Our amazing future president?

[ifreez]

You mean, Ron Paul.


• Bin Laden Raid was unnecessary
• He would have not ordered the raid on Osama
• FEMA is unconstitutional
• Says we shouldn’t help people in disasters
• Get rid of the Department of Education
• Get rid of Public Education
• Get rid of the Fed
• Get rid of the IRS
• Get rid of Social Security
• Get rid of Medicare
• Get rid of Medicaid
• Get rid of paper money
• Get rid of abortion
• Get rid of birthright citizenship
• US to quit the UN
• Wants US to quit NATO
• Wants to end Roe vs. Wade
• End federal restriction on gun regulation

• Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities.

• Get rid of income taxes
• Get rid of all foreign aid
• Get rid of public healthcare
• End all welfare and social programs
• Get rid of the CIA
• Get rid of all troops abroad
• Close all bases abroad
• Wants to isolate us from the rest of the world
• Get rid of war (but offers no plan to do so)
• End regulations on clean air
• Thinks we should “trust” business to do the right thing
• Thinks the earth is less than 8,000 years old
• Does not believe in separation of church and state
• Because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals
• Strongest opponent of all "Hate Crime" Laws
• End all social and welfare programs
• Wants to end Iraq war: Get in line bud. We all do but it has to be done in a responsible way. (P.S The combat mission is already over)
• End all drug laws
• End Pell Grants

Yeah, that guy...

I swear I think people should pass a test before being allowed to vote..

[Angel"EL DIABLO"Diaz]

I swear I think people should pass a test before being allowed to vote..

Now that would be amazing Imagine if no one who couldn't read wasn't allowed to vote ,I heard on the rogan podcast that Detroit is 47% illiterate , I mean WTF should we even let Detroit vote since half of them probably cant add either .

But of course if everyone who voted actually was smart in the first place I bet history would have been a much different story but sadly goverment relies on dumbass people to believe their every word and not question them so they can sneak criminals to rule our country not just presidency to legally steal from the people but not get in trouble and instead get bonuses and even more money.

Now if what Ifreez posted is legit can someone like Ron Paul really help this country if he wants get rid of public education , publich healthcare, says we shouldnt help poeple in natural disasters (of course who knows were IFreez got this info) .

Im just asking questions so someone whos more educated on this answers

[J Grooms]

Ron Paul doesn't support anything that the constitution doesn't support. He also believes that most of those laws should be left up to the state to decide on. I'm not extremely educated on the matter, but I find it funny that someone who lives in canada says 'we' when talking about an american candidate. Must've been some copy and paste from a propaganda article... and since I'm not completely informed on all matters, I'll leave with some copy and paste propaganda of my own.

"To believe Ron Paul is 'crazy' on foreign policy is to believe George W. Bush and Barack Obama are sane."

[Angel"EL DIABLO"Diaz]

You know Ron Paul likes to wear suits made from the babies of Ethiopia , True Story I swear

[Jason_C]

• Bin Laden Raid was unnecessary - I agree and no one has proven that he was killed in the raid we just have to take obamas word for it

• He would have not ordered the raid on Osama - no one was ever able to prove bin laden was responsible for 9/11
and the FBI for a long time didnt put bin laden on their most wanted list until pressure was put on them for him not being on the list.

• FEMA is unconstitutional - He's right, it's redistribution of wealth which the constitution doesn't grant the government authority to do. (but it happens anyway) Someone in one state shouldnt have to pay for problems in another. People should want to help and donate their time and money without having some monolithic government forcing them to do so. Also how much of a success was FEMA during katrina? another point driven home, big government is wasteful and inefficient. government efficiency is an oxymoron.


• Says we shouldn’t help people in disasters - see above, again you shouldnt have to, you should WANT TO!!!

• Get rid of the Department of Education - another massive failure of big government drop outs and test scores are plummeting.

• Get rid of Public Education - see above

• Get rid of the Fed - AMENNNNNNNNNNNN The federal reserve is no more federal than the federal express, they are a private group of mega banks who simply print money out of thin air, use it at full purchasing price, then lend it back to us the taxpayers with interest. its a double whammy, we pay them interest for money that they devalue. its inflation with interest and we all lose.

• Get rid of the IRS - the irs is illegitimate. they operate like a gang of thugs. Federal taxes are unconstitutional and fraudulent. many people regularly do not pay their taxes and no matter how many times the gov goes after them, they know how to beat them in court because they are a fraudulent organization enforcing unconstitutional laws. google ex IRS agent Joe Banister.

• Get rid of Social Security - redistribution of wealth again unconstitutional

• Get rid of Medicare - redistribution of wealth again unconstitutional

• Get rid of Medicaid - same as above. let me also add that entitlements have assisted the moral decay of society. consumerism and the welfare state have created a toxic environment. It forces people to depend on the government and forces the rest of us to fund them. now we are facing a possible collapse of the US dollar that has been on the steady decline for several years. We may even default and the dollar would posses very little purchasing power.

• Get rid of paper money - a federal reserve note used to be redeemable for its worth in gold. when the gold standard was abolished and fiat currency introduced (monopoly money) that marked the death sentence of the dollar.

• Get rid of abortion - that's a state issue not a federal government issue

• Get rid of birthright citizenship - this would be an attempt to thwart attempts by illegal immigrants to have anchor babies. I see where he is coming from but this is not a major issue to me.

• US to quit the UN - we entered the wars in iraq and afghanistan under UN resolutions not via legitimate declarations of war. we lose our sovereignty when we rely on the UN and waste billions of dollars funding the UN.

• Wants US to quit NATO -

• Wants to end Roe vs. Wade - abortion is a states issue.

• End federal restriction on gun regulation - the federal government should not have the authority to force all states to obey any sets of rules. states laws are supposed to supersede all. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment

• Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities. - How long do you think racist businesses would stay in business before boycotts shut them down? forcing commerce is a violation of property rights.

• Get rid of income taxes - they are unconstitutional and fraudulent as i already mentioned above

• Get rid of all foreign aid - this would be a good thing and again this is another unconstitutional redistribution of wealth.

• Get rid of public healthcare - healthcare is not a right, its a privilege. forcing you to pay for my health care is once again unconstitutional

• End all welfare and social programs - redistribution of wealth and unconstitutional

• Get rid of the CIA - the CIA has been meddling overseas for as far back as the 50s. They are directly responsible for the turmoil in the middle east and they even coined the term "blowback" which means unintended circumstances of their foreign meddling under the guise of protecting foreign interests abroad. within this thread i talk about TPAJAX that further drives this point home.

• Get rid of all troops abroad - what if Germany or Japan had military bases within our country? they do not need to be there and we waste gobs of money paying them to live and operate on these bases.

• Close all bases abroad - this would save billions of dollars annually, this is a great idea.

• Wants to isolate us from the rest of the world - unfounded. Thomas Jefferson puts it best when he said, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none."

• Get rid of war (but offers no plan to do so) - we got ourselves into undeclared wars, we can simply get ourselves out. Americans and the military are sick of fighting in these bogus wars. We want out.

• End regulations on clean air - prove that this has done anything but cripple businesses with over regulation and fail to improve air quality.

• Thinks we should “trust” business to do the right thing - if a business was doing the "wrong thing" then markets should boycott said businesses until they got their acts together.

• Thinks the earth is less than 8,000 years old - ???

• Does not believe in separation of church and state - if you can prove this id like to see it. in the meantime ill just rebuke this with the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

• Because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals - more slander and complete and utter fallacy. I am Portuguese and 1st generation in America. not a white supremacist or race obsessed individual.

• Strongest opponent of all "Hate Crime" Laws - all violent crimes are "hate crimes" why do they need a special label? like terrorism laws. they are redundant and unnecessary

• End all social and welfare programs - unconstitutional redistribution of wealth. if social welfare is what you desire, look at how well our homies across the pond are doing. the UK have been marred by riots and greece has been rioting also because of austerity measures because of their feel good social welfare state collapsed in on itself.

• Wants to end Iraq war: Get in line bud. We all do but it has to be done in a responsible way. (P.S The combat mission is already over) - if the combat mission is "over" why are my brothers in arms still dying over there? we just marched in, we can just march out.

• End all drug laws - the government does not have the authority to decide what we put into our own bodies. we waste billions of dollars a year perpetuating the failed war on drugs.

• End Pell Grants - ...

[ifreez]

Ron Paul doesn't support anything that the constitution doesn't support. He also believes that most of those laws should be left up to the state to decide on. I'm not extremely educated on the matter, but I find it funny that someone who lives in canada says 'we' when talking about an american candidate. Must've been some copy and paste from a propaganda article... and since I'm not completely informed on all matters, I'll leave with some copy and paste propaganda of my own.

"To believe Ron Paul is 'crazy' on foreign policy is to believe George W. Bush and Barack Obama are sane."

Yeah, like the constitution is an up to date sophisticated document. It has it's good and bad, and can be amended. But most importantly, different people have different interpretations of the constitution.

Did I mention amendments are necessary.

[Thomas Rodriguez-Swift]

It is up to date and sophisticated. It lays down the guidelines for what the federal government can/cant do and leaves EVERYTHING else up to the states, where the voters have a much larger impact. And if an amendment is "necessary" than it would be proposed and passed. And it doesn't necessarily have to involve congress, and most deffinately does not have to involve the president.


"The Amendment Process

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):"

[The kza]

Jason_C you realize that none of these are unconstiutional because amendments were made correct?

[snoogens44]

Jason_C you realize that none of these are unconstiutional because amendments were made correct?

sorry bro. but your just completely wrong. the constitution isnt amendended for a number of things that it legally should be. example illegality of drugs.. back during prohibition an actual ammendment (the 18th) was made making alcohol illegal. later it that was amended and alcohol was made legal. however NO such process/ammendment exists for "illegal" drugs. and even though it is unconstitutional we went so far as to create federal law enforcement (DEA) strictly for the purpose of imposing this unconstitutional law.
just one example that you do not need to amend the constitution for the government to implement laws brotha

[ifreez]

o

1) Thinks we should trust; business to do the right thing - if a business was doing the "wrong thing" then markets should boycott said businesses until they got their acts together.

2) Does not believe in separation of church and state - if you can prove this id like to see it. in the meantime ill just rebuke this with the 1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

3) Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and other minorities. - How long do you think racist businesses would stay in business before boycotts shut them down? forcing commerce is a violation of property rights.

I won't address the other points, because a well informed and detailed response will just be a waste of my time. Most your views are very simplistic, and uninformed views are the start to much bigger problems.

1) Countries need regulations. What about monopolies were consumers don't have choices. You think boycott is the answer?? That's beyond retarded. What about things companies do that the consumer knows nothing about? Materials used to make products, ingredients in foods, cleanliness of factories?

I guess you didn't hear about the meat industry, where numerous companies are fined or shut down each year because of dangerous processing or handling of the product.

What about restaurants that have to pass an inspection, where many nasty restaurants fail, yet the consumer never knows how nasty those restaurants really are?

I guess you didn't hear about numerous companies that try to take short cuts, but when *regulators* catch them, they get fined. You think regulators fine for no reason?

Last year did you hear about buildings collapsing in China because developers tried to take short cuts? You better thank your fucking lucky stars that shit will never happen in your country. What about harmful chemicals that the government bans, even while, companies that we should trust to do the right thing, try to fight the ban in court.

And, it's not a simple as 'what we put in our own bodies is our own business'. What we do doesn't just affect us, it affects communities. When you have teenagers, I'm going to buy a house right next to yours and sell crack and heroin out of my window, and you better not run to the fucking government for help. lol

2) Citations -- Which shows me you have no idea who you're voting for, or what you're talking about.

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html

http://www.irregulartimes.com/ronpaulseparation.html

3) Boycott, huh? Or maybe it'll regrow hatred when people can have a place where minorities aren't allowed. Do you think racism is dead??

It's not, and if you think it perfectly OK that I should go to any establishment, and it's not a problem for them to tell me 'no blacks allowed', then you're a just a dumbfuck.

Oh..., and about Education, have you fucking seen what countries look like where education is not a right??