So, Ron Paul is the pro-Peace candidate for US President

[charlou]

He is dead set against things being outlawed at the Federal level and believes it to be a State issue.

His opposition to income tax is more encompassing than that. From the ronpaul.com site: "An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent." (Original bolding)

Paul is a libertarian of the worst ilk. I really don't know how the likes of him even dare to step on the footpaths, let alone drive on the highways built with money raised by income taxes.

Corporate and excise tax is how he prefers to raise money. Under his small spending small government plan that is feasible.
States would be free to have their own set of taxes.

I wonder if his rationale involves just a whiff of concern about New World Order as it's associated with conspiracist and/or religious End Times bollocks ...

If not, I am intrigued ... his views on abortion, notwithstanding.

[Tyrannical]

I don't think Ron Paul's military isolationist / non-world government views are derived from an anti-NWO stance. It's just a side effect of his basic small government non-interventionist stance. The "black helicopter NWO" believers love Paul because he wants out of the UN. But Paul wants out because he thinks World government is bad, and it has nothing to do with NWO conspiracies. But the conspiracy theorists don't care why he does anything as long as he does, and Ron Paul never wavers. If he says it he does it, he doesn't make promises he just follows his beliefs and those do not change.

Ministry New World Order, just for fun

[Cunt]

Ron Paul is the only politician I've ever seen that has real balls and is honest and has integrity up the wazoo. That's my immediate impression. Although he could be as crazy as a loon. I don't know.

From

URL: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/87/ ... -of-faith/

Summary: Ron Paul Statement of Faith

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

Just because a person is anti-abortion doesn't imply anything about their politics.

I am anti-abortion, pro-legalisation of drugs, and pro gay-marriage.

I do wish you could talk about that anti-abortion thing. One of us is so fucking wrong, and we will never find out if we can't dig down into the dark corners of this issue.

[Tyrannical]

If I remember, Paul believes Roe V Wade over stepped the Federal Government's authority, and was in direct violation of the tenth amendment. But as an OBGYN that delivered several thousand babies in his career, I don't think the pro-abortion activists will be as lively in their attacks against Paul. Paul & his partner were the only two OBGYNs in his county, and he owed a lot of early political support to mothers he saw as a doctor.

But Ron Paul is causing some serious dissent in the far-left anti-war groups. They may be ready to turn against Obama

http://dissidentvoice.org/2011/04/ron-p ... sser-evil/

Ron Paul is far from perfect, but I’ll say this much for the Texas congressman: He has never authorized a drone strike in Pakistan. He has never authorized the killing of dozens of women and children in Yemen. He hasn’t protected torturers from prosecution and he hasn’t overseen the torturous treatment of a 23-year-old young man for the “crime” of revealing the government’s criminal behavior.

Can the same be said for Barack Obama?

And at least Paul would – and this is important, I think – stop killing poor foreigners with cluster bombs and Predator drones. Unlike the Nobel Peace Prize winner-in-chief, Paul would also bring the troops home from not just Afghanistan and Iraq, but Europe, Korea and Okinawa. There’d be no need for a School of the Americas because the U.S. wouldn’t be busy training foreign military personnel the finer points of human rights abuses. Israel would have to carry out its war crimes on its own dime.

Even on on the most pressing domestic issues of the day, Paul strikes me as a hell of a lot more progressive than Obama. Look at the war on drugs: Obama has continued the same failed prohibitionist policies as his predecessors, maintaining a status quo that has placed 2.3 million – or one in 100 – Americans behind bars, the vast majority African-American and Hispanic. Paul, on the other hand, has called for ending the drug war and said he would pardon non-violent offenders, which would be the single greatest reform a president could make in the domestic sphere, equivalent in magnitude to ending Jim Crow.

And if Paul really did succeed in cutting all those federal departments he talks about, there’s nothing to prevent states and local governments — and, I would hope, alternative social organizations not dependent on coercion — from addressing issues such as health care and education. Decentralism isn’t a bad thing.

[tattuchu]

I don't agree with everything Paul says. And, yes, unfortunately he's a Christian. But every candidate is a Christian. An atheist could never be elected. If it were a choice between Paul and Obama, I think I'd vote for Paul. The problem is, could he ever implement any of the great ideas he has, like ending the wars and getting our people the fuck out of countries where we don't fucking belong? I doubt it. The way our government is set up, it seems like the checks and balances just even things out to the point that nothing ever, ever gets done.

By the way, do any other counties maintain military bases in other countries besides their own? Or it this a solely American phenomenon? It seems so bizarre to me.

[Tyrannical]

I suppose if Paul were President, he could order the troops home. Congresses would probably have to formally declare war to block the move.

[Cunt]

I guess considering that every candidate is following Jesus Christ he may be the best of that bad lot. Much of what he proposes would be terrific to see, but I am over with tattuchu...thinking he couldn't possibly do those things.

[Chinaski]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/20 ... -ron-paul/

[Schneibster]

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

'Nuff said, on the atheist board.

[Tyrannical]

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

'Nuff said, on the atheist board.

It all falls under the theory of State's Rights. A State would be as religious or irreligious as it chooses, or as stingy or generous with social benefits as it chooses. The funding comes from State taxpayers, and citizens are free to also vote with their feet and relocate to a more appealing State.
Want an atheist gay friendly utopia? If enough like minded people moved to a certain State you could have that. People that don't like it could move to a more bigoted State.

The individual States are sovereign under the Constitution, and Federal powers are supposed to be severely limited under the 10th amendment. This allows for not one experiment in democracy but fifty. Tensions arise when the Federal Government tries to exert unjust powers upon the States. But as long as there is free movement between the States, the States should have great freedom at the individual level free from Federal interference. If you don't like the laws in one State, either change them or move to a more amicable one.

[Schneibster]

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state.

'Nuff said, on the atheist board.

It all falls under the theory of State's Rights.

A note for non-US members: "states' rights" is how the Deep South tried to keep its Jim Crow laws to keep the brown people down. Just for reference.

I am in possession of a document that gives a completely internally and externally consistent Libertardian justification for slavery. Really. It would be funny if it weren't so disgusting, and if there weren't Libertards actually arguing in favor of it.

A State would be as religious or irreligious as it chooses, or as stingy or generous with social benefits as it chooses. The funding comes from State taxpayers, and citizens are free to also vote with their feet and relocate to a more appealing State.
Want an atheist gay friendly utopia? If enough like minded people moved to a certain State you could have that. People that don't like it could move to a more bigoted State.

And they'd all have enough money to do this, right? And the children would be educated in a "non-bigoted" manner, so they'd know there's another way to do things, right? And the taxpayers would pay for all that, right? For everyone, in all the states, right?

Suuuuuuuure. Then you woke up.

The individual States are sovereign under the Constitution, and Federal powers are supposed to be severely limited under the 10th amendment. This allows for not one experiment in democracy but fifty. Tensions arise when the Federal Government tries to exert unjust powers upon the States.

You know, like making honest hardworking bigots endure those uppity fuckers eat where white people have to watch them. Or vote. Or have jobs without being fired while working while black. Or not get arrested for driving while black. Yeah, that's pretty unfair of the Federal Government, all right. What a shame.

But as long as there is free movement between the States, the States should have great freedom at the individual level free from Federal interference. If you don't like the laws in one State, either change them or move to a more amicable one.

Yeah, and too bad if you don't have enough money to move.

Wow, that's quite possibly the most transparently bigoted post I've seen in quite a while. Good work.

[Tyrannical]

Yeah, and too bad if you don't have enough money to move.

And how little would that be? Some people arrive by sneaking across desert borders, or floating here in a rickety craft. The pioneers had to endure quite the hardships in their trek across the country, but today you can do the same on Greyhound for about $59. if I recall it was Henry Ford's promise of good jobs and fair treatment (and not a government program) that lured Blacks to Detroit.

[Schneibster]

Yeah, and too bad if you don't have enough money to move.

And how little would that be? Some people arrive by sneaking across desert borders, or floating here in a rickety craft. The pioneers had to endure quite the hardships in their trek across the country, but today you can do the same on Greyhound for about $59. if I recall it was Henry Ford's promise of good jobs and fair treatment (and not a government program) that lured Blacks to Detroit.

I guess you've never bought a house.

[Cunt]

This 'separation of church and state' thing, where does it come from? Oh, right. The first amendment.

Does the first outrank later amendments? Or is it the other way around?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This 'separation of church and state' thing, where does it come from? Oh, right. The first amendment.

Does the first outrank later amendments? Or is it the other way around?

The amendments have the same force of law as the original Constitution's articles. For legal purposes they're considered seamless to the original.