Presidential Candidate Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Slime

It's obviously not a lot, since all the media is reporting on is the Obama/Clinton race, but it's better than nothing.

Why do you think the media is reporting on the Democratic race over the Republican?

I'd be willing to bet quite a bit on the fact that there's a margin of 0.6% between Obama and Clinton and a margin of 65% between McCain and Ron Paul.

Also worth mentioning:

Though Ron Paul is still an active candidate, it is no longer mathematically possible for him to obtain a majority of the delegates during the primary/caucus process.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...ndidates,_2008 third paragraph.

McCain has practically won the Republican primary.

Originally Posted by Margar

That in itself does not violate the first amendment, only moves the power to a more local level. which is better than the decision being federal becuase every individual area is different.

It could, if a state decided to show religious text/imagery in government buildings.

and remember- I said that he is the only republican I WOULD vote for. I'm actually democrat, and plan on voting for Obama.

Good. Obama '08!

1) Indicate what changes you support (if any) concerning levels of federal funding for the following categories. Select one number only.
Greatly Decrease a) AIDS Programs
Greatly Decrease b) Arts funding
Greatly Decrease c) Education (K-12)
Greatly Decrease d) Environmental programs
Greatly Decrease e) Housing projects
Greatly Decrease f) Job training programs
Greatly Decrease g) Law enforcement
Greatly Decrease h) Medicaid
Greatly Decrease i) Medicare
Greatly Decrease j) NASA
Greatly Decrease k) Student loan programs
Greatly Decrease l) Welfare (AFDC)

He supports removing every single federal program that I think it is absolutely useless for governments to get involved in! Awesome! I love this man more and more every time I hear something new about him! <3

Er, andi, you're against funding for:

Education, the Environment, Job training, Law enforcement, and Welfare?


I'm rather curious as to how you see society working without laws or well-trained/educated people.

Originally Posted by Cody

I don't understand. If the guy is such a good choice, then vote for him. If there's such a large percentage of people who think Ron Paul is a good choice, then your votes can make the difference.

this large percentage is aged 12-17 and cannot vote.


be on the look out for another libertarian leaning candidate in 4 years because he very well MAY go the distance with the flame Paul sparked.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Er, andi, you're against funding for:

Education, the Environment, Job training, Law enforcement, and Welfare?


I'm rather curious as to how you see society working without laws or well-trained/educated people.

the education system is in need of major reform. the intelligent learn nothing and those who are not are just bumped up to the next level regardless of whether or not they are ready. Conversely private schools are generally regarded as better and most of those private schools have either lower or comparable per-student funding.

let people sue the companies which pollute. Or not buy from them. People will vote with their dollars.

Most job training is done at a university or on the job itself.

you give people guns... fewer people would be willing to rob. mutual deterrence. Worked with the USSR, did it not?

welfare - I suppose you prefer the british system better where people are paid more to be unemployed than they are to work at a lower end job right? You subsidize inefficiency and you will get more inefficiency. You might argue then that some people are incapable of working. Traditionally the lame were let be. either their family and friends cared for them or they had previous savings. If you were so antisocial is to have family and friends disown you that's your fault. If you were so foolish as to never generate a savings that's your fault. It's borderline eugenics but people who cannot support themselves should not expect much help.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

this large percentage is aged 12-17 and cannot vote.


be on the look out for another libertarian leaning candidate in 4 years because he very well MAY go the distance with the flame Paul sparked.


the education system is in need of major reform. the intelligent learn nothing and those who are not are just bumped up to the next level regardless of whether or not they are ready. Conversely private schools are generally regarded as better and most of those private schools have either lower or comparable per-student funding.

Indeed, public education in the US definitely has problems, but reducing funding isn't going to solve them.

Getting rid of no child left behind, removing the stigma to skipping grades, and having "gifted" programs is what you're looking for.

let people sue the companies which pollute. Or not buy from them. People will vote with their dollars.

><

It doesn't work. Not at all. These companies have monopolies and the best lawyers money can buy. You can't beat them that way, no matter how much Ayn Rand you read.

Most job training is done at a university or on the job itself.

Not at all. In fact, that's staggeringly wrong for anything but part-time low-level jobs.

you give people guns... fewer people would be willing to rob. mutual deterrence. Worked with the USSR, did it not?

Indeed? So you'd rather have law decided by angry mobs?

welfare - I suppose you prefer the british system better where people are paid more to be unemployed than they are to work at a lower end job right?

Not at all. But I'd rather not starve to death because the company I was working for folded.

You subsidize inefficiency and you will get more inefficiency. You might argue then that some people are incapable of working. Traditionally the lame were let be. either their family and friends cared for them or they had previous savings. If you were so antisocial is to have family and friends disown you that's your fault.

Indeed?

...I really am having trouble understanding this view. "Oh, I lost my leg in an industrial accident. My family full of cultists has disowned me because I didn't decide to sacrifice a human. I guess I'll just starve to death."

An extremely hyperbolic example? Well, yeah, but hardly inconceivable, especially in a milder form.


I also like how you say: "It's okay to let people die, so long as they don't have friends or a job." ><

If you were so foolish as to never generate a savings that's your fault. It's borderline eugenics but people who cannot support themselves should not expect much help.

You're assuming that it is, in fact, possible to get savings on the wages most people who have to use welfare make. This is probably not the case. They can put aside enough for maybe a month after a decade of working, but if they can't get re-hired in that month then you'd be happy to, essentially, come along with a gun and shoot them? 'Cause that's about what revoking welfare amounts to.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Indeed, public education in the US definitely has problems, but reducing funding isn't going to solve them.

Getting rid of no child left behind, removing the stigma to skipping grades, and having "gifted" programs is what you're looking for.

Actually, no child left behind is the only set of standards we have. Contrary to popular belief that NCLB is really the only way we have to judge how people are performing in every type of public school, everywhere - it provides the only way to standardly judge the quality of a teacher's work and a student's education. Teachers have to take tests that say they know the subject they're teaching, and students have to take tests to prove that they know three subjects - reading, math, and science.

If you don't know those things up to a certain standard, your school has taught you poorly and certainly does require the re-evaluation of its systems that follows with very very poor results.

It doesn't work. Not at all. These companies have monopolies and the best lawyers money can buy. You can't beat them that way, no matter how much Ayn Rand you read.

I never knew of a boycott that didn't work. Seeing as how most companies can't operate without customers, it's kind of hard to see how you couldn't easily pressure them into fixing anything you want. You can work your way around even the worst monopoly by simply deciding that their product isn't worth the crap they do and not buying it, or by simply getting into a class-action suit with a ton of other people.

That's a basic principle of economics. If no one is going to buy your product, you have to either fix it or stop selling it.

Not at all. In fact, that's staggeringly wrong for anything but part-time low-level jobs.

Actually, at my job, there are quite a few people who have trained up from $8/hour positions into $25/hour positions over the course of two years. People get paid based on the value of their work, and as long as you don't get a dead end job like operating a night shift, there's almost always opportunities for advancement.

Indeed? So you'd rather have law decided by angry mobs?

:/ Who said a thing about angry mobs? It's a simple fact - if robbing some place makes it more likely that someone is going to get shot, they will be far less likely to rob it.

Not at all. But I'd rather not starve to death because the company I was working for folded.

Even if you don't have friends, people aren't huge *******s. If you need a place to stay for a while and food to eat, there are TONS of privately-run welfare programs that exist in the world - food kitchens, homeless shelters - all of which provide a large amount of training for people to get new jobs if they want it.

Indeed?

...I really am having trouble understanding this view. "Oh, I lost my leg in an industrial accident. My family full of cultists has disowned me because I didn't decide to sacrifice a human. I guess I'll just starve to death."

An extremely hyperbolic example? Well, yeah, but hardly inconceivable, especially in a milder form.


I also like how you say: "It's okay to let people die, so long as they don't have friends or a job." ><

:/ Yeah, that's way over the top. And yet, the over-the-top examples that pop up in a welfare state are far more common. People are far more likely to get off their butts and recover from a bad situation than they are to decide that they are living too well off of what they consider to be free money.

I know dozens and dozens of people who earn tons of money from government subsidies. They don't work, but they are still capable of living as well off or even better off than I am. Does that make sense?

You're assuming that it is, in fact, possible to get savings on the wages most people who have to use welfare make. This is probably not the case. They can put aside enough for maybe a month after a decade of working, but if they can't get re-hired in that month then you'd be happy to, essentially, come along with a gun and shoot them? 'Cause that's about what revoking welfare amounts to.

That's not what revoking welfare is about at all. Welfare lasts for a year, minimum, and if you can't manage to get a job or new job training during that time you're either seriously messed up or actively trying to not get a job.

Also, just for the record, nobody HAS to use Welfare. Having to use welfare, by default, means that you're either a big fan of free money or that you screwed yourself over by overspending what you should have and not preparing for even the slightest bump in the road that could possibly come along.

Also, it's always possible to build up a savings. All you have to do is cut your own costs. If that means you eat bowls of rice and huge vitamin pills all day long, hey, you can do it.

Removing most systems put in by a welfare state is very easy and would actually help a lot of people out in the long run. Instead of wallowing around feeling sorry for themselves when bad stuff happens, they'd have to actually do something to pull themselves into a better situation in life. Doing that just takes a fairly small degree of hard work and dedication, which I suppose you and most proponents of large socialistic welfare system don't think that most, or even any, people are capable of. :/

The problem with NCLB is not that it uses testing to measure whether schools are educating to "acceptable" standards, but rather the fact that so little is done to improve failing schools or to provide/encourage qualified teachers to go where none are available. Theoretically the end result of the law should be to improve the school system, but in the long run it's just weeded out bad schools, which usually is coupled with heavy dropout rates.

Originally Posted by nighthawkx

this large percentage is aged 12-17 and cannot vote.

One has to ask: Is there any connection between the failing school system, and the age-range of the people who want to vote for Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Nietzsche

One has to ask: Is there any connection between the failing school system, and the age-range of the people who want to vote for Ron Paul?

Because ad-hominems are, by far, the most reasonable and effective way to bring a topic to light before others in this thread.

Althought, you do bring up a point. When intelligent people get fed up with a crappy school system, they will support whatever way they think is best to fix the problem - and the last decades have proven that the democratic party's solution of providing more funding hasn't worked.

The US government is #1 for the amount of money spent on each student in public school - it spends nearly $11,000 per student per year, which is only even remotely matched by Switzerland. Public school funding per student has increased by 212%, since the 60s, and quality of education has only diminished relative to other countries. At the same time, private-school educations have only gotten better and better.

Thus, anyone with half a brain who has gone through the public school system would immediately start pushing for a new type of reform. Obviously, the main way to do this is to try to phase out the public control of education and to try and make compulsory education into a remotely viable system - for example, by forcing public and private schools to compete with the institution of a voucher program, an idea that many libertarians have supported.

Ron Paul's viewpoint is a TINY bit different than a voucher program. Instead of paying tax money to get the voucher, the Family Education Freedom Act would allow people to simply claim up to $5,000 in tuition, public education, or homeschooling expenses on their taxes and get that money back - essentially, the government would reimburse them for the tuition they would spend. In essence, it has the same result of encouraging people to take their money and use it to select a school, but instead of giving the voucher to a school and having them spend all the money as they please, it allows parents to decide where and when they want that $5,000 to be best spent for their child. If a child wants a laptop for educational purposes or to take a big field trip, that money can be used to cover it. It gives parents and students a lot more freedom than a voucher program would while still providing more than enough money for a decent public, private, or homeschooling education.

The school voucher program only allows for the first two choices and greatly restricts decisions as to the allocation of the money, but Ron Paul's proposed act (which he would pass if he was president), allows for greater flexibility and far more ease in the providing of individualized education solutions for every student.

Originally Posted by andi

Actually, no child left behind is the only set of standards we have. Contrary to popular belief that NCLB is really the only way we have to judge how people are performing in every type of public school, everywhere - it provides the only way to standardly judge the quality of a teacher's work and a student's education. Teachers have to take tests that say they know the subject they're teaching, and students have to take tests to prove that they know three subjects - reading, math, and science.

If you don't know those things up to a certain standard, your school has taught you poorly and certainly does require the re-evaluation of its systems that follows with very very poor results.

That is indeed the theory, but it isn't working.

I never knew of a boycott that didn't work. Seeing as how most companies can't operate without customers, it's kind of hard to see how you couldn't easily pressure them into fixing anything you want. You can work your way around even the worst monopoly by simply deciding that their product isn't worth the crap they do and not buying it, or by simply getting into a class-action suit with a ton of other people.

Again, sounds fine in principle.

Yet, for some reason, it just doesn't work.

In addition, it's hard to get a class-action lawsuit going. Same with a boycott. It normally takes the company committing murder for people to even care.

Actually, at my job, there are quite a few people who have trained up from $8/hour positions into $25/hour positions over the course of two years. People get paid based on the value of their work, and as long as you don't get a dead end job like operating a night shift, there's almost always opportunities for advancement.

Anecdotes != data.

:/ Who said a thing about angry mobs? It's a simple fact - if robbing some place makes it more likely that someone is going to get shot, they will be far less likely to rob it.

Ah, now that I know is up for debate. No real data either way, and the little that is around seems to show no effect on the crime rate from allowing guns.

If the crime rate is going to stay the same then I'll opt for not arming everyone.

In addition, that still hardly justifies reducing the funding on law enforcement. I mean, crime rates are still surprisingly high, and you won't reduce them by not letting the police do as much as they can now.

Even if you don't have friends, people aren't huge *******s. If you need a place to stay for a while and food to eat, there are TONS of privately-run welfare programs that exist in the world - food kitchens, homeless shelters - all of which provide a large amount of training for people to get new jobs if they want it.

Why do you suppose welfare was originally started, then?

Really, governments don't tend to like these systems, they do cost lots of money, so there must've been some reason they started them and maintain them.

Well, it turns out that people were losing their jobs and starving to death no matter what they tried.

:/ Yeah, that's way over the top. And yet, the over-the-top examples that pop up in a welfare state are far more common. People are far more likely to get off their butts and recover from a bad situation than they are to decide that they are living too well off of what they consider to be free money.

I know dozens and dozens of people who earn tons of money from government subsidies. They don't work, but they are still capable of living as well off or even better off than I am. Does that make sense?

Strawman argument. Obviously welfare shouldn't give you more money then you can earn by working, but that's hardly the same as calling for no welfare.

Doing that just takes a fairly small degree of hard work and dedication, which I suppose you and most proponents of large socialistic welfare system don't think that most, or even any, people are capable of. :/

Or we recognize that life isn't fair and that the American dream, 99 times out of a hundred, is just that, a dream and we don't feel like allowing people to starve to death during economic recessions.

Originally Posted by Cody

I don't understand. If the guy is such a good choice, then vote for him. If there's such a large percentage of people who think Ron Paul is a good choice, then your votes can make the difference.

Electoral College trumps the popular vote.