quote:

He's definitely against our illegal, privately owned Federal Reserve and it's collection service.

Again he knows what is up with the Federal Reserve. My hope is that he can stay clear of the shadow government because the last one which tried (Kennedy) well you know...

I think he would too radically change the structure of this country and the operations of the government. As much as this might be a good thing, it might mean that established programs and government institutions would be gone and or completely changed. I mean Medicare and Medicaid he does not like, nor any type of Universal Coverage, but the employer-health care based systems that are prevalent in this country already (along with the more universal medicare and medicaid) are poor and don't seem to always work (cause not all employers have health care, or cover everything).

I'm still confused as to what he would do as far as health care. Would he lower taxes on everyone, not just those making $200,000 a year? Does he support the middle class and the poor and those unable to afford health care? I heard he doesn't accept Medicaid as a Doctor.is that fair?

What about poverty? he is against all of the "Wars" including the "War on Poverty" but what would he believe should be done about poverty? Not interfere and just let people try to get out of poverty themselves, even if there are factors out of their control? (i.e. inability to find a job due to economic circumstances like what is happening in Michigan where I live). What would he do to create jobs? Tax cuts? Can the "Free-Market" really control and effect things as much as he claims it does or can?

If he makes all of these changes as he wants to..what would happen if the next president after him (it's not like he's going to be in there forever) wants to restore the things he abolished? That would be quite difficult, esp if it's a complete reforming of our tax system and how our government runs. Ultimately..he's a libertarian, not just a conservative. There's been conservative presidents before, but I wouldn't say they changed most of the functioning of our government..ie make it more libertarian....as much as they were for smaller government (ie. Reagan) they didn't make such radical changes as abolishing government programs and agencies.

Last edited by Spirit5 on Jun-26-2007 at 03:02

He's said several times that he would not introduce drastic changes, and that there should be a period of change

There's a number of things I really like about Paul. However, votes like these do not do him any favors:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll512.xml

The bill was H.R. 923, the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, and it passed the House with a 422-2 measure. The two dissenters?

Lynn Westmoreland from Georgia, and everyone's favorite boy here, Ron Paul.

The bill will re-open hate crime cases during the Civil Rights Era, and will focus on investigating and prosecuting murder cases occurring prior to 1970. I'm sure Paul has his rationale as to why he would be only one of two Congressmen to not support the measure out of 424, but again I don't think it helps his image much.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

"unsolved civil rights crime" act?

lol

Why don't we just call this an "unsolved crime"?...and why exactly should the house + senate + president have any role investigating it?

Leave it to the proper authorities. Maybe assign a few extra FBI agents to reexamine the evidence, but don't create a new (unconstitutional) bureaucracy.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Constitutional Republic... we democratically elect our representatives.

You're back!!! Where the $%^* have you been?!

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail He's said several times that he would not introduce drastic changes, and that there should be a period of change

That would imply that he would want to either stay in office, or have someone else from the Libertarian party run as a Republican. A period of change is fine, and changes do need to take place in this country, but would these changes really make things better? Especially with a reliance on the free-market and with privatization/localization? What if all of these changes are made and things become worse? Tax-cuts and a reliance on the free-market can backfire, just as too much reliance on government as well. As someone else noted, the best form of government would be a combination of socialism and libertarianism, but would Ron Paul do this or just go all libertarian/small government? Would he introduce health care that really works for everyone? Maybe I just don't know enough..he's only said a few things on interviews and in speeches on health care and he's a doctor. I still can't believe he doesn't accept Medicaid (if that is indeed true).

With the way the power is distributed between legislative and executive branches, Paul won't be able to implement all of his plans at all. So if you fear that he will change the face of government so radically, just remember that Congress will balance things out.

quote:

Originally posted by Sunsnail With the way the power is distributed between legislative and executive branches, Paul won't be able to implement all of his plans at all. So if you fear that he will change the face of government so radically, just remember that Congress will balance things out.

Yeah hopefully Congress can and will if a man like him were to be elected (which I highly doubt). I mean our government, as I've said, needs to change, but the direction he would take it...who knows if it would be any more effective than the government now. Certain government organizations don't need to be eliminated (as he's said he wishes he would do, how much of them is another story) but reformed.

I love the guy and think he is a bold, honest candidate in a sea of shit, but honestly you think he's going to get elected?

___________________
Lost Souls

I sure as hell am going to try to get him elected. I've already converted about 6 people to his cause. If all Ron Paul supporters did that, he would definitely have a shot.

Whatever you do don't vote for Fred Dalton Thompson if he indeed does run. He's a lazy son of a gun.