Ron Paul for President, says Conservative Political Action Conference poll

[Rackshaw]

I may take a bit of heat here, but I'm for the guy. Conspiracies (alleged or otherwise) aside, he makes a sound strike against big government. People are tired of having an agency created for this or that when there are already agencies that should be doing said job (I'm think ing about the new one that is supposed to look at our spending...isn't that why we have the budget committee in the first place?) His main point in reducing the government is to get rid of all the stuff that doesn't need to be there and many issues that are now handled by the federal government should be brought back down to the state level.

He wants to get rid of Income tax altogether as well. Why tax people who work hard and the harder they work the more they are taxed?

There are a lot of things he's talked about that if you at least step back and look at the broad picture, make sense.

As for the Federal Reserve, if you aren't already aware, It's about as connected to actual government as Federal Express. That said, his attack on the FED and wanting them to be audited would give the People their transparency and show proof of the corruption inside the government.


(sorry for the political rambling, but it's one of the topics i am passionate about)

 

[ZOS23xy]

The smaller government that the Republican wanted has resulted in what you read in the headlines now....with no regulation or enforcement, what will you have?

 

[midlifebear]

With all this Ron Paul speculation, I wonder whatever happened to the Lyndon LaRouche acolytes?

 

[ericbythebay]

The smaller government that the Republican wanted has resulted in what you read in the headlines now....with no regulation or enforcement, what will you have?

The problems we have now are not due to smaller government, the exact opposite. Under the guise of regulation, there are plenty of anti-competitive, anti-consumer federal laws out there that are only in place to benefit big business and pre-empt state consumer protection laws.

 

[B_Nick4444]

They lost my interest when they nominated Bob Barr, co-creator of DADT, as their presidential candidate.

As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.


conservatives and other former supporters of the policy have concluded it's time to change. In March, former Republican senator and Army veteran Alan Simpson announced he no longer supported policy of don't ask, don't tell, and believed it was crucial to lift the ban, which in his view has become "a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces." A handful of other Republicans have signed onto the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the current ban on openly gay troops. In January, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became the highest ranking military official to call for repeal, joining a growing chorus of (mostly retired) military brass to oppose the policy.


Don't Ask, Who Cares - WSJ.com

 

[D_RAND0MNESS]

Marriage is a legal act. It is used to decide distribution of assets in a relationship. It must be controlled by the government. This is how the sneaky Democrats have decided to take over marriage and control it.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Marriage is a legal act. It is used to decide distribution of assets in a relationship. It must be controlled by the government. This is how the sneaky Democrats have decided to take over marriage and control it.

Perhaps by the end of it, gay & lesbian people will have that right to distribute their assets in their relationships too. Yeah, how "sneaky" is that?

 

[D_RAND0MNESS]

Perhaps by the end of it, gay & lesbian people will have that right to distribute their assets in their relationships too. Yeah, how "sneaky" is that?

Just stand back and look. I don't remember gay marriage being an issue before the liberals took power. There was a time when "gay marriage" was never discussed. If you are old enough, you'd remember.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Just stand back and look. I don't remember gay marriage being an issue before the liberals took power. There was a time when "gay marriage" was never discussed. If you are old enough, you'd remember.

So when Bush announced that he wanted to see an amendment made to the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2004, back when conservatives were in power, you must've been asleep?

Or perhaps you were born after that nonsense, making you barely 5 years old on a penis site spewing more rhetoric than Michelle Bachmann stuck on infinite loop. Wouldn't that mean you're not even old enough to be on this board, kid?

 

[justasimpleguy]

VB, don't make fun of ol' Gipper. He's senile.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

VB, don't make fun of ol' Gipper. He's senile.

Awwwwww... you never let me have any fun!!! :frown1: :biggrin1:

 

[D_RAND0MNESS]

Just stand back and look. I don't remember gay marriage being an issue before the liberals took power. There was a time when "gay marriage" was never discussed. If you are old enough, you'd remember.

So when Bush announced that he wanted to see an amendment made to the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in 2004, back when conservatives were in power, you must've been asleep?

I doubt that W. Bush ever mentioned "gay marriage" (yes, I quoted it in my earlier post, a fact that you are ignoring). I defy you to show me a quote where Bush ever mentioned "gay marriage." I doubt that you will!

Like I wrote, it wasn't discussed. The Democrats turned it into an issue.

 

[midlifebear]

"He, he, he . . . now, there you go again. Heh."


Actually, it was us evil gays and our satanist gay agenda that have been pushing the issue of same sex marriage as well as having all the rights that yea holier-than-thou male/female marital unions enjoy. It just a simple fact that Democrats tend to be more understanding and sympathetic that The Vain Glorious GOP of No.

If you have a problem with that, too bad. :smile:

 

[midlifebear]

As a conservative Republican member of Congress from 1995 to 2003, I was hardly a card-carrying member of the gay-rights lobby. I opposed then, and continue to oppose, same-sex marriage, or the designation of gays as a constitutionally protected minority class. Service in the armed forces is another matter. The bottom line here is that, with nearly a decade and a half of the hybrid "don't ask, don't tell" policy to guide us, I have become deeply impressed with the growing weight of credible military opinion which concludes that allowing gays to serve openly in the military does not pose insurmountable problems for the good order and discipline of the services.


conservatives and other former supporters of the policy have concluded it's time to change. In March, former Republican senator and Army veteran Alan Simpson announced he no longer supported policy of don't ask, don't tell, and believed it was crucial to lift the ban, which in his view has become "a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces." A handful of other Republicans have signed onto the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which would repeal the current ban on openly gay troops. In January, Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, became the highest ranking military official to call for repeal, joining a growing chorus of (mostly retired) military brass to oppose the policy.


Don't Ask, Who Cares - WSJ.com

Nick o da sixes was a member of Congress? Naw. He must be confusing himself with some other blonde. :smile:

 

[B_VinylBoy]

I doubt that W. Bush ever mentioned "gay marriage" (yes, I quoted it in my earlier post, a fact that you are ignoring). I defy you to show me a quote where Bush ever mentioned "gay marriage." I doubt that you will!

Now you're being willingly & purposely ignorant to the subject matter because you can't find a sound bite of George W. Bush saying the exact words "gay" and "marriage" in some chronological order. Really, son... you can stop trying to grasp at straws to have a point. That is, unless you think "same sex marriage" and "gay marriage" are somehow different. You don't push to add an amendment to "protect marriage", or to define it as a union between a man and a woman, unless you're opposed to same sex, or "gay marriage". Plain & simple.

There's a level of intelligence I expect from the people I debate with. Your latest outburst is completely disingenuous and unacceptable. My nieces and nephews in elementary school can draw conclusions better than you. Just let me know if your cognitive thinking skills, and your ability to follow context sucks that much. That way I'll know to either ignore your fatuous ass, or at least find someone who can rescript what I type in crayon so you can follow along.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Nick o da sixes was a member of Congress? Naw. He must be confusing himself with some other blonde. :smile:

probably don't have to explain this to the rest of you, but, for the benefit of the poster whom I'm quoting, that was Bob Barr writing in the first person

 

[midlifebear]

probably don't have to explain this to the rest of you, but, for the benefit of the poster whom I'm quoting, that was Bob Barr writing in the first person

Sorry, I didn't see any attribution. Still don't, unless it's the error page that the link at the bottom of your post opens. When using "the official language of the United States of America!" it's common to use clues such as quotation marks and apposition to note that one is quoting someone and therefore not confuse one's readers.

However, I've been thinking about it and Ru Paul might just make a great president! Wait . . . we weren't arguing about Ru Paul, either . . . right?

 

[karoo]

Yo Zos, no Republican since Goldwater has really advocated smaller government; what the conservative cronies eliminate in regulation and enforcement, they make up for in subsidies, favors, and corporate welfare. Libertarians like Ron Paul are a far cry from conservatives; the only reason they run as republicans is that the two parties (Republicrats and Demopublicans) have tied up the entire ballot access and electoral process to favor themselves. Liberals who flog the (ersatz) 'free market' purportedly instituted by recent conservative administrations are building up a straw man to advance their own marxist agenda. And to address your question: without the regulation of the Nanny State, we might just regain personal freedom and a productive private sector.

 

[karoo]

And, By the way, what if government had absolutely no role in private relationships whatsoever? Suppose there were no tax subsidies for personal decisions like marriage and child bearing, and people could claim exactly one person as a benificiary for their insurance policies and benefits regardless of gender (maybe also minor children), and courts could settle custody disputes....hmmm, like they do now?

 

[B_Nick4444]

Liberals who flog the (ersatz) 'free market' purportedly instituted by recent conservative administrations are building up a straw man to advance their own marxist agenda. And to address your question: without the regulation of the Nanny State, we might just regain personal freedom and a productive private sector.

something tells me I'm going to enjoy this dude's posts :smile: