POLL: What's your #1 reason for not supporting Ron Paul?

[King Mayan]

Five actually. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen. And now Hillary Clinton and some Republican Senators are beating the war drums for the US to go into Syria.

Pakistan, Libya, Yemen are wars?


..

[crustyme]

1. No it's not. Because McDonald's and Border's are both businesses. Businesses and governments are different. When businesses can no longer reach a profit for whatever reason - ie. labor costs are too high, nobody wants to buy their product or service, whatever; then that business must either restructure or go out of business. When governments don't work properly, then they just tax more or print more money. Buying an iPod from Apple is voluntary. People buy iPods because they desire iPods. Government can only get money by stealing it from people. If the products and services offered by the government were actually desirable, people would pay money for them voluntarily.

2. I know why banks are important. Bad banks should fail though. The banks that operated efficiently would stay in business. The banks that operated inefficiently would either restructure and go through bankruptcy or have their assets liquidated. By propping up bad banks with taxpayer money, you're just going to get more bad banks.

3. I told you the fallacy already - post hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

4. I don't think you understand. He is planning on being responsible with his assets and saving for retirement. How do you end up believing he ends up in a ditch?

5. That's Ron Paul's point. If we don't default now, we will necessarily default later. The debt is unsustainable. And by waiting to default, the consequences will be even more disastrous than if we defaulted now.

As for Bill Clinton, his budget was half of what Barack Obama's is. And corporate taxes were lower too. I suppose taxes on the rich were 4% higher, but that won't even make a difference. The Bush tax cuts cost $700 billion in tax revenues over 10 years. That's only $70 billion per year. Barely a dent in Obama's $4 trillion budget. Oh yeah, and Clinton reduced welfare too.

1. business or government, what's the difference? governments can go bankrupt just like businesses do. argentina, iceland, germany, uk, the roman empire, ..... all went bankrupt just to name a few. and they can obtain loans from other governments or from the international monetary fund (well except the roman empire).

2. basically all the banks failed after the housing bubble burst. we would've had 0 banks around to loan us money without the bailouts. so how is bailing them out a bad thing?

3. the real fallacy is claiming that gold standard works when there's no such evidence in 60 years.

4. plans can go awry. he could lose it all in the stock market, bad investments, scammed, sh*t happens. and if they do, he'll end up in a ditch since he promises never to touch social security.

5. ron paul is wrong. purposefully defaulting is the dumbest thing anyone can do as it will lead to global financial meltodown of epic proportions which we may never recover from. debt ceiling is infinite and can be raised indefinately. in the meantime we can figure out how to lower the deficit through tax increases, spending cuts and other measures.

[TexansFan]

I love Ron Paul's fiscal message, really do. But here's why he won't win

He wants to abolish the federal reserve and he's a proponent of the gold standard. There is a reason why every country in the world uses some sort of reserve system. The gold standard is not even plausible in modern society. As the economy grows, prices come down but are worth more because the value of money has increased because the supply of money is fixed. It's like WTF?

He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq immediately, and doesn't care about the consequences. That would result in killing fields two, although the situation as improved over there now.

He wants to abolish all federal welfare and all federal medical assistence. That would start civil unrest like we've never seen before. I'm a proponent of a safety net.

He wants to close all our international military bases. The countries in which we have a military presence are the safest and most prosperous in the world.

He's allowed tax frauds and 9/11 fringers and white surpremist organizations to share his platform and /or use his "letterhead".

In 20 years in Congress, he's never passed one single bill.



those issues make him unelectable as he alienates a whole lot of voter blocks

he would get crucified

[dj_destroyer]

Tell me how many drug pushers have you arrested selling to 8 year olds? How many drug dealers have you shot it out with? How many people do you know who have lost loved ones to some idiot who was driving under the influence of drugs? People are inherently stupid. They have no brains. All they know is what they want NOW. They never think about the future. Obviously neither do you. What you want is a green light to do whatever you want. Here is a clue. It is not going to happen. People like myself control people like you because we have to. We do not necessairily like to, but if we do not, anarchy will rule the world, and people like yourself would be dead. So stop giving me your Libertarian crap about doing whatever you want as long as it does not bother anyone else. The fact is that he weed you buy probably comes from a dealer who bought it from a drug lord who kills others to stay in power. Try thinking for once in your life. People like myself have the power. People like you do not. Make the best with what you have.

You're a lemming. You only follow because someone has told you to do so. Free thinkers and you can never debate anything because you're brainwashed and lack critical thinking abilities while free thinkers are open to discussion and challenges. Your argument is wrong on so many levels that it's hard to even find somewhere to start. The fact that you think all people are inherently stupid shows just how ignorant and stupid YOU are. All I can do is think about the future because the present has already been ruined. Libertarianism is NOT Anarchy and people who associate the two don't know anything about politics and should just shut up before they embarrass themselves anymore. I (and every other Libertarian) believe in government and it's sole legal, moral, and logical function of protecting individual rights, both within (policing, judicial, corrections) and abroad (military). Other than that, government shouldn't be doing anything.

Instead, they arbitrarily decide what is right and what is wrong. When they choose to ban a substance, they automatically create a black market. The reason black markets are so lucrative and enticing for the lower classes is because the threat or danger of prosecution that users and suppliers face is nothing compared to the absurd prices they can charge. Obviously, it isn't the well respected companies like WalMart, BP, GE, etc. that is looking to get into these markets because the threat of punishment is far greater a problem than someone who "has nothing to lose". So basically, you have no regulation, no barriers to entry, no education required, no standards, no nothing... Just a lot of money to be made and a huge demand; so who else is a black market going to attract other than the people who are ALREADY criminogenic. Now you have the scum of scums with lots of money and power (drug lords as you call them) who are killing to ensure that their multi-billion dollar industry doesn't collapse. Well Mr. America, maybe you should look at the cause instead of the result and you'll find your problem.

Legalize all drugs, educate your society about them, and let people choose whether or not they want to use drugs. Regulate the product and make it safe. Implement warning labels and rules around drugs to make it safer (just like alcohol and cigarettes). Tax the sales of drugs to offset the added stress of controlling the substance. Just do anything other than what we do right now which is pretend it's criminal and sweep the convicts under the rug... Lock 'em up and forget about them.

If you were compassionate like a Libertarian is, you wouldn't be able to turn your back on those who need our support the most.

[dj_destroyer]

you don't understand.... what you're asking for is nearly impossible to implement.

1. how will they measure how many times you've used the public roads? how many times you've flushed the toilet? how much mail you got? how much crime was prevented by cops?

2. and what if majority of the people in your town decided that they will no longer drive their cars but walk instead? then just like any business with no customers or very few, the d.o.t. will have to jack up your rates or go out of business. then you're left with roads that aren't maintained, cracked and full of potholes. so if you have to drive anywhere, you're fuked.

3. then people decide mail isn't important so they stop paying the $50/month delivery fee. so the post offices close due to lack of customers and you never get your mail. so if you still use mail, you're fuked.

4. then they decide paying $200/month for cops isn't worth it since there's low crime in your area. all the cops lose their jobs... then criminals start running rampant, breaking in to your home on a daily basis.

so do you not see how idiotic your plan is?

1. Have you never heard of a toll-road? Or expressways? They're all over the fukking country so it's time to open up your eyes and stop being naive and ignorant. Your internet companies charge you by the GB... Hydro companies charge us by the kWh... And even your water company already charges you for your consumption (including your toilets, bozo). When you send a letter, you've paid for it to be sent. Everything needs money to run so why not cut out the middle man (government) and make the whole operation more streamlined. We also wouldn't have to support the biggest bureaucracy in the world.

2. I'm assuming sidewalks wouldn't be free if the roads weren't. You could charge either (walking or driving) per use, amount of time in use, the length of distance traveled, or you could have weekly, monthly, yearly, unlimited, etc. plans. The individual would have choice over their decision instead of having something shoved down their throat. And the quality of roads and transit infrastructure would increase significantly because private companies put the customer first because they know if their roads suck, no one will use them. The same can't be said for the monopolistic government which doesn't allow for competition and thus makes an artificial market/economy.

3. If there's not enough demand, then don't supply it. That's the beauty of free markets is that if there's enough demand then a venture capitalist will gladly supply it... but if a company needs the government's hand to stay afloat then they are not a worthwhile business.

4. If you knew anything about Libertarianism, you would know the sole reason for taxation is to protect us from threats within (policing, judicial, corrections) and abroad (military). Anything beyond and above that is socialism bullshit.

Open your fukking eyes crustyme and stop thinking like you've been told to.

[dj_destroyer]

You DO NOT have the right to determine which services you will pay for yourself. Do not be an idiot. If you decide not to pay for police services, and someone attacks you, you have no recourse. If you decide not to pay for fire services and your house burns down, you have no recourse. That is why Libertarians are the biggest fools in America. They THINK they know what they want, but in reality, they do not. Liberatarians do not have enough brains to figure out what is in their best interests.

Seems like a basic right to me. It's my body and I get to decide what I do with my body. If my body makes something with my talents (KSA), then I deserve the fruits of my labour. I should get to decide how I use MY money in MY life.

If my house burnt down and I hadn't made an agreement with the fire fighters, why should my house be saved? If it were privatized, I think it would be stupid not to get "fire protection and insurance" but I'm not going to tell other people how to live. If they choose to risk it then so be it, just don't expect to get bailed out.

That's the difference between every ideology and Libertarianism is that we don't want to tell other people what to do. There are basic human rights and you must respect them... If you don't, you'll be held liable through our criminal justice system. Nothing more needs to be said.

[dj_destroyer]

1. No it's not. Because McDonald's and Border's are both businesses. Businesses and governments are different. When businesses can no longer reach a profit for whatever reason - ie. labor costs are too high, nobody wants to buy their product or service, whatever; then that business must either restructure or go out of business. When governments don't work properly, then they just tax more or print more money. Buying an iPod from Apple is voluntary. People buy iPods because they desire iPods. Government can only get money by stealing it from people. If the products and services offered by the government were actually desirable, people would pay money for them voluntarily.

2. I know why banks are important. Bad banks should fail though. The banks that operated efficiently would stay in business. The banks that operated inefficiently would either restructure and go through bankruptcy or have their assets liquidated. By propping up bad banks with taxpayer money, you're just going to get more bad banks.

3. I told you the fallacy already - post hoc ergo propter hoc. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

4. I don't think you understand. He is planning on being responsible with his assets and saving for retirement. How do you end up believing he ends up in a ditch?

5. That's Ron Paul's point. If we don't default now, we will necessarily default later. The debt is unsustainable. And by waiting to default, the consequences will be even more disastrous than if we defaulted now.

As for Bill Clinton, his budget was half of what Barack Obama's is. And corporate taxes were lower too. I suppose taxes on the rich were 4% higher, but that won't even make a difference. The Bush tax cuts cost $700 billion in tax revenues over 10 years. That's only $70 billion per year. Barely a dent in Obama's $4 trillion budget. Oh yeah, and Clinton reduced welfare too.

^ All of this.

[crustyme]

1. Have you never heard of a toll-road? Or expressways? They're all over the fukking country so it's time to open up your eyes and stop being naive and ignorant. Your internet companies charge you by the GB... Hydro companies charge us by the kWh... And even your water company already charges you for your consumption (including your toilets, bozo). When you send a letter, you've paid for it to be sent. Everything needs money to run so why not cut out the middle man (government) and make the whole operation more streamlined. We also wouldn't have to support the biggest bureaucracy in the world.

2. I'm assuming sidewalks wouldn't be free if the roads weren't. You could charge either (walking or driving) per use, amount of time in use, the length of distance traveled, or you could have weekly, monthly, yearly, unlimited, etc. plans. The individual would have choice over their decision instead of having something shoved down their throat. And the quality of roads and transit infrastructure would increase significantly because private companies put the customer first because they know if their roads suck, no one will use them. The same can't be said for the monopolistic government which doesn't allow for competition and thus makes an artificial market/economy.

3. If there's not enough demand, then don't supply it. That's the beauty of free markets is that if there's enough demand then a venture capitalist will gladly supply it... but if a company needs the government's hand to stay afloat then they are not a worthwhile business.

4. If you knew anything about Libertarianism, you would know the sole reason for taxation is to protect us from threats within (policing, judicial, corrections) and abroad (military). Anything beyond and above that is socialism bullshit.

Open your fukking eyes crustyme and stop thinking like you've been told to.

1. i never use toll roads. i think they're a waste of money personally. i feel the same way about cops, firemen and teachers. i've never needed firemen and haven't called a cop in over a decade. most of my teachers were either awful or just didn't care. many feel the same way and wouldn't pay unless their homes were on fire or were being held up. so who would pay for them? you? they would have to lay them all off due to lack of revenue. so who would put out the fire if your house caught fire? or someone broke in to your home? do you really want to play business chicken with these important services?

2. how the hell would you exactly measure how much they walked? put gps ankle collars to measure their steps???? and what if people decide it's too expensive to walk and stay in their homes and walk on their treadmills instead? how would they improve the quality of their products exactly if revenue dries up?



3. banks are not worthwhile? auto manufacturers not worthwhile? gm was #1 in us sales when they filed for bankruptcy so it wasn't due to lack of demand. banks were lending at an all time high when they went belly up, so also not due to lack of demand. and gm has been thriving since the bailout. so instead of laying off millions of workers they were able to save their jobs and return the company to profitability. gm has also paid back most of the money. but it was a mistake right?

4. i know all there is to know about libertarianism and i don't like it. go find a deserted island in the pacific to test your failed ideology.

[King Mayan]

Seems like a basic right to me. It's my body and I get to decide what I do with my body. If my body makes something with my talents (KSA), then I deserve the fruits of my labour. I should get to decide how I use MY money in MY life.

If my house burnt down and I hadn't made an agreement with the fire fighters, why should my house be saved? If it were privatized, I think it would be stupid not to get "fire protection and insurance" but I'm not going to tell other people how to live. If they choose to risk it then so be it, just don't expect to get bailed out.

That's the difference between every ideology and Libertarianism is that we don't want to tell other people what to do. There are basic human rights and you must respect them... If you don't, you'll be held liable through our criminal justice system. Nothing more needs to be said.

DJ, first youre Canadian, stay out of USA politics..

Second, you live off your parents, you don't know shit about hard work or " fruits of my labor".

[The Madcap]

Had a couple drinks and am on my way out shortly, but off the top of my head: electoral college, congressional term limits, supreme court justices given life terms. Granted not everyone is going to agree with these specifically , though many will, and I think most people would find things they disagree with if they actually read the document, which ironically is especially rare by the most patriotic of citizens.

I think Paul has some good ideas and I think he would likely do some good, but my disagreement with the positions ive mentioned make it unlikely that I would cast my vote for him.

You ever read the Federalist papers? You should consider it. Might change your mind on the Constitution.

The electoral college exists for the same reason the Constitution exists in the first place, to protect the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. The electoral college is designed to protect the rights of those who live in less populated regions of the country. It exists to protect regional culture and prevent a large faction from over taking everything. It exists for the same reason the Senate does and is why we have a bi-cameral legislature instead of just a house of representatives.

Term limits: a lack thereof? I agree, there should be congressional term-limits. However, the Founders did try and address this issue, which is why House members must run for re-election every two years and Senators six. At the time it wasn't such a big deal because in the 1790's most people dropped dead by 50. That being said, the President does have term limits today. WHY? The 22nd Amendment. And that's why the Constitution is fukking perfect, and it doesn't matter how imperfect it may have been, because they put in place a mechanism for it to adapt over time to address modern needs.

Life-time appointments exist in the Supreme court to reduce political bullshit. The court is supposed to be apolitical. Of course it's not today. And that's much of the fukking problem. The Constitution is pretty straight forward, but social fukking do-gooders, instead of doing their goddam jobs, used their power to circumvent the legislative/amendment process. It's called judicial activism. And is mainly the action of liberal commie judges trying to preform "social justice," which ain't their fukking job.

As former justice Oliver Wendel Holmes put it "It's not my job to do justice. My job is to apply the law." Unfortunately today's whiny women bitches like Ruth Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan don't understand that. Nor do emasculated men like Steven Breyer.

[EaglesPhan36]

I don't trust guys with two first names.

[Killer_Demo]

will be voting for RP...

[ABEHONEST]

I don't trust guys with two first names.

You were probably a big fan of JOHN EDWARD' S, weren't you?

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

He wants to abolish the federal reserve and he's a proponent of the gold standard. There is a reason why every country in the world uses some sort of reserve system. The gold standard is not even plausible in modern society. As the economy grows, prices come down but are worth more because the value of money has increased because the supply of money is fixed. It's like WTF?

doesn't seem like you have a even basic understanding of our reserve system (the Fed is neither federal, nor a reserve).

[lolguy999]

He's not black... nor Asian for that matter

[cant call it]

Another Obama type candidate, promising the world, knowing damn well the house and senate will cokk-block him.

Clueless!

[King Mayan]

Clueless!

[nosniboR11]

you missed the most important reason, his foreign policy

[dj_destroyer]

DJ, first youre Canadian, stay out of USA politics..

Second, you live off your parents, you don't know shit about hard work or " fruits of my labor".

Every single aspect of Canadian life is affected/influenced by the US. You're just mad I know more about your politics than you do.

Secondly, my parents don't give me shit. I've said many times on here how I think they should help me more than they do but they don't so I do it myself. It's called self-responsibility.

[dj_destroyer]

1. i never use toll roads. i think they're a waste of money personally. i feel the same way about cops, firemen and teachers. i've never needed firemen and haven't called a cop in over a decade. most of my teachers were either awful or just didn't care. many feel the same way and wouldn't pay unless their homes were on fire or were being held up. so who would pay for them? you? they would have to lay them all off due to lack of revenue. so who would put out the fire if your house caught fire? or someone broke in to your home? do you really want to play business chicken with these important services?

2. how the hell would you exactly measure how much they walked? put gps ankle collars to measure their steps???? and what if people decide it's too expensive to walk and stay in their homes and walk on their treadmills instead? how would they improve the quality of their products exactly if revenue dries up?



3. banks are not worthwhile? auto manufacturers not worthwhile? gm was #1 in us sales when they filed for bankruptcy so it wasn't due to lack of demand. banks were lending at an all time high when they went belly up, so also not due to lack of demand. and gm has been thriving since the bailout. so instead of laying off millions of workers they were able to save their jobs and return the company to profitability. gm has also paid back most of the money. but it was a mistake right?

4. i know all there is to know about libertarianism and i don't like it. go find a deserted island in the pacific to test your failed ideology.

1. If there's not enough demand then there's no need to supply it. Basic free-market principles. But if you honestly think that there wouldn't be a big enough demand for fire-protection services then you're fukking crazy. And for the LAST time, I believe in certain basic services such as POLICING, JUDICIAL, CORRECTIONS, and MILITARY.

2. Good thing you're not an engineer because you think like a brick. There's so many ways to implement private roads and walkways then I'm not even going to list them. Read a book, open your eyes, or god forbid even think for yourself. And as an end note, those people who decide to walk on their treadmill instead are exactly the type of people I want to protect and help. If they don't need to use the roads, then why should they fukking pay for it?! Pay for what you use, that's it.

3. Businesses are only worthwhile if they are sustainable in providing supply for demand. Basic free-market principles. The government has no right to be giving out loans.

4. Libertarianism not a failed ideology because it's never been implemented properly anywhere in the world. Capitalism has never failed because it's never been trusted to work by itself without regulation. When both allowed to flourish, the country will follow because there's no more logical or moral way to do it. Why try to make everyone happy? Let people decide how to live their own fukking life.

[crustyme]

1. If there's not enough demand then there's no need to supply it. Basic free-market principles. But if you honestly think that there wouldn't be a big enough demand for fire-protection services then you're fukking crazy. And for the LAST time, I believe in certain basic services such as POLICING, JUDICIAL, CORRECTIONS, and MILITARY.

2. Good thing you're not an engineer because you think like a brick. There's so many ways to implement private roads and walkways then I'm not even going to list them. Read a book, open your eyes, or god forbid even think for yourself. And as an end note, those people who decide to walk on their treadmill instead are exactly the type of people I want to protect and help. If they don't need to use the roads, then why should they fukking pay for it?! Pay for what you use, that's it.

3. Businesses are only worthwhile if they are sustainable in providing supply for demand. Basic free-market principles. The government has no right to be giving out loans.

4. Libertarianism not a failed ideology because it's never been implemented properly anywhere in the world. Capitalism has never failed because it's never been trusted to work by itself without regulation. When both allowed to flourish, the country will follow because there's no more logical or moral way to do it. Why try to make everyone happy? Let people decide how to live their own fukking life.

1. what don't you understand? if you gave the populous the option to pay or not for such services as cops, firemen, military.... no one would choose to pay! why? because most people have never needed a cop, fireman or even met a military personnel. doesn't mean they aren't important. i would certainly want them around when i do need them but i wouldn't pay to keep them "on call." and since no one's paying, they'll have to be laid off.

2. you have to be an engineer to know if there's no revenue stream, you'll have a hard time upgrading or improving your product? you don't seem to understand something. it's not that people dont want to go for walks, it's that they don't want to pay for it! it would be no different than mcdonald's charging extra for ketchup. many people will stop using ketchup on their burgers not because they don't enjoy it but because they don't want to spend the extra money for it.

3. without government loans (especially from france), there wouldn't be a united states of america, you retard! this country was founded on loans but they shouldn't give out loans? so you'd rather gm/ford/chrysler fail and lay off millions of people and deepen the recession rather than rescue them and return them to profitability? and that's suppose to convince people to adopt your ideology?

4. it is a failed ideolog because it is a collection of failed ideologies from the past. for example how did the us economy do under the gold standard? terribly. caused far more recessions and contributed greatly to the great depression. and that's the ideology you want us to adopt? hell fukin no.

[Lockitup1x]

This statement:

"Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"
-Ron Paul

I really like Ron Paul and most of the planks in his platform. I am a fiscal conservative, a social moderate, and a veteran.

However, in regards to foreign policy - isn’t his view a bit simplistic and troubling? Do you agree with the implication of the referenced quote? Please, someone give convincing arguments supporting his general stance on foreign policy or prove to me that I am misinterpreting his stance and / or implications of it.

[jarvol]

This statement:

"Is it really in the interest of the United States to guarantee the survival of any foreign country?"
-Ron Paul

I really like Ron Paul and most of the planks in his platform. I am a fiscal conservative, a social moderate, and a veteran.

However, in regards to foreign policy - isn’t his view a bit simplistic and troubling? Do you agree with the implication of the referenced quote? Someone, please give some arguments supporting his general stance on foreign policy.

Would it have been acceptable to you if the Chinese or Russian military supported the Branch Dividians in Waco or the Weaver family in Ruby Ridge?

[Lockitup1x]

You've clearly never studied international relations. The reason Iran is bolstering their nuclear weaponry is because the States have fukking 5000+ nukes and they want to protect their best interests. Why do Americans think they have the right to meddle in other countries' affairs? Until you've been attacked, simply defend your nation. Quit seeking out wars!

In this day and age - if there is a nuclear attack, the only defense is mutually assured annihilation. Do you like that defense?

[Lockitup1x]

acceptable

You are shilling.

Ron Paul is advocating an extreme position on foreign intervention. It's not realistic, and not a good idea.

[ABEHONEST]

When the USA's big nose creates hatred enough for terrorist's minded Muslims and Jihadists to cross our "easy" borders with intent to massacre 100 loaded school buses in one day: Is that enough offense?

[dj_destroyer]

1. what don't you understand? if you gave the populous the option to pay or not for such services as cops, firemen, military.... no one would choose to pay! why? because most people have never needed a cop, fireman or even met a military personnel. doesn't mean they aren't important. i would certainly want them around when i do need them but i wouldn't pay to keep them "on call." and since no one's paying, they'll have to be laid off.

2. you have to be an engineer to know if there's no revenue stream, you'll have a hard time upgrading or improving your product? you don't seem to understand something. it's not that people dont want to go for walks, it's that they don't want to pay for it! it would be no different than mcdonald's charging extra for ketchup. many people will stop using ketchup on their burgers not because they don't enjoy it but because they don't want to spend the extra money for it.

3. without government loans (especially from france), there wouldn't be a united states of america, you retard! this country was founded on loans but they shouldn't give out loans? so you'd rather gm/ford/chrysler fail and lay off millions of people and deepen the recession rather than rescue them and return them to profitability? and that's suppose to convince people to adopt your ideology?

4. it is a failed ideolog because it is a collection of failed ideologies from the past. for example how did the us economy do under the gold standard? terribly. caused far more recessions and contributed greatly to the great depression. and that's the ideology you want us to adopt? hell fukin no.

1. Despite EXPLICITLY telling you that certain things shouldn't be privatized, you CONTINUE to reference those same things as services that shouldn't be privatized, thus agreeing with me. Your argument is mute.

2. Terrible argument and example. You really are a dummy. I would much rather love that McDonalds charge for a basic burger and then charge for additional toppings. Not saying it's a great business plan necessarily IMO but I would love if a $3 McDonalds burger cost $1.50 and then all the toppings (relish, ketchup, mustard, onions, pickles) at .25 each. If you want the normal burger that you've always loves then you pay the $3 that you've always paid. If, however, you don't like mustard, your burger is $2.75 and you don't have to pay for everyone else's mustard. This doesn't mean McDonalds will suddenly drop mustard from their burger forever... because lots of people still like mustard so as long as the demand for mustard is enough to sustainably supply it, it will remain on the menu. All metaphorical, of course, but the bottom line is let people choose what they want!

3. Good businesses will prevail... Bad businesses should fail.

4. Oh, like the American dollar has done much better... Inflation and devaluing until you start a war. Great ideology.

[dj_destroyer]

In this day and age - if there is a nuclear attack, the only defense is mutually assured annihilation. Do you like that defense?

I believe that no nation will willingly do that.

Besides, the best offense is a solid defense. If they can't attack you successfully then there's no point to have an attack yourself. I believe in a very strong national defense. I don't believe in war-mongering.

[King Mayan]

Every single aspect of Canadian life is affected/influenced by the US. You're just mad I know more about your politics than you do.

Secondly, my parents don't give me shit. I've said many times on here how I think they should help me more than they do but they don't so I do it myself. It's called self-responsibility.

Yes. Smoking weed all day and watching fox news in your parents house will do that.

[dj_destroyer]

Yes. Smoking weed all day and watching fox news in your parents house will do that.

I've been back in my shitty apartment for a week now. I was only there visiting... Sorry your parents hate you mayan.

[bruceBRUCEbruce]

You are shilling.

Ron Paul is advocating an extreme position on foreign intervention. It's not realistic, and not a good idea.

extreme...meaning he's against foreign intervention? You sound like a war hawk. But hey, thank god Saddam and his sons with their WMDs will never fly planes into any of our buildings again.

[flyingillini]

I only vote Republican

[Lockitup1x]

extreme...meaning he's against foreign intervention? You sound like a war hawk. But hey, thank god Saddam and his sons with their WMDs will never fly planes into any of our buildings again.

Not a war hawk, and I am for less foreign intervention - Just not to the extreme that RP's statements and positions imply.

[JohnGalt2341]

Let's try this again...

[AribaAriba]

current govt are extreme by going to another countries and killing whoever they want to, extreme that they have courage to borrow billions of dollars to finance their war and pass the burden to future Americans. Now that`s extreme folks.