hated individual.
You guys will look back at this time period and realize how badly you screwed up. Oh well.
But you vote for the guy who is killing innocent kids in the ME?
As opposed to the number of clowns that desperately want to Iran on the Republican side. I have heard your shpeil before. I have heard you "write someone in" shpiel and I have heard the don't vote shpiel. Libertarianism (real and imaginary) is not the way out. We are not going to return to a feudal society.
Who said anything about libertarianism? Who said dont vote? Write in Elizibeth Warren if you must vote for a Democrat.
Otherwise, you are part of the problem.
Notice how you couldnt deny that Obama is killing massive amounts of innocent people around the globe?
Actually, what I have discovered over time, is that you are a part of the problem. Not the solution. I don't give a shit if you worked on the Obama campaign or not.
The way that the system is set up right now, write-ins are a wasted vote. Especially when considering that many states do not go with a popular vote.
I am not happy with US foreign policy which has not changed for a good 80 years. However,I don't see you on the forum screaming at the top of your lungs about how Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon program. I merely hear your rhetoric on Obama is killing kids.
We have discussed this before. I am a registered independent in an area where Independent=Republican or Tea Party. Now, there are services that need to get to certain populations of people. Yep, those ones that you ignore. The ones in this country. Notice how you couldn't address the massive amounts of innocent people here?
I dont put impoverished lives ahead of senseless killing, sorry.
And it is not a vote that will be cast for a winning party, because all the sheep are too scared to do anything different.
Maybe you should write a letter to the ME and tell that- Im sorry about the death of your mother/father/children, but we need certain social services over here.
You really don't even have any point to your comment as to why you will not vote for Ron Lawl. How would voting for a man who has been consistant in what votes for and talks about for 30 years. Obviously this is your opinion but please explain as to why? Are you pro-war and anti-freedom if so Obama is you man and you must love the NDAA
See my dialogue with FreedomIsFree below to see why I'm not voting for him.
You mean consistently bad, voting record?
This doesn't include earmarks in bills he voted against, that he knew his fellow republicans would pass.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
Mr. P is a bigger sham than most career politicians.
Hah seems like good stuff to me. But then again I don't support Fascism.
That stuff IS fascism.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Libertarianism (real or imaginary).
Hah I don't beat my wife are you serious. LOL I didn't ask if you aborted any baby's lately. Don't be closed minded and ignorant. Seriously you're very narrow minded.