RON PAUL?

[Lehsyrus]

- He wants to revert to the Gold standard
- Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
- Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
- Paper money in unconstitutional; only gold is legal tender. (Sep 2010)
- Don’t ask, don’t tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007)
- Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987)
- Constitution even protects terrorists, not just citizens. (Apr 2011)
- Cut off all foreign aid to Israel & to Arabs. (Dec 2007)
- Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify. (Dec 2007)
- The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy. (Apr 2008)
- Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax. (Feb 2008)
- Privatize infrastructure maintenance; government fails at it. (Aug 2007)
- Wants to end Medicare, SS, and Medicaide
- Supports the anti-gay DOMA
- Thinks sodomy should be illegal again in Texas
- Does not believe in separation of church and state

He has ridiculous ideas from both conservative and liberal perspectives.

"Open Competition in Currencies"
===========================================

Q: You have said that you believe that life begins at conception and that abortion ends an innocent life. If you believe that, how can you support a rape exception to abortion bans, and how can you support the morning-after pill? Aren't those lives just as innocent?

PAUL: They may be, but the way this is taken care of in our country, it is not a national issue. This is a state issue. And there are circumstances where doctors in the past have used certain day-after pills for somebody with rape. And, quite frankly, if somebody is treated, you don't even know if a person is pregnant; if it's 24 hours after rape, I don't know how you're going to police it. We have too many laws already. Now, how are you going to police the day-after pill? Nobody can out-do me on respect for life. I've spent a lifetime dealing with life. But I still think there is a time where the law doesn't solve the problems. Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.

===========================================

You took the fucking title for "Roe vs Wade" and not the fucking information underneath it you pretentious bitch.

The federal government should not play any role in the abortion issue, according to the Constitution. Apart from waiting forever for Supreme Court justices who rule in accordance with the Constitution, Americans do have some legislative recourse. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over a broad categories of cases.

===========================================

U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 10, Clause 2,
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Which dummed down for someone as yourself means:

Relying on this clause, which applies only to the States and not to the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has held that where the marshal of a state court received state bank notes in payment and discharge of an execution, the creditor was entitled to demand payment in gold or silver. Since, however, there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting a bank depositor from consenting when he draws a check that payment may be made by draft, a state law providing that checks drawn on local banks should, at the option of the bank, be payable in exchange drafts was held valid. Furthermore, no state may make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, which expressly forbids any state government (but not the federal government, as noted previously) from "making a tender" (i.e., authorizing something that may be offered in payment of any type or form of money to meet any financial obligation, unless that form of money is coins made of gold or silver (or a medium of exchange backed by and redeemable in gold or silver coins). However, the states cannot coin money themselves.

===========================================

Once again, for the "Don't ask don't tell" policy YOU ONLY TOOK THE FUCKING TITLE OF THE QUESTION BEING ASKED TO HIM!

Q: Most of our closest allies, including Great Britain and Israel, allow gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. Is it time to end “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the US military?

A: I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don’t get our rights because we’re gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there’s heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn’t the issue of homosexuality, it’s the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem

===========================================

"Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups" And again you took the title of the question, you ignorant fuck.

After 200 years, the constitutional protection of the right of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is virtually gone.

Today’s current terminology describing rights reflects this sad change. It is commonplace for politicians and those desiring special privileges to refer to: black rights, Hispanic rights, handicap rights, employee rights, student rights, minority rights, women’s rights, gay rights, children’s rights, student rights, Asian-American rights, Jewish rights, AIDS victims’ rights, poverty rights, homeless rights, etc.

Unless all the terms are dropped & we recognize that only an individual has rights, the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found. The longer we lack of definition of rights, the worse the economic and social problems will be.

===========================================

"Constitution even protects terrorists, not just citizens" Oh hey guess what? You took the fucking title, once again. You really are fucking stupid aren't you kid?

The previously ridiculous notion that torture is legal is now more or less true. Habeas corpus has been around for 800 years, and so has the right not to be in indefinite detention without charges. The justification for such abuse of the rule of law is all based on concocted fear by false claims associated with a lack of respect and understanding of what liberty is all about. It is constantly argued that danger in this post-9/11 period demands a difference code of conduct to assure the people's safety. Possibly so. But so what? Tyranny always begins with oppression of unpopular minorities. It is important that even the guilty have their day in court--not so much out of sympathy, for many are known to be evil, wicked men, but to keep us from ever slipping into a situation in which American citizens lose their right to have their day in court. Literally hundreds of terrorists have been tried in civilian courts in this country and convicted and did not have to be tried in secret military courts.

==================================

"Borrowing money from China -- or printing it out of thin air -- to hand out overseas in [an] attempt to purchase friends has been a failing foreign policy, as we see most recently in Egypt where there is not even a government in place!" Paul wrote in his Dear Colleague letter. "We should seek friendly relations and trade overseas, but we cannot justify lavish gifts to foreign leaders when American taxpayers are increasingly feeling the pain of our economic crisis."

=================================

"Get out of South Korea and let two Koreas unify" Surprise, surprise; you took ONLY the title ONCE AGAIN.

Q: Under President Paul, if North Korea invaded South Korea, would we respond?

A: Why should we unless the Congress declared war? I mean, why are we there? In South Korea, they’re begging and pleading to unify their country, and we get in their way. They want to build bridges and go back and forth. Vietnam, we left under the worst of circumstances. The country is unified. They have become Westernized. We trade with them. Their president comes here. And Korea, we stayed there and look at the mess. I mean, the problem still exists, and it’s drained trillion dollars over these last 50 years. We can’t afford it anymore. We’re going bankrupt. All empires end because the countries go bankrupt, and the currency crashes. That’s what happening. And we need to come out of this sensibly rather than waiting for a financial crisis.

==============================

A living Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever people complain that their constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they’ve simply misunderstood: the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times.

"The “living Constitution” is the death of democracy." I'm seriously starting to believe you have Down Syndrome.
Those who would give us a ‘living’ constitution are actually giving us a dead constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against encroachments of government power.

===============================================

"Repeal 16th Amendment and get rid of the income tax" and again, just the title. So do you have Autism? Wait no, they're actually fairly smart.

It shouldn’t be that difficult to figure out what we should be doing, because we have a lot of problems: we have fiscal and monetary policy problems, foreign policy problems, and deficit problems. Where do they come from? It’s because we don’t follow the rule of law; we don’t follow the Constitution. If we knew and understood and read Article 1, Section 8, believe me this government would be much smaller, we would have a lot less taxes, and we could repeal the 16th amendment and get rid of the income tax.

==================================================

"Privatize infrastructure maintenance; government fails at it" And yet again...just the fucking title. You're a bitch.

Billions of tax dollars at all levels of government are devoted to infrastructure, but one problem is that politicians love to cut ribbons. Political capital is gained not from maintaining or repairing our systems, but from building new bridges, new stadiums, and new roads, often of questionable real utility. Seldom is there a ceremony or photo opportunity for repairing or maintaining something already in place.

Infrastructure, in a capitalist model, is an asset worthy of maintaining to ensure continuity of revenue. In a government-controlled model infrastructure is nothing but a cumbersome liability. Privatization should be used to encourage maintenance and safety, and where private companies truly invest and bear the upfront costs in return for ability to collect tolls or usage fees in some form. But public/private partnerships that look more like corporate welfare must be avoided.

========================================

"Wants to end Medicare, SS, and Medicaide" You're fucking retarded.

There’s no provision in the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to provide health care, and the power to do so belongs to individual states under the 10th amendment, Paul said, according to the IB Times

Ron Paul is CORRECT. The Supreme court in 1937 ruled that under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which says "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.", that Social Security was legal. It does NOT say it can set up a systematic Insurance system to pay off the peoples debts over a period of time for specific people. This sub-section of text ONLY allows as such to be provided for the people as a common entity in its ENTIRETY.
================================================== =

"No need for Marriage Amendment; DOMA is enough" is the actual title, you didn't even get THAT one fucking correct. And, oh hey, surpriseee!!! You took it out of context COMPLETELY, ONCE AGAIN.

Q: Will you support a federal marriage amendment, and what else will you do to protect the institution of marriage?

A: I think the best thing the president can do is set a good example, and I would start with having been married 50 years, and proud of it. I believe, also, that I do not see any need for another constitutional amendment. I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage. We’re on the defensive, defining marriage. Why don’t you just tell them to look it up in the dictionary, to find out what a marriage says? For federal legal purposes, the Defense of Marriage Act is proper. It takes care of all the problems. If you have to have rules and regulations, put it at the state level, like the Constitution says. But you know, marriage only came about and getting licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons. Marriage is a church function. It’s not a state function. I don’t think you need a license to get married.

Which he is completely correct. Marriage has always been in definition a church function. It started in the church, so why is there no separation of church and state? Why should the government even be involved in the first place? And do you even fucking know what DOMA is? It allows states to recognize marriage individually in-par to that state. If one state allows gay marriage, another does not have to, the federal government should NEVER be taking part of something so frivolous, hence the reason DOMA was put through in the first place, to recognize the official term of Marriage and to leave the amending of said term up to the STATES. God you're fucking stupid.
==========================================

"Thinks sodomy should be illegal again in Texas" He never said that he would act upon it. He specifically said it was his OPINION.

Q: Should we outlaw homosexuality?

A: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with other acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. The question is, do you act upon that orientation? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions..

Q: So if somebody is homosexual, should they not have sex?

A: We have sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.

=============================================


"Does not believe in separation of church and state"

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.

Taken out of the context, just like EVERYTHING ELSE you fucking posted.

[C4Vendetta.]

Did you not realize that the "answers" you provided more often than not don't actually answer the question but rather explain it without expressing his personal standpoint? Anyway, I don't feel like debating extremist Ron Paul supporters who feel the need to insult someone in a, what should be, mature debate.

[Lehsyrus]

Did you not realize that the "answers" you provided more often than not don't actually answer the question but rather explain it without expressing his personal standpoint? Anyway, I don't feel like debating extremist Ron Paul supporters who feel the need to insult someone in a, what should be, mature debate.

Considering that he has explained multiple times that his viewpoints do not affect his ability to make a proper decision, and he believes may decisions should be left to the state rather than at a federal level (which is what our founding fathers more or less believed themselves), I'd say you have no idea about his presentation on said Q&A's in question in comparison to that of how he will actually run the country. Many times you took the titles themselves of said questions and never put down his actual ideal behind the question put forthright as the answer, explaining his policy on the subject. Calling me an "extremist" for proving you wrong is a joke, I don't believe in any of the political candidates, I just find it humorous for you to put up such a bias in your information and then calling said information a "debate".

[C4Vendetta.]

I think our ways part the very moment you say that someones opinion doesn't effect their judgement. Sure, someone entirely just will not be affected by their opinion and with that logic a just Nazi Pedophile would make a great president if he'd have a decent education and intelligence. Reality, however, doesn't seem to work that way and I don't see how you can ignore someones opinions in the presumption that their decisions will be the opposite of them.

As previously mentioned, I do not understand most of your arguments against the standpoints I provided. They don't contradict what I am saying or are simply wrong. Ron Paul on the Issues provides a convenient and unbiased list of standpoints (non-partisan, non-profit organization), backed up with actual arguments and documentation.

I generally back out of a debate as soon as a party starts becoming aggressive in a personal manner (attacking the debater rather than the debate). Debating is a way to educate and develop myself, not to be competitive.

[Lehsyrus]

I think our ways part the very moment you say that someones opinion doesn't effect their judgement. Sure, someone entirely just will not be affected by their opinion and with that logic a just Nazi Pedophile would make a great president if he'd have a decent education and intelligence. Reality, however, doesn't seem to work that way and I don't see how you can ignore someones opinions in the presumption that their decisions will be the opposite of them.

As previously mentioned, I do not understand most of your arguments against the standpoints I provided. They don't contradict what I am saying or are simply wrong. Ron Paul on the Issues provides a convenient and unbiased list of standpoints (non-partisan, non-profit organization), backed up with actual arguments and documentation.

It's dependent on how said issues are enacted as one gets into office. By the way you're saying it, it's as if every President is completely 100% literal on everything they're going to do/all of the policies they believe in when getting into office, when in reality it's basically the opposite. As a Presidential candidate, one must speak to the people to get the common persons interest, to pull in the vote and more votes than the other candidate (at least how it is run now) without telling the complete truth on how one is going to go about doing so. In my opinion, and yes my opinion, all of the Presidents after Lincoln are "Nazi Pedophile's" in the sense they have twisted around the Constitution to do their own bidding and enact their policies as well as finding consistent loopholes to justify their unjust increases in taxation rates Nationally as a single entity in its own and on the "Pedophile " end of the stick, they're always finding ways to "reach out" to other countries who we should really be letting mind their own business and dealing with their shit while we dish out dollar after dollar that we never seem to stop printing in a consistent manner to fund their ongoing feuds with other countries of the just, meanwhile raising taxation rates on the middle-class worker while the rich have the money to buyout attorneys/bureaucrats for monetary keep and the poor just sit back on welfare or absolutely nothing and rot.

As I said, I do not like any of the candidates, but at least Ron Paul has the balls to speak against the majority and voice his opinion, rather than lying his fucking face off like the other candidates. And do you really think he's going to be able to get a single damn one of those policies through congress? No. They won't be feeding their own and the governments grubby warehouse sized pockets, as the lust for such money keeps growing, the policies will only bend to adjust those cravings until we are out of paper to print and money to be given to such a regime.

[C4Vendetta.]

It's dependent on how said issues are enacted as one gets into office. By the way you're saying it, it's as if every President is completely 100% literal on everything they're going to do/all of the policies they believe in when getting into office, when in reality it's basically the opposite. As a Presidential candidate, one must speak to the people to get the common persons interest, to pull in the vote and more votes than the other candidate (at least how it is run now) without telling the complete truth on how one is going to go about doing so. In my opinion, and yes my opinion, all of the Presidents after Lincoln are "Nazi Pedophile's" in the sense they have twisted around the Constitution to do their own bidding and enact their policies as well as finding consistent loopholes to justify their unjust increases in taxation rates Nationally as a single entity in its own and on the "Pedophile " end of the stick, they're always finding ways to "reach out" to other countries who we should really be letting mind their own business and dealing with their shit while we dish out dollar after dollar that we never seem to stop printing in a consistent manner to fund their ongoing feuds with other countries of the just, meanwhile raising taxation rates on the middle-class worker while the rich have the money to buyout attorneys/bureaucrats for monetary keep and the poor just sit back on welfare or absolutely nothing and rot.

As I said, I do not like any of the candidates, but at least Ron Paul has the balls to speak against the majority and voice his opinion, rather than lying his fucking face off like the other candidates. And do you really think he's going to be able to get a single damn one of those policies through congress? No. They won't be feeding their own and the governments grubby warehouse sized pockets, as the lust for such money keeps growing, the policies will only bend to adjust those cravings until we are out of paper to print and money to be given to such a regime.

At first I was confused at how you could possibly be a Anarchist but now it's entirely clear. I can't do much but agree with most of what you've said just now. Indeed, Ron Paul, unlike many others, has had consistent opinions and ideals for a long time and (generally) isn't afraid to publicly proclaim then. Some people, like you, give him points for doing this. Other people, like I, are nothing short of disgusted by the actual opinions and standpoints.

Of course there is hardly any chance he'll push through his radically conservative ideas but I simply can't handle the idea of someone controlling America who has even the slightest possibility to do so.

[Lehsyrus]

At first I was confused at how you could possibly be a Anarchist but now it's entirely clear. I can't do much but agree with most of what you've said just now. Indeed, Ron Paul, unlike many others, has had consistent opinions and ideals for a long time and (generally) isn't afraid to publicly proclaim then. Some people, like you, give him points for doing this. Other people, like I, are nothing short of disgusted by the actual opinions and standpoints.

Of course there is hardly any chance he'll push through his radically conservative ideas but I simply can't handle the idea of someone controlling America who has even the slightest possibility to do so.

I see his negative points to, I do, but all in all the reason I like RP is because he isn't afraid to show he has a ballsack. Obama was just a pussy and had no backbone, I mean, when he was called out for being late on one of his presidential addresses (i forget which one) he delayed it even further to have someone write up a slight sympathetic response. That and his entire campaign consisted of "there will be..um..hope..and some..change...in the future", meanwhile the only "hope" I had was that we would "change" Presidents at that point, but he has no backbone. Santorum, well, his name sounds like scrotum to me. And Romney, just another rich, lying, bureaucrat.

I'm a reformatory-Anarchist, I do believe we need government, but I also believe we need to reform (in the sense of complete disestablishment and re-establishment) the government every certain amount of years, because said government will ALWAYS become corrupt. Power is just something that needs to be stripped from a unified body for them to realize it's not about the power, but the people the power affects. Equality for all is my dream, we all have organs and can breathe, so in my eyes we should all be on the same level on judgment day (figure of speech not meant to be taken literally).