awesome.

Dubs means it will happen, I guess.

Yeltsin's Russia after the USSR went into a great fall and become a damaged demoralized bankrupt nation, a former superpower and one of the greatest empire collapses ever known. :-(

Not good.

>>429034
What makes you think so?

The troops would come back from Afghanistan and Iraq but little else would change including the military budget (set by Congress) because the President needs the cooperation of Congress, and very, very few people in Congress have ever cared much for Dr. Paul's politics.

Occupied by the Glorious Chinese and Muslim Masters

I really don't care who wins the us election it's a win win situation

american turns fail state, society collapses and they all die

>prostitution legalized
>gay marriage legalized
>drug legalized
>troops out of Afghanistan
>end the fed
>cut 1 trillion out of national dept in first year

pic related more than ever?

>>429050
Since President Paul would never sign into law an unbalanced budget, the Republicans and Democrats would have to come together to get a 2/3rds majority to override any budget veto. If they didn't, the entire government would grind to a halt.

it would either be an incredible transformation unprecedented modern history, lifing the USA back to its status as awesome.

or a bland failure with him battling the agents of the status quo until his term expires, dotted with occasional half decent achievements

>>429060
>congress
>doing anything ron paul says
pick one

>legalize prostitutes
>myriad of STD's
pick both

>>429050
It's not his politics that they dislike. They actually envy his politics, quite a bit. They just can't stand that he's not a team-player. They hate his stand on principle.

>>429092
Oh, like people aren't fucking everyone they can, right now?

>>429105
>people fucking everyone they can right now
>myriad of STD's
pick both

with ron paul as presidet:
>US would pull out of iraq and afghanistan entirely
>war on drugs would be ended
>guaranteed balanced budget
those the only things that are likely to happen, none of which are a bad thing. the war on drugs in particular has been a waste because the money we have been sending to places like columbia hasnt been combating the drug trade effectively. it would be better to secure the border and fight the war at our homefront

>>429119
I lived in Germany for 5 years. They have legalized brothels, there. They also have a much lower percentage of people with STDs, because the pros insist on condoms, every time, and get checked every 6 weeks.

>>429134
>those the only things that are likely to happen

>you
>delusional
pick both

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pz_2m796jOI

>>429157
You can always justify. You can measure your own dreams. I know. I've seen the master plan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w2-n3U5Mm4

Everyone wants to do it and not think about the bad feces pudding.

>abortions made illegal
>creationism taught in schools
>starving homeless in the streets
>no education except for the already rich
>child labor
>marijuana addicts

SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT NATION TO ME!

probably just congressional deadlock
if you've ever read any of his books, you know he's definitely OK with this.

>>429189
you forgot private police and firefighters

>>429189

>marijuana addicts

>>429189
>marijuana addicts

Your argument is invalid.

At the best, we'll experience another Jimmy Carter- a nice guy but won't change/accomplish shit.

At the worst, we'll suffer a huge depression due to the contractionary policies he's proposing (cutting 1 trillion out of the GDP? Lol Paul, you so silly)

But luckily he'll never get elected so why care?

>>429213
>cutting 1 trillion out of the GDP? Lol Paul, you so silly

You mean the budget.

>>429189
>abortions made illegal
How is this a bad thing? Abortion is murder.

>>429233
The death penalty involves killing a person too.
Well, an eye for an eye argument can be used.
I'm for genocide...if only used for PEDOPHILES.

>>429233

>>429223
You obviously know nothing about macroeconomics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Determining_GDP
He's getting rid of 1 trillion in government spending. That's directly cutting 1 trillion of our GDP.

No enforcement of drug laws.

All wars ended, immediately.

Democrats and Republicans forced to work together to balance the budget.

States given total autonomy on everything not included in the Constitution.

No more assassination of American citizens.

No more illegal wiretaps.

No more illegal searches and seizures.

Everyone's rights respected.

Possibly 4 non-activist judges appointed to the Supreme Court.

All rights not given explicitly to the federal government or to the states are retained by the people, as individuals.

>>429248
"OH! think of the children."
Save the kids, gas the pedos.
I hate fuckin child molesters/ sex crime pervs.

>>429213
>1 trillion out of the GDP
liberals really have no clue

>paulberg bots
>delusional
pick both

>>429265
see
>>429251

>>429251
Taking 1 trillion dollars in taxes and spending it on a government program does not increase our gross domestic product by 1 trillion dollars. It may cause some productivity, but it's not a 1 to 1 ratio.

>>429022

>>abortions illegal
>>segregation OK if state allows
>>discrimination OK for private companies
>>private police and fire fighters for those that can afford
>>holyjesus taught in classrooms
>>poor and sick are better off dead, left to fend for themselves.
>>privatized orphanages
>>prison populations skyrocket. where else will the poor and sick get their free room/board/medicine?

troops would come home from everywhere, saving an assload of unnecessary expenses. but yeah other than that probably not much else will get through congress, but we can hope that by the time he gets elected the political winds will have shifted enough to his favor for some of it to come true.

here's a nice video of what Paul would do on day 1 in office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDM8US25xXg

Probably the most vetos in the short time he's in office before Congress impeaches him for acting contrary to the legislation they have passed.

>>429251

I believe he is allowing that 1 trillion dollars to be left in the private sector, so how is cutting 1 trillion a bad thing again?

Or that trillion dollars would be sold as debt, how is that good for the GDP when our debt starts to equal growth?

we'd go from polarization to chaos. this is what happens with contradictions, hypocrisies, and false dichotomies go out the window.

a nation ridding itself of cognitive dissonance isn't a pretty thing. but it should be fun to watch.

>>429282

Histrionic Obama fellator detected.

>>429299
refute my points then.
and i'll counter your obama jab with LOL PAULBOT

>>429285
I'm an Army interrogator and spy-runner who has been to Iraq for 27 months, total. He is absolutely spot-on about terrorists. They are the weakest, most frightened and hopeless people I've ever met. They act out of pure desperation.

the complete opposite of everything barack obama has done will happen. we will go from the most liberal president ever to the most conservative president ever

Pauls negative impact on the country wouldn't be felt for many years after he was gone because it would take a while for his court nominees to have an effect on our freedoms.

His judges, supreme court and lower federal courts, would completely change the way the Bill of Rights has been interpreted for over 100 years. They would allow any laws regarding censorship, gov't sanctioned religion, sex, privacy, creationism in science class, gun control, etc, etc, etc... any repressive laws having to do with the BORs to stand at the state level.

A lot of people would lose rights, but it woudl also impact whole industries like movies and video games since each state would be able to decide what kind of content was allowed and what could be censored, thats because the 1st Amend wouldn't apply to the states anymore. Essentially it would be like the Confederacy won the civil war and your freedom depended on what state you live.

>>429313

Not the guy you're talking to, and I might be wrong here, but I don't think Ron Paul is going to somehow make all supreme court decisions go out the window.

>>429336
>Obama
>most liberal president ever

It wouldn't look like this, that's for sure.

>>429336
>obama
>"liberal" or progressive in the slightest

>>429298
This is the cleansing that we most need. It will be painful, but we cannot survive long without it.

I'm not sure but it would immediately give me new hope for the country

>>429313

You made no points. You simply spewed random FUD.

lol
yeah let's dream. because that's what the Paul-tards do best. create hype, whine when they loose and dream

>>429339
Every state constitution that I know of embraces the federal Bill of Rights.

>>429346
>implying he isn't the most liberal when it comes to gays and abortion and religion

No one knows. He would have to constantly battle the bankers that run the world.

>>429296
Well for one, he doesn't show any intention to lower corporate taxes so getting rid of spending won't help if he's not encouraging companies to make more of it. He only wants to get rid of the income tax, which will only benefit the richer considering almost only the richer half of the US pay income taxes. Tell me again how he doesn't bend over for the rich?

>>429368
How is he anti-bank?

>>429348
>>429346
hes a liberal compared to what president paul would be. you leftists had your chance, and you fucked our economy even more. now its time to go back to the right with president paul

>>429374

He wants to end the Federal Reserve

>>429351
Denial does not undermine the points raised.

>>429375
>>429367
>what Amerifats actually believe

>>429367

I voted Obama in 08. I felt fucking stupid after watching the Obama Deception. Will vote Paul in 2012.

>>429375
>implying Obama wasn't more rightwing than anything
>implying Ron Paul will be elected
>implying even if he did get elected, he wouldn't be worse than Obama

How about his association to the Right Wing Conspiracy theory fringe group the John Birch Society

>>429369
Paul is against the idea that corporations are individuals. If they are not individuals, they do not have to pay income taxes, as the laws now stand. He would probably push for an income tax on corporations, but only after it was determined that corporations are not people.

>>429375
>hes a liberal compared
Michele Bachmann is liberal compared to him. That doesn't justify, or absolve how ridiculous, the claim.

>Ron Paul defunds the Department of Energy
>Liquid fluoride thorium reactors go on-line nation-wide by 2014
>energy prices drop and fossil fuel use is dramatically reduced

>mfw he doesn't get nominated

>>429365

No, thats an interpretation of the 14th Amendment called incorporation, which Paul calls a phony doctrine.

If the judges on the supreme court dont believe in incorporation then the BORS dont apply to the states, it woudl only apply to he federal govt. Thats the way it was before the civil war, thats what Paul wants.

>>429398
How about you either make a point or shut the fuck up?

>>429402
why would the US want to be liberal? just like the europeans right? look how its working out for them, their financial situation is a complete clusterfuck

>>429398

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GBW9rdGeEI

>>429414
True, however, up to 4 or 5 SC judges are looking to retire in the next 4 years.

>>429351
seriously?
your just going to disregard it and claim otherwise?

....

that is the outcome of what would happen, paul believes state rights over federal rules. There would be nothing to stop a state from unilaterally declaring racism OK, discrimination based on sex/gender/appearence/etc. With shitty stupid southern states you don't think these kind of stupid laws would be passed?

>>429414
I believe he meant that most state constitutions are modeled after the federal constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

Even so, if people in states like Maryland and Illinois want to oppress themselves, why do you care? You should grow up and mind your own business.

>>429390
It was under the Clinton administration that DOMA and DADT were passed.

Obama has been our gay friendliest president. Jimmy Carter is a close second.

>>429419
lol
Most people left and right don't want to associate with a nutty group like that. even CPAC told them that they are not welcome back at their convention.

get a clue the John Birch Society association is a major negative for Paul

Not a whole bunch. You know why? Obama was elected on the theme of change and in many ways, he's tried to hold to that theme. He's pursued bipartisanship (in the creation of his cabinet is most obvious), he's tried to engage the other party in a civilized and mature manner (such as vising their retreat to discuss his propositions with them openly), made compromises in attempts to form consensus (such as with raising the debt ceiling), etc. The problem of course is the monolithic nature of DC. He made it clear that to enact change he would need the support of the people but the people assumed once they'd finished voting their obligations were done. The same would happen if Paul was elected. He'd be ushered in, surfing a wave of change and then get stranded as the wave leaves him on his own to deal with the machinations of DC. Only Paul would accomplish far less. He has no political art. His entire repetoire is "no", aka the veto. In the twenty years he's been in office, Paul has accomplished pretty much nothing. If he held to his stance and vetoed just about everything he didn't agree with, or worse yet, attempted to carry out half of his platform against the Supreme Court and Congressional decisions, he'd be impeached so fast we'd wonder why he was elected in the first place.

>>429438
Then you can watch a state fail, as it should.

>>429429
>why would the US want to be liberal?
Why don't you just admit you fucked up and stop wasting everyone's time with your bullshit?

>>429464
So, educate me, shithead. What is the nature of Ron Paul's association with the hated John Birch society lately?

All troops would be home by Easter 2013

>>429382

If Obama is reelected:
>the moon will break away from its orbit of Earth and head towards Mars
>Canada will take advantage of his weakness and invade Montana
>the First Amendment will be repealed and Zoroastrianism will be made the official religion of the United States

Remember, denial does not undermine the points raised!!!

>>429487
You're right. We should have left the South behind and the slaves to keep doing what they're doing.

>>429504

I love you

>>429447
Relevance? If you want to argue about repealing various conservative/liberal legislation then if he was so liberal then he'd have worked to repeal the Patriot Act.

>>429477
On Obama, Chris Matthews says otherwise;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA&feature=player_embedded

>>429506
Taking the underground railroad?

>>429499
You know what would be really funny? If America was actually attacked by Iran and Ron Paul became a war time president. Because remember he does believe in war if America is attacked and congress declares the war.

>>429497
He has given speeches at their gatherings at least once.
one major Ron Paul Forum has positive things to say about them.
The John Birch Society has had nice things to say about him

>>429504
>the moon will break away from its orbit
Strawman arguments do not resolve any of the issues. If you wish to claim his points are irrational then that's your option but denial is no more a valid argument than a strawman.

>>429477

So far, Obama has the worst human rights record of any president since Lincoln.

Even Lincoln, who unconstitutionally withheld the right of habeus corpus, wouldn't order the assassination of a U.S. citizen.

Almost 10 million views. umad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

>>429535
That coffee's too weak to wake me up. Try harder.

>>429517
How does the point of Obama not providing any specific plans undermine the point I provided, and it's analogous pattern to if Paul were elected?

>>429547
>So far, Obama has the worst human rights record of any president since Lincoln.
You got a citation for this, Bubba?

>>429487
no you dolt, the problem, you can't have a 'failed state' because other fucking states will have to pour money into it to make it OK again.

what the fuck is wrong with you?

it is not okay for people to starve to death or suffer.

your fucking social darwinism ayn rand bullshit doesn't fucking work in the real world.

unless you don't mind having labour camps and execution squads for 'undesirables'

the poor have to be fed or they commit crimes, if they commit crimes you have to HOUSE THEM, HOUSING CRIMINALS COST MONEY

>>429517
That is so damn true that it's disgusting. Obama has not wanted this job for a few years, now. He's just done and sick of it. The only thing that keeps him going is the idea that the first black president must not fail. But that's nowhere near enough.

>>429551
The first one with 5 million views was taken down

>>429576

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-02/news/30252234_1_president-obama-citizen-protection

>>429584
You don't need to feed criminals when you can just shoot them. Nor do you need to prop up a failed state. If a state becomes too poor to keep up, just kick it out of the Union.

>>429593

There are also other ones in parts that have millions of views each part

In total it's probably had around 25 million views at least

>>429595
That points out one killing but not supports the claim, "the worst human rights record of any president since Lincoln." I admit I only scanned it though so if there is a relevant passage I missed. . .

>>429584
You can't have a failed state because regardless of the will of the people, those representing them will know what can work and what cannot. No state legislature and governor will knowingly and willingly destroy itself. If they thought that the other states would be federally mandated to help them out, then they might. But in President Paul's world, every state must sink or swim.
It's a way of cutting out the bullshit.

You ask these same people that act like they agree with Paul that states should be able to infringe peoples rights about specific cases and they say the exact opposite.

Two recent cases; 1. Calif wanted to make violent video games the equivalent of pornography which was stuck down by the supreme court because the of 1st Amend. 2. Illinois wanted to ban hand guns which was struck down because of the 2nd. Same people supporting Paul would agree with those decisions.

Theres literally hundreds of cases like that (birth control, sodomy laws, interracial marriage, separation of church state....), landmark cases, over the last hundred years.

They talk like its no big deal until they hear abotu actual cases that come from states that have been upheld by state courts. They only say thats what they want because Paul says it. They're sheep.

A worse position than it's currently in. It's scary how many people honestly believe his ideas are good...

>>429563
Ron Paul has made specific plans. Obama doesn't even have the time to make simple calls to his constituency. You do make a good point in that it takes a more than supporters just voting in the general election to make change happen.

>>429601
again, the 2 points you raised. not going to fucking happen, that's why social darwinsim and fucking ayn rand is bullshit.

the US will not let a state descend into chaos and NO there won't be any forced labour camps or fucking executions of the poor.

get over it.

>>429638
which ones

Being against the Federal government forcing businesses to be non-discriminatory is not the same thing as being for State governments forcing businesses to be segregated.

I haven't seen anything that gives evidence that Ron Paul thinks it's a state's right to force segregation.

>>429623
Not only is it a way of cutting out the bullshit, but it's also turning each state into a crucible of ideas. Those that work can be adopted nationally. Those that fail will be quickly abandoned. It's so much more fluid and reasonable than our current one-size-must-fit-all way of doing things on a national level.

>>429639
>Ron Paul has made specific plans
Good for him. So did Obama at first. In case you missed it, the interview was about Obama's current re-election campaign.

>>429641
>the US will not let a state descend into chaos and NO there won't be any forced labour camps or fucking executions of the poor.
You seem to act like states like Louisiana and Texas don't exist. Prison labor and capital punishment is simply part of everyday life down there. You should chill out and quit trying to be such a control freak.

>>429623
the will of the people do not trump fundamental human rights. because a majority of people vote for one thing, in regards to a minority, it does not make it fundamentally right. it just means mob mentality.

>>429635
When a state law contravenes the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court can and should strike it down. This would not change under a Ron Paul presidency.

"If any of these people, other than Ron Paul he's the only one qualified to be president but the American public doesn't have the sense to elect him..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-OaICPE9Zc

>>429661
"Hope and Change" are not specific plans. In case you missed it the video clip was about Obamas inabality to communicate with his constituency.

>>429666

prison labour is not forced in those states, you can choose to work or not. you don't suffer beatings if you refuse, and if you did, it would be wrong irregardless

yeah death row, so how much does it cost them per immate to execute? now trying doing that to even 1% of the population.

>>429669
There is no such thing as a "fundamental human right". You just told yourself that there are to make yourself feel good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E

>>429676

Have you read the thread?

It would because Paul woudl nominate judges that dont think the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

>>429691
>prison labour is not forced in those states, you can choose to work or not. you don't suffer beatings if you refuse, and if you did, it would be wrong irregardless
Interesting. I'll admit I wasn't aware. I'm not sure what you mean by "wrong" though. Forced labor is perfectly legal. It's right there in the 13th Amendment.

>>429692
here bro
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng

>>429691
Also you should either learn to spell "labor" properly or fuck off back to some illiterate shithole like Britain.

>>429690
>"Hope and Change" are not specific plans.
Good job focusing only on themes and none of the details. Have you visited the Politifact.org Obameter at all?

>In case you missed it the video clip was about Obamas inabality to communicate with his constituency.
No I didn't miss it. I specifically question it's relevance in regards to 2008, especially since we haven't even gotten to the real campaign season yet. I actually applaud Obama *not* revealing anything until he has an idea of who is going to be his opponent so as not to give anything away.

>>429678

epic

>>429712
>>The UN!

Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.

>>429649
Deregulation
Lowering of taxes
Misunderstanding inflation
Abortion
Education not being subsidised
Climate change
Etc...

>>429715
your inner grammar nazi is showing. just saying.

>>4chan
>>grammar

pickone

>>429717

>The anger

>>429604
>>429593
>>429551

>>429712
Aha. So a couple of guys in suits in Brussels wrote some words of a piece of paper. This changes the laws of the universe because they are god. Why haven't we made a religion around them yet.

>>429728
Someone obviously has no clue about Roe v. Wade. . .

>>429733
>the confusion
What is that supposed to be and how is it relevant to the discussion at hand?

>>429699
RP could potentially replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg as her health has been off and on. However, the rest of the Justices show no sign of going away anytime soon and the Senate could refuse to confirm, though I know of no time when they have ever done this.

>>429731
I believe you mean spelling, not grammar. Basic concepts of language, learn to understand them.

>>429699
I have read the threads. Have you heard that Ron Paul respects the rule of law above anything else? Have you heard that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land?

>>429742
Roe v. Wade isn't really that important of a case anyway. It's just another footnote in a long string of cases that were born out of Griswold v. Connecticut, including Lawrence v. Texas

>>429751

Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer could go too. If not in a first term, in a second.

and don't forget a president nominates likely 100 of more lower federal court judges.

one supreme court judge that thinks like that is enough for me though. One more judge could tip the balance on a lot of issues.

>>429768

you don't understand the issue. You shoudl read the thread.

a federal court judge in San Diego recently ordered that city to evict the Boy Scouts from a camp they have run in a city park since the 1950s. A gay couple, with help from the ACLU, sued the city claiming the Scouts' presence was a violation of the “separation of church and state.” The judge agreed, ruling that the Scouts are in essence a religious organization because they mention God in their recited oath. Never mind that the land, once privately owned, had been donated to the city for the express purpose of establishing a Scout camp. Never mind that the Scouts have made millions of dollars worth of improvements to the land. The real tragedy is that our founders did not intend a separation of church and state, and never envisioned a rigidly secular public life for America. They simply wanted to prevent Congress from establishing a state religion, as England had. The First amendment says “Congress shall make no law” — a phrase that cannot possibly be interpreted to apply to the city of San Diego. But the phony activist “separation” doctrine leads to perverse outcomes like the eviction of Boy Scouts from city parks.

If you think the 10th amendment is wrong, repeal it. If you think the Constitution is out-dated, vote for a Constitutional Convention. If you think we can get by with what we have now, respecting the rule of law, vote for Ron Paul. Just say what you mean, and mean what you say!

>>429781
I doubt it. The only Justice left that really sees eye-to-eye with Paul is Thomas. If this was say 2000, before Rehnquist died and Day O'Connor retired, it would be another story.

>>429772
>Roe v. Wade isn't really that important of a case anyway.
Because the decision that creates another substantive Due Process right isn't that important, amirite?

You might as well claim the Tompkins v. Erie Railroad isn't really that important.

>>429817
What I meant is that it wasn't an innovative case, it was merely applying Griswold to abortion rights.

If you want a case that was as groundbreaking as Erie concerning the 14th Amendment, look to Gitlow v. New York

>>429810
Hippie Hollow, on Lake Travis, near Austin, TX, was privately-owned land. The owner wanted to be sure that people would always be free to hang out naked on that land, so he willed it to the city of Austin, on the stipulation that Austin must never forbid nudity on the grounds.

Well, Austin didn't forbid nudity, but they did forbid anyone under 18 from setting foot upon that land. This got rid of the families who used to visit Hippie Hollow all the time. In their place, droves of perverts came out, who go there only to look at naked people and jack off. It used to be a very beautiful place, full of happy people enjoying nature. Now, it's one of the seediest places you could imagine.

Rules don't always make things better. Sometimes, rules destroy good things.

>>429837
>What I meant is that it wasn't an innovative case,
You clearly posted that it was not an important case. Innovation really isn't a valid standard a common law system that is based upon stare decisis.

>>429843

brb going to Hippie Hollow

>>429843
Ummm if they didn't make the 18+ rule, then the drove of perverts would be all over the jailbait. You're making more points to advocate laws.

>>429856
A big part of understanding what Hippie Hollow used to be is understanding Texans. If those perverts who populate the park now had come out when people were bringing their families there, those perverts would have suddenly gone missing, and no one would ever have cared.

Texas has its own kind of justice, especially when it comes to protecting children, and it always has. But the rules came in and took that power away from the people, and the criminals have been the only ones to benefit.

>>429892

>you you

>>429898
Typical from a Paul supporter lol

>>429251
>implying that macroeconomics wasn't invented by keynes

>>429879
So, am I saying that mob justice is superior to the rule of law? No, I'm not. What I am saying is that justice is a thing that we all know, by heart, regardless of any law. Even a dog knows when he's treated unjustly.

When you accept a standard, and expect that standard to have universal application, you have to be very sure about it. You have to have tried it, over and over again, and found it to be worthwhile, every time.

This is what states' rights are all about. Every state can choose to follow certain courses, as permitted by the U.S. Constitution. They try them out. They see if it works or fails.

As it is now, some idea comes to national attention, usually by the media, and we decide to make it work for everyone, everywhere in our country. But this is obviously a foolish course. Try it on a local level first! This is exactly what the 10th Amendment was designed to allow.

>>429953
>implying that the discoverer of an idea must be right about everything concerning that idea.

under ron paul

poor people would be fucked

but white people would be ok

so it's a win-win imo

>>430025

Under Ron Paul, anyone of any race would have a fair chance, because there would be no crony-capitalism. There would be no corporatism. There would be no collusion between government and private capital. There would only be opportunity, and the government would only step in when someone's rights were being denied.

>>430025
Actually unemployment would drop immensely and more businesses would be free to start up without the government regulations and additional needless fees.

And yes white people will be a lot better off.

>>430036
Everyone will be a lot better off. There would be no minimum wage, so businesses would be able to provide as many jobs as they thought they needed, to provide a good service. There would be nearly 100% employment, which would turn the labor market into an employee's market. People could easily pick and choose which jobs they want to take, while customers would enjoy better benefits and lower prices from every business they patronized.

The minimum wage was the worst thing that ever happened to American workers, and consumers. It serves only the employers.

How many of us want the shared benefits of splitting the huge disproportion African Americans receive so we all get an even share?

I think it should be whoever makes it to the top deserved it, there should be no artificial enhancement that will cause trouble in years ahead.

There shouldn't be pocketing of our representatives and president by this group of oligarchs.

We need to make sure our government protects us from the government as a number 1 priority. And to enforce real laws like real cops and not big and tall and old citizen cowboys. and we keep companies in check instead of doing their bidding.

>>430034

yeah because us white folks are SOOOO bad to adapting. that's why we've dominated the world bascially since inception, right?

white people will find a way to abuse ron paul's system just like they have every system that has come before it

and i'm ok with that

since we built this country

Plain and simple: If the Federal Reserve is abolished, we will go back to the 19th century when we had panics and depressions every 10 years or so, instead of simple recessions. How would you like repeating 2008 every 10 years? This is why the Federal Reserve was created in the first place and this is why I'm not voting Ron Paul. It's not a perfect system but it's better than nothing.

>>430065
>huge disproportion African Americans receive
of what? You cant be talking about welfare, as 61% of welfare goes to whites.

>>430102
Explain your position. Where do booms and busts come from?

>>430160
Black people make up 19% of the population.

>>430102
Ron Paul doesn't advocate nothing.

>>430102
>implying there aren't still recessions all the time
>implying the fed doesn't just paper over a fundamentally broken system
>implying the fed isn't the driving force behind massive concentration of wealth in the US

>>430235
Can we count the prison population as welfare recipients?

Politically, his presidency would be relatively weak and ephemeral at best. Ron Paul as President would consist of him being harassed and blocked by both parties in both sections of the legislature. Nothing much would happen, and what did would be a weak compromise the public would never accept, and this would probably only occur when his goals aligned with those of the two parties.

>>429398
fucking this.

And the right-wing anarchist cult of austrian economics, AKA the Mises institute.

>>430250
Welfare recipients have a degree of choice. Prisoners do not.

>>430321
I think they had some degree of choice when they decided to break the law.

>>429535
>>430317
Still, no point made. Guilt by association won't hold up in court.

>>430310
It would show beyond a doubt that the two parties are, in fact, the same. They would have to agree upon a budget with a 2/3rds majority to override President Paul's veto. And President Paul would certainly veto any unbalanced budget.

>>430310
That's what is happening now with Obama. So I guess we will get more the same, but with a different person? I don't like that.

>>430373
Maybe, if he couldn't push the houses of Congress to do anything at all. However, we would definitely have an end to these useless wars, including the war on drugs.

>less inflation
>less inflation possible because of gold standard
>no foreign spending
>no more interventionalist policies
>no more retarded government
>smaller government

>>430001

No, you fucker. You just flat out stated mob rule, that murder without a trial, is better then rule of law. Fuck you, fuck you up the ass.

Just poor and rich people everywhere.

Likely for everyone in reality he's unelectable.

>>430537
Are you accusing me of endorsing Barack Obama's killing of U.S. citizens without a trial? If so, you are wrong.

See: Articles of Confederation

They were a spectacular failure and they're a TEA Party wet dream.

>>430710
Great! Now, explain what they were and why they failed, and why they would fail now. Then, explain how what Libertarians and constitutionalist Republicans want something resembling the Articles of Confederation, and you've started to make a point!

God damn. It's so hard to make these anti-Paulists come to a point! All they can do is just throw out baseless accusations and predictions predicated on nothing at all!

He's not a conservative, so he is unelectable from the republican side.

People and their dreams are usually void of any reality at times. He will be packing it up and going home in a few months.

>>430809
You mean he's not a radical nationalist, so he's neither Democrat nor Neo-Con. He is, however, in historical terms, a conservative Republican. He will win or come in second in both Iowa and New Hampshire. South Carolina will be easy for him, after that.

>>430809
see
>>430775

>>430839
LOL proved the other dude's point hahahahahah

>>430835

You're able to dream about things all you wish, but your dreams will be crushed since they are not realistic.

And no, Ron Paul is hiding out in the republican party because he is hoping to have an upset through us instead of running on his own platform as libertarian. So no, he is not a conservative, and we are not fooled by his antics.

>>430874
So who's antics are you fooled by? GWB's compassionate conservatism, with No Child Left Behind and the Prescription Drug give-away?

Are you fooled by the notion that our involvement in endless wars will produce democracies that are favorable to our interests in SW Asia?

Are you fooled by the idea that any group of people in the world pose an existential threat to the United States of America?

Or are you just fooled by the idea that people need a nanny state to take care of us?

>>430853
No, my predictions are based upon reliable polling data.

>>430932
Too bad he has down syndrome and trying to make him believe in valid points won't work
>You can't argue with a retard

>>430766

Why they failed: the central government was unable to do anything without permission of the states.

-The central government was unable to lay or collect taxes. They could only request voluntary contributions from state governments.

-The central government was unable to raise an army unless they were sent voluntarily by the states.

-Any changes to the articles would require unanimous approval of ALL states.

-The only thong the Articles did right was divide up territories and create a system for admission of new states.


Why they would fail now:

-We're a superpower. We are not 50 independent nations bound together in a weak central government. We need to be able to keep and maintain a large army to defend ourselves and our interests. That requires the ability to tax the people.

-As divided as this nation is, nothing would get done if any change were required to have universal consent. And a weak central government would have had our nation break apart long ago.

>>430940
Please enlighten us with this "reliable polling data" that you're basing your argument on

>>430960
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/18/zogby-gop-voters-dont-like-the-dog-food-turn-ron-paul-into-early-s
tate-contender/

>>430952
Then, explain how what Libertarians and constitutionalist Republicans want something resembling the Articles of Confederation, and you've started to make a point!

What if I agree with some of his rhetoric, but are completely opposite on his other views?

Honestly, what the fuck do I do /pol/? It doesn't seem like my beliefs fit with any one system...

I would say it hinges on the Necessary and Proper clause

>>431040
The way I see it, Ron Paul has the right ideas on the important issues and does not solidly oppose the less important social issues.

Which issues do you support/oppose?

>>431076

Well one of his main things is deregulation and lower taxes, and I think they're both horridly idiotic.

>What would the U.S.A. be like with Ron Paul as President?

Nicaragua, 1978; Russia, 1995; Chili ca. 1980; South Korea during the worst part of the Park years; Greece under the Colonels... I expect a regime that would impose austerity on the middle and lower classes in order to guarantee the rights of the rich, and then whine like babies when people fight back.

The very best possible outcome is for it to end with President Paul lying dead in a field with a hole in the back of his head. The most likely outcome is much worse. Thank god it can't happen.

>>431040
I disagree with Ron Paul about abortion, gay marriage and taxation. I agree with him about the wars in Asia, the drug wars, civil liberties and the nature of our place in the world.

He won't be able to outlaw abortion as president, nor forbid gay marriage (and he's said he won't try, as those issues should be left to the states), nor radically change the tax code.

He will, however, be able to end the wars, including the drug wars, and pursue a course that relies more upon the State Department than the Pentagon in the world.

So, despite my misgivings, I will vote for him. No one else will even try to make any positive changes.

>>431085

WELL! I'm glad you, at least, are not alarmist about things!

>>429282
THIS

is it any surprise that TEXAS, Ron Paul's state, is the state with the:
>largest prison system in america
>highest rate of people without health care coverage
>highest rate of minimum wage jobs
and not to mention, the home of 3 transnational drug organizations (Juarez, Sinaloa, and "Knight's Templar" cartels).

Poor, unable to afford health care, stuck in a dead end job for life, and likely to end up in prison. This is what Ron Paul has overseen in Texas for the last 30 years, this is his vision for America.

>>431114
Finally, some solid points! Thanks. I'll give it a think.

>>431188
That's cool and all, except for one thing. Ron Paul is not a state legislator. He is and has been a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for his entire political career.

>>431114
The only danger is that he abuses the veto; doing so would be ironic in the sense that he is doing what the constitution didn't intend for him to be able to do

>>431114

Still worried about his general disdain for regulation, and taxes.

>>430932

You can try to make all the arguments that you want, but Ron Paul is not a top tier candidate, in fact hasn't been yet.

He is not a conservative, he is a libertarian, and we republicans are not wasting our nomination on Ron Paul only to see him lose the argument against Obama. We are not sending in senile Paul against Obama and his machine, we are just not going to do it.

You don't send in a sickly, dying, yahoo against Obama, you send in your best fighter, it is as simple as that. You Ron Paul advocates are trying to make him out to be more than what he really is.

He is not polling as a top tier candidate nationwide, so just forget it.

>>431188
0/10. Too obvious

>>431230
>He is not polling as a top tier candidate nationwide, so just forget it.

I thought one of the main things in the media WAS him polling as a top tier candidate... Unless you're talking about FOX.

>>431188
Interesting picture. It would probably fool me, except that the U.S. Army hasn't worn BDUs in the past 5 years. Within any time frame that Soldiers did wear BDUs, they did not field-carry 240B's as seen in the background. They also did not field whatever kind of rifle the fat kid in the picture is holding, so far as I know. And, whenever wearing a kevlar helmet in the field a Soldier would have a BDU cover on that helmet.

So, I can only guess that we are looking at soldiers of some foreign country, to which we sold our excess BDUs, and maybe a couple 240Bs.

If you know more about the picture, please enlighten me. Otherwise, I'm calling complete bullshit on that pic.

>>431214
Exactly my point. As a FEDERAL employee, he's managed to do nothing concerning his state turning into an impoverished, prison society. Imagine him as president, the entire union, all 50 states, will turn into Texas

>>431246
Bro, the reason Texas is like that is because of the Mexicans.

>>431230
Actually, RP does better against Obama in polls than most other Republican candidates.

But even if he didn't, do you want to elect some douche-bag who's just going to give you more of the same shit that GWB and Obama have given us? I think recent history has already proven that there's no real difference between establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans.