Who is, this man??? Why does he want to save, my country?

[wrobert]

de-lurking... hi!

GOP, I am a 20-something, former... Nader-voter... that has been raised as a disenfranchised hippie child of the Reagan era. I am a new mom who is over-taxed, under-insured and seeking real change.

I support Ron Paul because I am tired of the "Washington machine" - I am tired of my liberties being compromised - The things I abhor the most are the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and the tired justifications supporting these conflicts.

Among many other things, Dr. Paul has offered coherent platforms on leaving Iraq, getting rid of the income tax and limiting governmental spending. He has promised to lower barriers to efficent health care. He has identified and spoken out against the current administrations' threat to Americans' civil libeties.

How can you not love this guy?!

There are quite a few of his ideas that I think are great.

I am not sure how being an isolationist would work.

How is he going to lower barriers to healthcare?

If he gets rid of the income tax and does not believe in a sales tax, how are the necessities going to be funded?

I certainly agree with him on the civil liberty position. I seem to be in the minority among my Republican friends but I hate the amount of stuff I have to go through now just to open a bank account.

 

[Jdarg]

I am not in favor of returning federal powers to the states- we are not the same nation we were when the founding fathers put their ideas to paper. If most decisions were made at state level, it would be very divisive, not to mention confusing.

And would this lead to "designer" states? You could choose your home state based on the laws and climate of that state regarding your taxes, healthcare, religious freedoms, etc.

 

[ckhagen]

Then why would a left leaning, liberal democrat be supporting him?

Because maybe not everyone who classifies themselves as a "liberal" is a liberal leaning to socialism? Maybe they call themselves a liberal because they confuse it or meld it with (or don't understand it) a desire for personal liberty (especially social issues)?

What is his solution?

Well first, stop spending money we can't afford to be spending (ie, war and occupation). Then maybe we can stop printing money that isn't hardly worth the paper it's printed on. And stop borrowing from China and start paying them back!
Then in the future...
Introducing competing currency... reducing the control of the central bank (Federal Reserve). And ideally returning us to a gold standard, which would obviously not take place any time soon.

Also could you explain the problem with CODEX? I did some reading and again I must be missing something.

Codex compliance requires that vitamins and minerals have a determined "upper safe limit" of consumption based on the "risk assessment protocols" determined by Codex with consumption levels being monitored by a doctor's prescription. This is justified since vitamins are classified as Codex toxins. The net result is an end-around the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health & Education Act that was to protect these freedoms.

Do we really want the WTO determining what they think is safe for US consumers? Do you really want to have to get a prescription for some Vitamin C? Ask any educated Herbalist, Natropath, or HFS owner and they're almost always vehemently against us surrendering our sovereignty in this way, all in the name of "free trade".

Here's the deal with CODEX in 7 points: http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php?page_id=157

The issue of eliminating the income tax and not replacing it is actually not that complicated. Based on the amount of money that the income tax brings in, if we eliminated it, we would be left with the same amount of money spent in the year 2000 budget. So... should he have his way, ending the war for example, we would be nearly back at that level of spending/income right there.

And, I'm not sure how many time the guy has to say it but just for repeating sake "I'm not an isolationist... I'm a non-interventionist!"
I think that's very clear. Would an isolationist lift the embargo and sanctions on Cuba and Iran? Would they be very vocal about trading and diplomacy? Just because he doesn't want to go blowing up this country, invading that one, and occupying the rest, doesn't mean he wants to isolate us. I guess you have to be all on board with pre-emptive war and global occupation in order to not be labeled an isolationist these days?

And I don't know, but I think we would probably feel a little threatened if Saudi Arabia opened a base in Pace. With the amount of money we owe China, I wouldn't doubt they start wanting to occupy us someday.

 

[DuneAHH]

I am not in favor of returning federal powers to the states- we are not the same nation we were when the founding fathers put their ideas to paper. If most decisions were made at state level, it would be very divisive, not to mention confusing.

And would this lead to "designer" states? You could choose your home state based on the laws and climate of that state regarding your taxes, healthcare, religious freedoms, etc.

What would be so bad about that?

It seems to me, we over-empower the single office of President and then ultimately end up feeling disenfranchised....unable to be heard because we're too small & too distant to sway anything.

Maybe if the some of the power was more spread out across the states, we as citizens would be more "self" empowered. There's a greater sense of achievability & accountability working at a community (& state) level where folks can physically LOOK one another in the eye.

Perhaps this a irrelevant out-there analogy: but I equate it to sending one's kid to a boarding school far far away, versus early education within the perimeters of home & community. Most folks seem to prefer to keep their kids close to home so they can be involved in shaping their lives.

 

[ckhagen]

I am not in favor of returning federal powers to the states- we are not the same nation we were when the founding fathers put their ideas to paper. If most decisions were made at state level, it would be very divisive, not to mention confusing.

And would this lead to "designer" states? You could choose your home state based on the laws and climate of that state regarding your taxes, healthcare, religious freedoms, etc.

What makes us different? Why does it render the Constitution worthless?

The states are given certain powers to prevent us from ALL having to live by ONE rule. It's basic checks and balances. The role of Federal Government in this case is to protect us from having liberties taken away (unconstitutionally) by the states, but not to impose laws from the Federal level on all of the states. The Federal government doesn't deal with murder for example... that is left up to the states. Does that mean there are states in which you can't be prosecuted for it? Or course not.

As it is there are 50 states and 50 different ways of dealing with all of this stuff. We're not that different. Freedom of Religion is something guaranteed by the First Amendment, which does apply to the entire country and can't be tinkered with by the states.

So basically what I'm saying is... I think you're misunderstanding... He's not saying he would take Federal powers and give them to the states, but "return" Federal powers to the states that have been taken from them. He's trying to protect the states from having their power, unconstitutionally, usurped by the Federal Government. Marriage for example... Marriage was something specifically given to the states to deal with. The Federal government should not have *anything* do to with deciding who can and can't marry. That includes making a Constitutional Amendment saying that marriage is between and man and a woman. (I'm a Christian by the way, and I agree). It's not an issue for the Federal government to decide. In fact, he'll take it one more step and say that marriage is technically a covenant made on religious grounds. We shouldn't be limiting the ability of two people to contract with one another, commercially, domestically, etc... If they have a church who will dub their contract a religious covenant typically called marriage, then that's their business.

And considering one of the reasons you "need" a marriage license is for tax purposes, eliminating the IRS takes care of that. Personally, I wish I would have never gotten a marriage license! I don't need anyone to tell me that I'm married. And the fact that we've let the Federal government use tax purposes to corner us into allowing the state to license us to marry is just ridiculous.

Anyways, as it stands the states rights are extremely important.
Here's the wiki on how states rights are set up and how our liberties are supposed to be secured by the Bill of Rights. [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_rights[/ame]

 

[Jdarg]

Both Dune-ahh and Ckhagan make great arguments, but I still don't agree that returning certain decisions back to the states is a good thing. I envision a nation where certain states would have elected officials that were so extremely conservative or liberal that they would alienate many of their own residents with their decisions. I like the fact that members of the House and Senate are collectively making certain decisions for the rest of us- of course when we disagree with the decision, we view it as unbalanced. Then we work to elect state officials that do reflect our views. Sometimes we win, sometimes we don't.

Our nation is so complicated now, with so many different peoples and so many more issues and problems. We can't take it back to the way our founding fathers started it- it's a nice idea though, but not realistic for our society. It would be like untangling a spider web, and can you imagine the political and logistical nightmare that would come about in choosing just what powers would be returned to the states? Who will decide that one?

Regarding the income tax- there are too many "necessities" as WaltonGOP put it. Again, unrealistic. Sure, I don't want to pay income or sales tax, but I look at taxes as my contribution to living in the USA and all the freedoms that go with it. Should we get this for free?

If Ron Paul is so interested in personal liberty, why is he so anti- reproductive choice? Limiting a woman's reproductive freedoms is about as intrusive and anti-liberty as it gets.

I think we have all seen how religion has quickly ingratiated itself into politics. Of course we have religious freedoms, but we are not free from religious influence.

BTW- I don't have a clue who will get my vote. Every time I think I might be leaning towards somebody, I hear a blip or blurb about a view that makes me pull back. Regarding Ron Paul, I am waiting to meet somebody like myself and hear why they like him- I am a college graduate, a married 43 year old parent of an elementary and a high school kid, formerly voted along conservative lines, and did a 360 politically, spiritually, philosphically after the kids came along. I always have and will continue to be pro-choice. I am insane about public school education and making it work, not just for my kids, but for all kids (so we need taxes). I don't like fads and gimmicks and sound bytes (like this Youtube campaign stuff). If somebody reading this fits my demographic, tell me why you like Ron Paul.

I feel like I just wrote a personal dating ad.

 

[rehdrahk]

I am 30, computer professional and local business owner, engaged to get married. Not an exact match for your profile , but if you are willing to listen, I can tell you why I plan on voting for RP.

Let's start with Freedom ... This is one of my key reasons ...
I find that he is the only candidate that in any way has respect for the overall individual freedoms that were granted to us by our Constitution. Granted there can be some things from the Constitution that may not hold as much water today as they did in the past, but as far as I understand how things are supposed to work ... the Constitution can be amended in order advance with the progression of our society. Problem right now is that so many things going at the Federal Level are circumventing the Constitution and therefore attacking individual rights as well as chipping away at our national sovereignty.

Second ... and much more controversial is the war in Iraq ...
I lived in NYC during the 911 attacks ... and will admit I was the first one to say let's go get those f&*(%ers. Now that the evidence has unfolded, I have come to the conclusion that our current Federal Government has their own agenda, which unfortunately at this time is highly entangled with corporate positions/politics, and does not reflect the best interest of the American people. I feel like all the other candidates are not doing their part in being honest with us about how much this war is costing us and what our overall goal of being there is?

I will stop here if you would like to comment ... I have a few other points if you would like me to continue ... but we may end up with a short novel.

I consider myself a well read study on many of the issues that are going on in our country and would love to answer any direct questions you may want to ask me about RP

The weekend is almost here ...

 

[Smiling JOe]

If Ron Paul is so interested in personal liberty, why is he so anti- reproductive choice? Limiting a woman's reproductive freedoms is about as intrusive and anti-liberty as it gets.

Don't know much about Ron Paul other than the background info, I've been reading lately, but I'll take a guess at your answer. It's kind of a combo answer. Returning the powers back to the States, each State could create its own laws regarding things such as abortion, marriage, etc. If you were sexually active and were thinking about getting an abortion, you could move to a State where it was legal, to have it done (no guarantee that it would be legal in any state). Same thing with the marriage. I guess each State would decide on requirements such as proof of residency, or maybe they say, When in Rome,.... In reality, it isn't much different than govt which already exists, with each State getting to decide many things, such as legal driving age, legal drinking age, legal smoking age, firearm laws, State Income tax laws, etc. In particular, I can recall only two issues which Paul has mentioned returning the powers to the States --
1) abortion, 2) marriage licenses

Ron Paul graduated from college with a degree in Biology. He became a doctor, in particular, an OB/GYN. Somewhere I read that he became the only OB/GYN in his town and he was delivering 40 per month. That's a lot of babies. I think I also read that he delivered over 4000 babies in his career as an OB/GYN. Now this is just a guess, but Ron Paul having a degree in Biology, then going into med shcool, taking an Oath to save lives, becoming an OB/GYN, he doesn't believe in killing, or going against his oath as a doctor. I don't know if he ever had to perform an abortion, but if I was a baby doctor, there is no way I could ever bring myself to "performing" an abortion. Maybe it all goes back to his beliefs. Interestingly, unlike most other Republicans, he acknowledges that the Fed Gov't should not have the authority to make decisions such as that, and even though he doesn't personally believe in it, he is willing to allow the State's to make their own decisions.

On another note, he also would like to get rid of the harsh drug war. He would likely return that power to the States to make their own drug laws. Maybe California and Oregon would be filled with potheads. I know many people who would pack up and move west for just that reason. If Ron Paul could just motivate the pot smokers in America to vote for him, he would win the election by a landslide, but motivated pot smoker is an oxymoron.

 

[seacrestkristi]

:scratch:

 

[wrobert]

I will stop here if you would like to comment ... I have a few other points if you would like me to continue ... but we may end up with a short novel.

I consider myself a well read study on many of the issues that are going on in our country and would love to answer any direct questions you may want to ask me about RP

The weekend is almost here ...

I am interested if you wish to continue.

I agree that powers need to be returned to the States for the reason SJ gave. All the potheads could move out west, and maybe other States could gear themselves toward other populations, and those that think alike could live together in harmony. RP stance on drug laws is, imho, the reason the college students are behind him. I doubt you could get 1 out of 10 that could even spell Constitution much less explain the nuances that lead to the overall balance of the powers.