Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Ron Paul is personally anti-abortion, but finds a happy medium between the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers in making abortion (and ALL OTHER SOCIAL MATTERS) a states matter.
The whole concept of which I find ridiculous. We're getting back to the arguments of the early part of our history, which we ended up in a civil war to resolve. It's federal vs. states' rights. I don't know about you, but I consider myself a citizen of *The* (not "these") United States of America who happens to reside in a place called Virginia. I am *not* a Virginian who resides in a loose confederation of 49 other states that we call the USA. That's the difference.
Having 50 sets of rules, regulations, laws, norms, mores, and values means we're no longer one country. We're 50 little Balkan states who can't get along with one another. We fought one war, what's to say we won't fight another over matters such as abortion, taxation, immigration, etc, etc? Sadly, I feel pretty sure we eventually will.
The states already differ on SO MANY different things, and run things like education incentives, traffic laws, a million other little things, etc. on their own terms, based on the needs of their population. As an example of too much federal oversight: California legalized medical marijuana, but the DEA was conducting raids on homes of people with permits. Is this fair? At all? Especially when the federal government are staunchly adamant against the legalization of marijuana.
And BTW, 'reckless spending' is very much a matter of definition. Don't be sucked in by the media hype. Do a little independent research on the facts.
HOW in the hell do you not see $14+ trillion and counting in debt as anything other than mathematically unsustainable? (Reckless spending is kind of a catchphrase, I'll admit.)
He's not even actually anti-war-- he's an isolationist
That is a common misunderstanding. He is most certainly anti-war. He is one of the ONLY anti-war congressman in all of washington... People who say that don't know the definition of "isolationism". That label is a smear campaign from Neo-conservative republicans and that's all it is. You have been duped by the GOP if you believe that Isolationist and Non-interventionist are two very different things.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited October 2011
the present, i don't have any reason to believe that ron paul is the answer to american's problems. i'm still on the fence about it all, and i do plan on watching the debates (as i do every election), but there are certain things that can be a deal breaker to me. it's not a definite, but he'd have to be pretty fantastic to make me change my mind.
Ron Paul has said that he doesn't agree with signing executive orders because it undermines Congress and the decisions of the People. Roe v. Wade couldn't be overturned overnight. At any rate, I don't see universal health care or insurance or abortion as key issues AT ALL in this election season. What you're effectively saying is that you would vote for someone who stood with you on YOUR key issues, even if they supported the endless foreign wars, reckless spending, and economic death march that comprise the status quo.
i didn't have time to respond to your comment on my comment to mindgate. but actually, i don't understand your point. are we agreeing? i don't agree with mindgate. my comment was written to try and illustrate some of the problems with mindgate's philosophy in a compassionate way because he seemed to have gotten upset and he is young. i didn't want to alienate him by throwing the KKK hood over his head because i don't think that was his point. i believe he is just too naive to understand that some laws need to be in place to keep others from doing the wrong thing. unless i misunderstood something, i don't think mindgate is actually a racist(meaning, he personally discriminates against other races)... he's more like... a racist sympathizer? perhaps? but really, i have a feeling he didn't think his argument through. but i could be wrong... we will know if he decides to return to this discussion.
but onto the ron paul stuff, i don't support the overturn of roe v. wade. that is something i am passionate about. i have told you that i haven't been blown away by ron paul thus far and therefore, i have no reason to trust that he's the answer to anything. as it stands, i don't know if i have faith that he can fix our problems, but i do know that he wants to do something contrary to something i feel very strongly about. why would i vote for a maybe positive unknown(war, economy, etc) and a big negative known(repealing roe v. wade)? i don't think it's any of your business what is important to me in a candidate, and i never once even mentioned my opinions on the war, reckless spending, the economy, etc... because i don't know that ron paul is going to fix this stuff. every candidate says what they want you to hear, i just haven't figured out whether or not i believe him yet. what you're doing is putting words in my mouth. if i decide not to vote for a candidate because of something i KNOW he will do, that does not mean that i will vote for a candidate that keeps roe v. wade but violates all of those other things. PP isn't the only thing i care about, it's just something that's important to me. also, why do you keep bringing up universal healthcare? i told you, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about MY insurance in relation to planned parenthood. the only point of that story was to illustrate how shortsighted his views on pulling federal funding from PP is, because they do SO much more than abortions.
you might do well to remember that what are key issues to you may not be key issues to everyone else. i see roe v. wade as a monumental personal freedom and i don't like even the idea that he wants to repeal it. to me, that sets off warning bells in my mind and makes me leery of him. i know that you are apparently a big ron paul fan, but if this is the way you try to get others to join your cause, you aren't doing a very good job. try a little more compassion, less attacking.
realistically, 2012 will probably be another year in which i vote for the "lesser of two evils" but the points are no where near being tallied yet. ron paul isn't even sure to be the republican candidate.
HOW in the hell do you not see $14+ trillion and counting in debt as anything other than mathematically unsustainable? (Reckless spending is kind of a catchphrase, I'll admit.)
Spending, deficit, and debt are three TOTALLY different subjects, that most people don't understand and consistently confabulate. The United Kingdom spent the majority of the 20th Century with a national debt at or above 100% of GDP - and they're still around. Historically speaking, the national debt of the US currently isn't nearly as high as it's been before (vs. GDP).
Spending? Yes, $14 trillion is a lot of money. But keep in mind that on a per-capita basis, it's nothing *remotely* like what was spent during the Great Depression to keep the economy from imploding. Thank goodness we didn't have today's GOP in place when FDR was president. There wouldn't be a United States of America anymore.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of "reckless spending". I'm not. Far from it. We waste at least as much as we spend in this country. But I'm also not afraid of spending when it's warranted, and right now it's warranted. What would be reckless is letting the economy implode. You and I (nor anyone alive) have ever seen the likes of what the world would look like if that happened.
I'm finished with this discussion, but I do want to say that I felt I was being compassionate. It's not in my nature to attack people, and I could have said many worse things-- nothing I said was a direct attack on you or your views, though it's your choice to take it that way. While I could be wrong, Roe v. Wade is something that's at the periphery for me at this time, and I seriously doubt it could be overturned at any time in the near future. I feel like there's bigger fish to fry. I kind of also feel like America is going down the shitter regardless, if we at least can't get someone in the White House with integrity similar to Ron Paul. Everyone's pandering... except Ron Paul. He sticks to his guns.
I'm also not trying to get anyone to "join my cause". I think there are a few misinterpretations of his message, and I often think that most people get their ideas about him from Rachel Maddow. A lot of people have difficulty putting things into perspective, not excluding myself.
you might do well to remember that what are key issues to you may not be key issues to everyone else. i see roe v. wade as a monumental personal freedom and i don't like even the idea that he wants to repeal it. to me, that sets off warning bells in my mind and makes me leery of him. i know that you are apparently a big ron paul fan, but if this is the way you try to get others to join your cause, you aren't doing a very good job. try a little more compassion, less attacking.
realistically, 2012 will probably be another year in which i vote for the "lesser of two evils" but the points are no where near being tallied yet. ron paul isn't even sure to be the republican candidate.
I'm finished with this discussion, but I do want to say that I felt I was being compassionate. It's not in my nature to attack people, and I could have said many worse things-- nothing I said was a direct attack on you (while it may have been on your views), but it's your choice to take it that way. While I could be wrong, Roe v. Wade is something that's at the periphery for me at this time, and I seriously doubt it could be overturned at any time in the near future. I feel like there's bigger fish to fry. I kind of also feel like America is going down the shitter regardless, if we can't at least get someone in the White House with integrity similar to Ron Paul's. Everyone's pandering... except Ron Paul. He sticks to his guns and doesn't tailor his message to fit the audience. I mentioned universal healthcare because I believe that the insurance issues are tied. Under Ron Paul's regime, apparently your insurance company would have to seriously consider offering greater benefits or risk losing your business, because you'd have better options at a lower price.
I'm also not trying to get anyone to "join my cause". I think there are a few misinterpretations of his message, and I often think that most people get their ideas about him from Rachel Maddow. (I really don't care for Maddow or any other political commentator.) Many among us have difficulty putting things into perspective, not excluding myself.
@prettyhowtown I am also concerned about the debt, it's an important issue for me... Bush was to blame, as well as Obama. I do like Ron Paul's approach... Cain brings up some good points as well. I don't like to get on the blind wagon with Left or right... Gotta weigh the issues that's important to you, and they won't be the same for everyone
@prettyhowtown I am also concerned about the debt, it's an important issue for me... Bush was to blame, as well as Obama. I do like Ron Paul's approach... Cain brings up some good points as well. I don't like to get on the blind wagon with Left or right... Gotta weigh the issues that's important to you, and they won't be the same for everyone
In comparison to the other things I see happening with the country, abortion is at the bottom of my list. It might move up if the economy were better and the wars ended. Key issues, for me, change with the times.
HOW in the hell do you not see $14+ trillion and counting in debt as anything other than mathematically unsustainable? (Reckless spending is kind of a catchphrase, I'll admit.)
Spending, deficit, and debt are three TOTALLY different subjects, that most people don't understand and consistently confabulate. The United Kingdom spent the majority of the 20th Century with a national debt at or above 100% of GDP - and they're still around. Historically speaking, the national debt of the US currently isn't nearly as high as it's been before (vs. GDP).
Spending? Yes, $14 trillion is a lot of money. But keep in mind that on a per-capita basis, it's nothing *remotely* like what was spent during the Great Depression to keep the economy from imploding. Thank goodness we didn't have today's GOP in place when FDR was president. There wouldn't be a United States of America anymore.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of "reckless spending". I'm not. Far from it. We waste at least as much as we spend in this country. But I'm also not afraid of spending when it's warranted, and right now it's warranted. What would be reckless is letting the economy implode. You and I (nor anyone alive) have ever seen the likes of what the world would look like if that happened.
Good points. People do use spending, debt, and deficit as though they are the same when in reality, they are very different. I don't like the trend though in our spending. We had a budget surplus under Clinton, but that was turned into a huge deficit by Bush. This deficit has increased under Obama's administration. I think that, ideally, we should try to have a budget surplus. I don't think that's necessarily possible with our current economy, but I'm afraid that our politicians will never work out any sort of compromise to reduce our deficit. Republicans won't raise taxes or cut defense, and Democrats won't touch any entitlement programs.
One thing that annoys me is that the GOP only tries to the "party of fiscal responsibility" when it's politically convenient. I identify myself as a fiscal conservative (and a social liberal), but calling somebody like Bush a fiscal conservative is laughable.
Wow I had some pretty noticeable grammar errors in that last post. If there's any sentences that sound like their missing a word or two, they probably are
What people don't say about the surplus under Clinton was that it was entirely based on 1990s runaway growth, which as we've seen, was unsustainable. It was a house of cards. It collapsed (with a great deal of doing by Dumbya). It could not have continued piling up even if Bush hadn't gotten us into two off the books illegal wars after 9/11. It was bound to fail.
Like most things in economics, it was an illusion created by smoke & mirrors (perhaps cigar smoke in this case, I don't know).
The one thing I do know is that unless there is ***radical*** change in corporate structures and thinking, and in politics, the United States I grew up in will evaporate, and it won't be pretty.
What I'm about to say could be wrong, so please don't freaking attack me for saying this:
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul simply wants to cut or reduce Federal spending for Medicaid, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, etc, and rather let the states pay for it.
"Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy. And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”"
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul simply wants to cut or reduce Federal spending for Medicaid, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, etc, and rather let the states pay for it.
Right. Great idea. They're Federal programs (always have been), and Mr. Paul hasn't given us any really good plan on how the states (who are already cash-strapped) are supposed to pay for this? And what happens if I work my whole life in Virginia, but retire to Arizona? It's a dumb idea at its core.
The one thing I do know is that unless there is ***radical*** change in corporate structures and thinking, and in politics, the United States I grew up in will evaporate, and it won't be pretty.
The United States you grew up in was gone by the time you grew up.
Well, it wasn't like it is now when I was a young adult either. It's simple fact. The disconnect between rich and poor has grown exponentially in the past 30, and especially in the last 20 years.
And in any event, that doesn't in any way obviate the need for radical change, regardless of when it happened.
Well, it wasn't like it is now when I was a young adult either. It's simple fact. The disconnect between rich and poor has grown exponentially in the past 30, and especially in the last 20 years.
And in any event, that doesn't in any way obviate the need for radical change, regardless of when it happened.
Comments
Just an example, anyway...
HOW in the hell do you not see $14+ trillion and counting in debt as anything other than mathematically unsustainable? (Reckless spending is kind of a catchphrase, I'll admit.)
but onto the ron paul stuff, i don't support the overturn of roe v. wade. that is something i am passionate about. i have told you that i haven't been blown away by ron paul thus far and therefore, i have no reason to trust that he's the answer to anything. as it stands, i don't know if i have faith that he can fix our problems, but i do know that he wants to do something contrary to something i feel very strongly about. why would i vote for a maybe positive unknown(war, economy, etc) and a big negative known(repealing roe v. wade)? i don't think it's any of your business what is important to me in a candidate, and i never once even mentioned my opinions on the war, reckless spending, the economy, etc... because i don't know that ron paul is going to fix this stuff. every candidate says what they want you to hear, i just haven't figured out whether or not i believe him yet. what you're doing is putting words in my mouth. if i decide not to vote for a candidate because of something i KNOW he will do, that does not mean that i will vote for a candidate that keeps roe v. wade but violates all of those other things. PP isn't the only thing i care about, it's just something that's important to me. also, why do you keep bringing up universal healthcare? i told you, i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about MY insurance in relation to planned parenthood. the only point of that story was to illustrate how shortsighted his views on pulling federal funding from PP is, because they do SO much more than abortions.
you might do well to remember that what are key issues to you may not be key issues to everyone else. i see roe v. wade as a monumental personal freedom and i don't like even the idea that he wants to repeal it. to me, that sets off warning bells in my mind and makes me leery of him. i know that you are apparently a big ron paul fan, but if this is the way you try to get others to join your cause, you aren't doing a very good job. try a little more compassion, less attacking.
realistically, 2012 will probably be another year in which i vote for the "lesser of two evils" but the points are no where near being tallied yet. ron paul isn't even sure to be the republican candidate.
Spending? Yes, $14 trillion is a lot of money. But keep in mind that on a per-capita basis, it's nothing *remotely* like what was spent during the Great Depression to keep the economy from imploding. Thank goodness we didn't have today's GOP in place when FDR was president. There wouldn't be a United States of America anymore.
I'm not saying I'm in favor of "reckless spending". I'm not. Far from it. We waste at least as much as we spend in this country. But I'm also not afraid of spending when it's warranted, and right now it's warranted. What would be reckless is letting the economy implode. You and I (nor anyone alive) have ever seen the likes of what the world would look like if that happened.
I'm also not trying to get anyone to "join my cause". I think there are a few misinterpretations of his message, and I often think that most people get their ideas about him from Rachel Maddow.
As it is, I feel like I'm beating a dead horse.
With metta,
E
Left or right... Gotta weigh the issues that's important to you, and they won't be the same for everyone
One thing that annoys me is that the GOP only tries to the "party of fiscal responsibility" when it's politically convenient. I identify myself as a fiscal conservative (and a social liberal), but calling somebody like Bush a fiscal conservative is laughable.
Like most things in economics, it was an illusion created by smoke & mirrors (perhaps cigar smoke in this case, I don't know).
The one thing I do know is that unless there is ***radical*** change in corporate structures and thinking, and in politics, the United States I grew up in will evaporate, and it won't be pretty.
I'm pretty sure that Ron Paul simply wants to cut or reduce Federal spending for Medicaid, Social Security, Planned Parenthood, etc, and rather let the states pay for it.
"Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, food stamps, family support programs and the children’s nutrition program would be block-granted to the states and removed from the mandatory spending column of the federal budget. Some functions of eliminated departments, such as Pell Grants, would be continued elsewhere in the federal bureaucracy. And in a noticeable nod to seniors during an election year, when Social Security’s become an issue within the Republican presidential primaries, the campaign says that plan “honors our promise to our seniors and veterans, while allowing young workers to opt out.”"
And in any event, that doesn't in any way obviate the need for radical change, regardless of when it happened.
(Update, 4 minutes later: he is now up to $1,027,040.58)