[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Mr. Leboman

Income tax is wrong...I've never said that any other tax was wrong.

Cut government spending for starters.

they're going to get a portion of your wages, whether its when you earn it or when you spend it, why does it matter which one. you can control how much you earn and you can control how much you spend. but you can't control how much they tax whether its before or after you get it.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I'm not sure what you mean. What he said was true. And it was said in response to a moderator's question during a debate. And it's consistent with philosophy on what role the federal government should play.

I explained what I meant with the rest of my paragraph. Is he also opposed to the federal funding of all the other medical research going on, or just the one line of research that involves the destruction of embryos?

The church can only meddle in state affairs as far as the state allows it. And the previous quote I cited show that Ron Paul doesn't want that happening. It's contrary to his libertarianism. I don't think it's prudent to speculate and assume he was talking about teaching creationism in science classes and then use that assumption as your reasoning for not wanting him as president.

Then I'll put it a different way:

1. He said there is no "rigid" separation of church and state implied in the Constitution. I believe there is, Thomas Jefferson (who is at least partly responsible for the existence of the Establishment Clause) affirmed this, and the U.S. Supreme Court has witheld this interpretation. Therefor, by any sense that legally matters, yes, the Constitution does imply a rigid wall of separation.

2. He specifically said that he is displeased with how "hostile" the federal government is toward religion. It is, in fact, not at all hostile toward religion. It is neutral toward religion, which is Constitutionally correct, and I would be violently opposed to any effort he might make as President to change that.

Ron Paul advocates returning lots of powers to local and state levels and it's because he doesn't share the "one size fits all" attitude of big government.

That's understandable, though I'm not sure I agree.

He said it himself, he doesn't want the federal government imposing a new definition of marriage on the people of his state. He wants the people of his state to decide for themselves.

That's understandable also. However, if the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional. And it is not the job of Congress to make that judgment, it's the job of the federal court systems. For him, as a Congressman, to intentionally prohibit the court system from doing its job in that manner, he's making a blatant attempt to bypass one of the most critical balances our government has in place.

How is keeping the federal government out of what should be a local/state issue contrary to his position on small government? Its keeping a strong centralized government from imposing unnecessarily on it's people.

No, he's doing just the opposite. He's trying to make the will of Congress on this matter supreme and undefeatable. Again, it is not the job of Congress to decide what is and is not Constitutional, it is the job of the federal courts. Just because he might disagree with them doesn't give him the right to silence them on the matter.

[Danny]

I'm sorry, but Obama?

I admit I haven't put an overwhelming amount of research into the campaigns yet, but I'm sure I'll do lots of that next year before the election. Obama's at the top of my list right now because I like his stances on the issues, and he just seems like a cool guy.

Are you out of your mind? Why would you possibly support any of those slimeballs? He is CFR through and through.

I'm sorry, CFR? AcronymFinder is giving me Code of Federal Regulations, Council on Foreign Relations, and and Campaign Finance Reform, and none of those are ringing a bell.... Feel free to PM me with more information if it's too much to post here.

Are you not worried about our liberties being abolished? Why is that not at the top of your priorities list? Why is that not number one?

If by "worried" you mean I would not like that to happen, then absolutely. If by "worried" you mean I'm actively concerned that it's going to happen, that's a different story. Certainly it's happened to a horrific extent under the Bush administration, but he's been an exceptionally awful President, backed by a pretty horrid Congress for the first six years of his rule, and fueled by a national tragedy very early on in his career that he was able to use and abuse to his advantage. We have a Democratic-majority in Congress now, it's been nearly six years since 9/11, and I honestly doubt that many neoconservatives would even be able to live up to his track record. So no, I'm not overly concerned that by electing Obama I'll be forfeiting over any liberties. If anything, I imagine we'll get a lot of them back.

Why not support someone that supports the people? You may not agree with everything Ron Paul says, but at the end of the day he has our interests in mind.

Honestly, what makes you buy into this so fervently while doubting everyone else? He may have a lot of promises, but at the end of the day he's a politician who's been in the game for a long, long time, and for all you really know he's just as much of a lying "slimeball" as everyone else on either ticket.

Do you realize what is going to happen to our country if Ron Paul is not elected?

Enlighten me.

We need a new investigation into 9/11 badly. Ron Paul is the only supporter of this among the candidates.

Honestly, I think the events are pretty clear-cut. There is zero doubt in my mind that four planes were hi-jacked by foreign terrorists on that day, three of them hit their targets, and one of them did not. Why I actually believe this and addressing all your doubts is way, way, way beyond the scope of this thread, but this is a very, very good resource, and I'd be happy to discuss the issue with you at greater length in a different thread or over PM. Not that I'd be opposed to further investigation, it's just not at the top of my priority list.

I'm not trying to attack you here. I'm just very surprised because you are one of the last people I ever thought would vote for someone like Obama.

I understand, no ill will or hostility. But it shouldn't really surprise you. I'm a freethinker, yes, but I'm also a committed skeptic, so it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me of any of the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, the Illuminati, etc. It's not that I'm rejecting them out of hand because I believe everything the media tells me (or what have you), it's that I've done quite a bit of research (into the 9/11 conspiracies, at least) and at the end of the day have found the evidence to be strongly in favor of the more prosaic explanations.

The conspiracy theories all rely very heavily on anomaly-hunting and arguments from ignorance. That is, they for the most part disregard the clear, obvious evidence (video footage of planes hitting the buildings, audio recordings of the phone calls from Flight 93, etc.) and instead hunt for the smaller bits of evidence that aren't immediately explainable (What are the poofs of dust and debris coming from the windows of the WTC buildings as they collapsed? Why are the holes in the rings of the Pentagon so small? Etc., etc.), employ layman's analyses of the anomalies (The dust poofs look like a controlled demolition; the holes couldn't have been caused by a 757), ignore scientific explanations for the anomolies because the scientists are probably in on the conspiracy, and then conclude that since there's "no explanation" for the anomalies, it must be because the government orchestrated the attacks. (The argument from ignorance: We can't explain it, therefor it must be X. You can't rationally draw a conclusion from an unknown; an unknown is simply an unknown and remains that way until more evidence is gathered.)

But like I said, this discussion really needs to be taken to another thread.

By the way, Danny, have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism about the Federal Reserve and IRS?

No, I haven't. The only argument I've encountered regarding the danger/corruption of the Federal Reserve system was part II (or was it part III?) of Zeitgeist. Honestly, I'd really prefer to read an essay/article about the subject (and I'd be happy to do so) as opposed to watching another film about it. I love watching documentaries for entertainment purposes, but the format of film makes it way too easy to just bombard the viewer with a bunch of unverified information without leaving much time to process it. Reading something makes it much easier to check sources, fact-check, investigate further into certain claims, etc.

anny, do you really want more of this? More pre-emptive attacks? Haven't we had enough of that crap? More attacks, more defense contracts, more money, more death. Is that what you want your vote to count towards? I believe you're well aware of all of the BS running rampant in this country right now. Well, there's a man who wants to clean it all up and his name is Ron Paul. I suggest you look into him more closely.

Wow. No, I definitely don't, and that definitely does raise a lot of concern. Like I said, I have plenty of time before the election to make a more informed decision...right now Obama is just the direction I'm leaning based on what little I've read on everyone so far (which basically extends no farther than reading their "Issues" pages, plus the Wikipedia article Josh posted on Ron Paul). By the end of next year, if you can convince me that there's a lot worse to be genuinely concerned about than a screwed up health care system and stunted medical research (and the latter part especially is going to be a task, considering the sheer potential impact of the research to which Ron Paul plans on restricting funding), then I would not have a problem voting for a conservative-libertarian candidate despite all my liberal leanings...but it's going to take a lot to convince me.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by Bryan

they're going to get a portion of your wages, whether its when you earn it or when you spend it, why does it matter which one. you can control how much you earn and you can control how much you spend. but you can't control how much they tax whether its before or after you get it.

It's the principle of the thing.

If they have sales tax on goods...I still choose what I'm buying. If the object is taxed too greatly...I have the choice not to buy it.

The only way to not pay income tax is to not have income.

[Role Modlin]

CFR = Council on Foreign Relations

But you probably won't agree with any of the arguments he makes against it.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Danny

I explained what I meant with the rest of my paragraph. Is he also opposed to the federal funding of all the other medical research going on, or just the one line of research that involves the destruction of embryos?

As I said, that was just a response to a moderator's question. Considering the nature of his response I think it's safe to say he wouldn't be in favor of subsidizing any such research. Not just the research of embryonic stem cells.

He said there is no "rigid" separation of church and state implied in the Constitution...

I admit I'm not entirely sure what he was getting at but considering the context of the article I don't think it makes much sense to speculate that he would betray his libertarianism and start some kind of theocracy. The only way one could glean such an interpretation from his comments are to disregard everything else he's said in regards to the role government ought to play.

That's understandable, though I'm not sure I agree.

"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades."

That's understandable also. However, if the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Jurisdiction-stripping isn't necessarily unconstitutional. And Ron Paul clearly felt the greater good was being served by blocking, what he saw, as a tyrannical centralized goverment. A quote:

"The choices are not limited to either banning gay marriage at the federal level, or giving up and accepting it as inevitable. A far better approach, rarely discussed, is for Congress to exercise its existing constitutional power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts. Congress could statutorily remove whole issues like gay marriage from the federal judiciary, striking a blow against judicial tyranny and restoring some degree of states’ rights."

[bowstaff981]

Originally Posted by Zooropa

Or you could stay here and fight like a true patriot for the REAL America that our founding fathers intended.

Either way, you still have a say in the matter.

Originally Posted by Mr. Leboman

What you are doing is dishonest and if the government actually found out...they'd hold you accountable for the tips you didn't claim. How would you like that? How would you like for your boss to find out and make you start claiming all of your tips?

What I'm saying is that I don't believe they should be entitled to them in the first place. I'm saying that we shouldn't have to pay them. I've been doing it for 21 years and I think it's wrong.

I do declare all of my tips, but I like how you assumed that I didn't and then scolded me for it.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by slap_j

"It is great comedy to hear the secular, pro-gay left, so hostile to states’ rights in virtually every instance, suddenly discover the tyranny of centralized government. The newly minted protectors of local rule find themselves demanding: “Why should Washington dictate marriage standards for Massachusetts and California? Let the people of those states decide for themselves.” This is precisely the argument conservatives and libertarians have been making for decades! Why should Washington dictate education, abortion, environment, and labor rules to the states? The American people hold widely diverse views on virtually all political matters, and the Founders wanted the various state governments to most accurately reflect those views. This is the significance of the 10th Amendment, which the left in particular has abused for decades."

This is somewhat short-sighted, however. The "secular, pro-gay left" might initially see the benefits of states rights in their struggle to secure gay marriage in several sympathetic states. However, the goal isn't just to allow a homosexual couple in Massachusetts to marry, the goal is to have a fully-recognized marriage (see: the Full Faith and Credit Clause) that other states will honor.

The goals of the left as they currently stand are not compatible with the long-term vision of historic conservatism.

Centralization has been a favored entity toward the Left because it guarantees that the convictions they hold will be imparted to everyone - meaning lower-income homosexuals in rural Texas that cannot afford to move will be able to have the same recognition for their relationship that mobile upper-class homosexual in New England can enjoy.

I lean libertarian in many respects, but I can also understand the argument that the Left has toward aspects of centralization. After all, isn't the Constitution a document of centralization? It is a document whose precepts are all binding on each individual state - therefore, it has centralized a number of processes and relationships. Indiana and Texas cannot have a side bargain between the two states that contradicts aspects of the Constitution.

Remember, slavery was one considered an issue that states should be allowed to decide. I for one think that idea was laughable.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I lean libertarian in many respects, but I can also understand the argument that the Left has toward aspects of centralization. After all, isn't the Constitution a document of centralization? It is a document whose precepts are all binding on each individual state - therefore, it has centralized a number of processes and relationships. Indiana and Texas cannot have a side bargain between the two states that contradicts aspects of the Constitution.

Right. Well, the US is a federal republic. Some degree of centralization is necessary and good. The 13th amendment is a good example. But the 18th was obviously a mistake.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by bowstaff981

I do declare all of my tips, but I like how you assumed that I didn't and then scolded me for it.

I read what you wrote the wrong way.

Chill the heck out.

[Zooropa]

Danny, I'm not going to bother giving you a detailed reply because there is no point to doing so. Everything I am arguing would make no sense to you because you still believe 9/11 was an al-Quaeda job. I'll present my viewpoint to you simply and leave it at that:

9/11 was an inside job put together by the CFR, Tri-Lateral Commission, the elite banking families of the world, and carried out by the CIA. There is more to the 9/11 conspiracy theory than the physical attacks and their effects. From the sound of your words, I don't think you've been exposed to all of the evidence. And I can also tell that you are not familiar with Problem-Reaction-Solution style operations. The debunking to Loose Change can be debunked itself. Just ask me if you want to know. Wanna know how confident I am that 9/11 was an inside job? If it can be proven that 9/11 was an al-Quaeda job and that all of us 9/11 truthers are wrong, then I'll cut off my own *****. How's that for confidence?

All of these major presidential candidates in both parties except for Ron Paul do not give a crap about you. They are all controlled by CFR interest. Which is not your interest by a long shot. If Ron Paul is not put into office then we are likely to have another bigger false-flag terror op, and martial law will likely ensue. You can laugh at that suggestion if you like, but I take it very seriously. Ask yourself why Ron Paul is the only candidate that supports a new investigation into 9/11. And ask yourself why all of these men (and woman) besides Ron Paul love to exploit 9/11 but evade inquiries into it. They LOVE to bring it up in their debates and speeches (9/11 this, 9/11 that), but when people have questioned them to their faces about the 9/11 Commission's official report, they squirm like cowardly dogs and run away. If you think Hillary, Obama, John McCain, Gulliani, or Mitt Romney won't continue to wipe their asses with the constitution just like Bush, you're going to be in for a rude awakening. I'm afraid that you're still stuck in the party mentality or the false left-right paradigm, whichever you want to call it. No offense, but you're terribly uninformed.

[BereanatHeart]

I'm a Ron Paul supporter primarily because of his foreign policy and integrity, but his overall approach to government is cool, too.

[Zooropa]

A letter from Ron Paul:

August 22, 2007

Not all the media are biased. A local newspaper in New Hampshire reported on an annual GOP bbq in the town of Hollis. It could be called "the Ron Paul show," they said, since the far bigger crowd that usual consisted mostly of our supporters. One volunteer even rented an airplane and flew a wonderful sign around the sky. What great, creative, self-starting people I'm meeting, at every stop, all of them united by a love of America and American freedom.

Politics is usually about division. But this campaign is just the opposite. Not only are our volunteers a bunch of happy warriors, but they also practice the virtues of tolerance and peace, just as they want the nation to do.

The other day, the state chairman of an opposing campaign (not in New Hampshire!), angrily tore a sign out of one of our supporter's hands and trashed it. Different people with different beliefs might have responded differently. But our people, though they'd been standing in the rain all day, applied the Golden Rule. It's because of quiet heroes that I know we can change this country.

A reporter in New Hampshire told me this story about Florida: she had seen the same three supporters working every day passing out our literature, and so decided to interview them. She was startled to discover that one was a Republican, one was a Democrat, and one was an Independent. But I wasn't.

Freedom brings us all together. We can all agree on leaving people alone to plan and live their own lives, rather than trying to force them to obey at the point of a gun, as runaway government does. Instead of clawing at each other via the warfare-welfare state, people under liberty can cooperate in a unity of diversity.

There is no need to use government to threaten others who have different standards, or to be threatened by them. Looking to our Founders, our traditions, and the Constitution, we can build, in peaceful cooperation, a free and prosperous society.

At a talk show in Nashua, New Hampshire, the host asked me about the fair tax. Well, I agree on getting rid of the IRS, I told her, but I want to replace it with nothing, not another tax. But let's not forget the inflation tax, I said.

This was something she had never considered, but after I talked about the depreciation of our dollar by the Federal Reserve, its creation of artificial booms and busts, and its bailouts of the big banks and Wall Street firms, to the detriment of the average person, she loved it. That is another tax, she agreed, a hidden and particularly vicious tax.

They try to tell us that the money issue is boring or irrelevant. In fact, it is the very pith of our social lives, and morally, Constitutionally, and economically, the central bank is a disaster. Thanks to the work of this movement, Americans are starting to understand what has been hidden from them for so long: that we have a right to sound and honest money, not to a dollar debauched for the special interests.

Unconstitutional government has created a war crisis, a financial crisis, a dollar crisis, and a freedom crisis. But we don't have to take it. We don't have to passively accept more dead soldiers, a lower standard of living, rising prices, a national ID, eavesdropping on our emails and phone calls, and all the rest.

We can return to first principles, and build the brightest, most brilliant future any people on earth has ever aspired to. Help me teach this lesson. Help me campaign all over this country, in cooperation with our huge and growing volunteer army. Help me show that change is not only possible, but also essential. Please, make your most generous contribution (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/) to this campaign for a Constitutional presidency worthy of our people. Invest in freedom: for yourself, for your family, for your future.

Sincerely,

Ron

[Danny]

You know, the more I read about Paul, the more I'm seriously considering supporting his campaign. I definitely disagree with a lot of his policies, but maybe what this country needs is a complete paradigm shift toward a drastically smaller and less powerful centralized government before we can really deal adequately with the issues I'm most concerned about, like healthcare. Maybe the battles I'm most concerned with fighting are better staged at the state level than at the federal level. If one state, for example, decides to give socialized healthcare a shot with very positive results, maybe the rest of the states (or at least mine) will follow suit.

I guess I'm just growing tired of the left-right false polarization where both sides are trying to rally their own followers while simultaneously trying to prove to the other side that they're "not that bad." You end up with two parties that talk a lot of **** about each other but which hold policies that are functionally almost identical (observe the Democratic candidates all standing opposed to gay marriage, being wishy-washy about the "War on Terror," etc.), to the point that casting your vote for either side becomes more of a philosophical statement than an actual catalyst for policy change. I honestly feel that only if Ron Paul is elected will there be an actual, tangible change in how this government is run. The problem is I'm not completely confident that that change will be a positive one, but even if it isn't, it will at least break us out of this complete stagnation and stimulate real progress—something we all must admit this country needs desperately, no matter what side of the fence you stand on.

[Ax]

What I really like is Ron's position on Eminent Domain (should actually be called land snatching) and property rights. He's one of a very few politicians who stands up for peoples rights over government rights.