indy500fan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I just have a question for you, Ron Paul supporters. If he's planning/wants to abolish income tax, where is he going to take all the money the state needs from? (for example, for the humongous military) Sales taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 The income tax didn't even make it's first appearance until the Civil War. It was ruled unconstitutional in the 1890's by the Supreme Court. It was brought back in WWI under the guise that it would only be for the super rich and of course once the government established it they just kept expanding it until everyone was nailed by it. The US got along fine without the income tax for 150 years. PS. Tariffs is another way the government would raise money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 PS. Tariffs is another way the government would raise money. Keep them low though, don't want another Haley-Smoot type tariff which is arguably the biggest cause for the Great Depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Agreed. In my microeconomics class our professor talked a lot about the different tariffs throughout history and the impact they had in starting wars. It really caught me off guard how many conflicts could be tied to large tariffs when I started looking into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 It's quite hard to believe Ron Paul is actually a republican, with the positive & humanistic values he advocates. I don't like any political party, but I'd register rep. just to vote for a candidate like him. :) I know, right? I almost feel that if he was running as a Democrat, he would be way ahead of everyone in the party. But alas, he's a Republican and will not run Independent, which come to think of it, may actually be a showing of how honest he actually is. He's not even willing to distance himself from a party that WILL lose with any other candidate. A party that supports Bush and the war. If he got the nomination, I *WOULD* vote for him. 100 times if I could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Hmm...How does Ron Paul intend to get rid of our dependence on China's goods, then? I still think tax raising will benefit more than lowering taxes. That doesn't necessarily guarantee that the economy will be improved. Anyone who advocates raising taxes on the population as a whole is a [bleep]. Income tax is 33%. That is absolutely unacceptable if you ask me. We work 4 months out of the year just to pay for taxes, lol. It is our labor, we should own it - not the government. ...Or at the very least, give us a choice. If we're anti-war, we should be only paying 22%, subtracts the 30% of all taxes that goes straight to war. Everyone should have to pay for road services and stuff if they're using it, but I hate that I have to pay for a war that I do not support, and then LATER, after I'm DONE paying for it...I won't reap any SS benefits because the war drained them all! YAY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 PS: The separation of Church and State does not exist. It was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, but it's not in the Constitution. Actually, the Constitution only forbids Congress from implementing a national church, states actually can, but it would obviously be ill-advised. Look up the Establishment Clause and First Amendment. Hang on, are you trying to say Church-State seperation is a myth? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Go look in the Constitution Assassin. You will notice it's not there. All the Constitution said is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ" The United States Supreme Court has referenced the separation of church and state metaphor more than 25 times, first in 1878. In Reynolds, the Court denied the free exercise claims of Mormons in the Utah territory who claimed polygamy was an aspect of their religious freedom. The Court used the phrase again by Justice Hugo Black in 1947 in Everson. The term was used and defended heavily by the Court until the early 1970s. In Wallace v. Jaffree, Justice Rehnquist presented the view that the establishment clause was intended to protect local establishments of religion from federal interference-- a view which diminished the strong separation views of the Court. Justice Scalia has criticized the metaphor as a bulldozer removing religion from American public life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Go look in the Constitution Assassin. You will notice it's not there. All the Constitution said is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereofÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ" Bingo, it's there. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 [X] Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. [ ] Ron has never voted to raise taxes. [ ] Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget. [ ] Ron has never voted for the Iraq War. [ ] Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership. [X] Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch. [ ] Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay. [ ] Ron has never taken a government-paid junket. [ ] Ron wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the IRS, the Department of Education, Energy, and Homeland Security. [ ] Ron voted against the Patriot Act. [X] Ron votes against regulating the Internet. [ ] Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA. [ ] Ron votes against the United Nations. [ ] Ron votes against the welfare state. [X] Ron votes against reinstating a military draft. [X] Ron votes to preserve the constitution. [ ] Ron votes to cut government spending. [ ] Ron votes to lower healthcare costs. [ ] Ron votes to end the war on drugs. [X] Ron votes to protect civil liberties. [ ] Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform. [ ] Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade. [ ] Ron votes to protect religious freedom. What I don;t like about him. But hey, what does it matter? Not like I'll vote anyways... Yuck. You really are a weirdo commie, aren't you? I don't know anything about you, but I'd seriously recommend looking into what would happen if the constitution was NOT upheld, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yeah I was wondering about that myself. Why would anyone dislike that the Constitution was upheld? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I just have a question for you, Ron Paul supporters. If he's planning/wants to abolish income tax, where is he going to take all the money the state needs from? (for example, for the humongous military) Sales taxes. Pretty much. Ron Paul isn't even for the Fair Tax. He's for a flat tax of 0%, AKA no tax on income. The Fair Tax isn't a bad idea either, though. It's more...Well, fair. All the stupid yuppies buying 10 million dollar houses would actually get taxed fairly instead of the same as your everyday guy. More in-depth, Ron Paul is anti-world-policing, AKA our military would be brought home largely and it would down-size costs, so we wouldn't have to worry as much about "where the money would come from", 'cause we wouldn't be spending as much. He's anti-helping Israel, etc etc. We send Israel $10,000 per person ($3 billion) every year. Ridiculous. Those people can fight their own battles now, they don't need us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Yeah I was wondering about that myself. Why would anyone dislike that the Constitution was upheld? Because he is a weirdo that actually thinks Communism works. *EGHHH!* It doesn't! Try Libertarian Socialism instead, Mr. Commie. Here, I think I got a link to a guy on Youtube who did a few videos on the subject... http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?u ... n97gti&p=r Look towards the bottom of the list. "Are we ready for Libertarian Socialism" or something to that effect. Three videos on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why is a libertarian strongly pro-life anyway? "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why is a libertarian strongly pro-life anyway? Well, he has to play into the Christian-right, BUT...He was a doctor and delivered thousands of babies...Could be part of the reason. Edit: People are allowed to have opinions differing from the "norm", you know! I hate pretty much everything the Christian-right stands for...For example, gay marriage is a complete non-issue and having it illegal is unconstitutional, so that pisses me off...HOWEVER, I'm with them on abortion. Abortion is scientifically "okay" to a point, but it's NEVER a "good" or "cool" thing to do if you really think about it. However, women should have the option if they are raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why is a libertarian strongly pro-life anyway? He doesn't say he is pro-life, he just wants the federal abortion laws to go away and let the states decide. It's still not libertarian though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
assassin_696 Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Why is a libertarian strongly pro-life anyway? He doesn't say he is pro-life, he just wants the federal abortion laws to go away and let the states decide. It's still not libertarian though. From his website: The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. ... Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. Either way, his stance on abortion just sticks out like a thorn to me in an otherwise interesting policy manifesto. His reasoning isn't overtly based on any religious values, but i'm slightly skeptical that it doesn't play a part. "Da mihi castitatem et continentam, sed noli modo" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indy500fan Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 Ahh, yes I guess he is pro-life rather than anti-pro-choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Range_This11 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Just mailed in my registration to vote, GO RON PAUL! "He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Libertarians believe in personal freedom. The ultimate freedom is life. Abortion is not a religious topic at all. Some people try to make it one but they are being stupid. It is merely a matter of is an unborn child a person or not. This is the way I break it down when I think about it. If a Libertarian believes they are a person then the freedom to life extends to them. The freedom of life would trump the freedom of choice for the mother. (freedom of convenience vs freedom of life) If a Libertarian believes that an unborn child is not a person then the way to give the most freedom to people is to allow the Mother to abort the unborn child if she so chooses. Just mailed in my registration to vote, GO RON PAUL! Woo hoo! Spread the word. The media hates him. I am trying to let older people know about him because the media is trying to keep everyone ignorant of him. There are some great speeches with Ron Paul on youtube that you can forward. I have sent my dad and some older business associates some videos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 I don't think the media hates him, I just think they're being realistic and concentrating on people who have a better chance of winning. Mind you, no republican has a CHANCE in HELL of winning the election this time around because they're all pro-war. Except Ron Paul, of course. Ron Paul should get the nomination, because the dude would win the presidency if he did. He's even got democrats wanting to vote for him! He's the only dude who is standing up there, being honest and saying "This country is [bleep]ed, and I need to fix it." while everyone else is giving the same fake smile and false promises. Watch - Whoever is the next President will do absolutely nothing they've said they'll do. We'll probably even be in Iraq for another couple years EVEN if a democrat is elected! Ron Paul wants to restore America to what is is SUPPOSED to be, and apparently, we're not ready for that. People don't seem to understand what has happened and why things are messed up. Ron Paul has perceived "radical" views, and that is why everyone thinks he has no chance. And realistically, his chances at the moment are zero, which is astonishing considering how fast and how much money he raised. It's quite sad, really. I'd vote for him any day of the week, but it's not looking good. :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 I don't think the media hates him Wanna bet? For example who does CNN want you to like and dislike? From images alone... -OR- These are the representative pictures of the candidates according to http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ Ron Paul is the second one on the bottom row in case someone didn't know. He also has by far the worst picture of any candidate displayed by CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambassadar Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 So CNN usually has more of a left wing tendency... What do "conservative" right wing newspeople think of Ron Paul? Well Sean Hannity acted like he hated Paul's guts after the first debate when Paul simply made the statement that 9/11 happened because US troops were stationed in the Middle East. Hannity acted like Paul was saying it was the United States' fault and like Paul was trying to blame us for it instead of Osama. That wasn't the case at all. Hannity completely ignores Paul when he gives the reason for his statement which was just saying what the 9/11 commission report concluded and what the terrorists actually said as to their reason for attacking us. All he was doing is stating a simple fact and Hannity was out for blood. It ticked me off. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEZO7MPxJIs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmo0zle Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Hmm, after seeing those pictures, it does seem biased. I thought they just weren't giving him much coverage because he has no chance of winning so they're concentrating on those who do have a chance. But look...The candidates they're pushing are all smiling. The ones they aren't all look pissed off. Biased. Okay, perhaps they DO hate him. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megakiller32 Posted December 13, 2007 Share Posted December 13, 2007 By him writing in 3rd person, it sounds like BOB DOLE. As a brit, i don't care very strongly who wins the american presidency, although i forgot his name, but i like that guy no stereotype southerner would vote for. Quit Runescape 30th May 2006.Thanks to Hawkxs for my signature :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now