Would YOU vote for RON PAUL

Because his philosophy does not protect the environment. That's what's so wrong. (See the comments above.)

You say "freedom", but this freedom is measured in dollars.

 

What other candidate has a legitimate method of protecting the environment? What other candidate won't just tell you what you want to hear and then stab you in the back the moment he gets into office? None.
It's not the federal government's job to protect the environment. It's your's, mine, and everyone else's. Go vote with your dollars. I support protecting the environment but I don't buy into the 100% human induced climate change theory either. I drive an SUV, use electric, and take hot showers. That's my freedom. You can walk, live in the dark, and bathe in the river, thats your freedom.
I am not, however in support of some guy dumping used oil or whatever chemical in his yard and than yelling about his property rights.

I think evironmental protections should be enforced at the cash register and at the state level.

 

Those ideas will not work for a number of reasons. For instance, emissions from coal plants in the midwest harm the air quality in the Northeast.

It is the federal government's job to protect the environment, because pollution crosses state lines. I have heard no other idea that would even remotely work.

It is your freedom to drive an SUV, but, assuming it is not a hybrid, if you believe in personal responsibility, you will realize that doing so harms the environment and increases America's chances of going to war for oil.

 

I think your first point is null... What about emissions coming from other countries? The federal government cannot regulate another country's emissions.

As for your second point... it's going to take a liitle more to convince me than just italics and bold letters. How are the feds or any other government going to regulate really anything that anybody does? Murder is illegal and yet it still occurs, go figure. If someone wants to build some solar or wind farm go ahead!

Your third point, once again, void. The batteries in your little hybrid cars cause more damage than any 'gas guzzler' SUV can ever do.
Name one time, just one time that america ever went to war for oil. You can't, because it never happened. We went to war for power. The elitists don't give two shits about oil.

In conclusion I will quote the tenth amendment from the United States Constitution...
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

My first point is valid because it involves the states, not foreign countries (which are not causing the problem anyway).

Your argument on the second point makes no sense. Enforcement is never 100% -- so what? No entity but the federal government is in position to enforce these laws -- which have been much more effective than you seem to realize.

Your argument on the third point is wrong and has been disproved. Hybrids are much better for the environment. We went to war in Iraq for the oil and we will do it again, anytime our oil interests are threatened. History tells us this is true. And if you don't believe it, read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin. I can come up with a lot of other references, too.

 

Your first point is invalid, because the feds aren't making pro-environment laws, they're making anti-economy laws! They pass a supposed pro-environment law and all it does is chase companies here overseas! American citizens seem to stop caring about the environment when they're busy wondering where their next meal is coming from. Oh but wait the government will solve that problem too. So when you say that the laws have worked, you're absolutely right, they've worked by outsourcing good jobs overseas. Your 'government solves all' theories works oh-so-well in California. How are the feds planning on enforcing the laws? Oh I know 'pick me pick me!' they'll just hire half a million new asshole bearucrats and jack my taxes up, while, in unison, also jacking my bills up, sending more jobs overseas, while also not doing a damn thing to help the environment.

As for the hybrids, you may be right when you say their are fewer emissions but what happens when those batteries end up in a land fill.

What the hell oil interests are you talking about? If they really wanted oil so bad they could just tear up some of our national parks. Its about power and money. The elitist don't give two shits what our cars run on because they'd find a way to put a meter on it and sell it to us or a ripoff price too.

I hope you don't think Obama or one damn second gives a shit about you, me, or the environment. It's the same across the board

It doesn't matter what you wanna call it, all war ties right back into the Corporatocracy that rules over the entire planet.

I'm gonna focus on getting my freedom back first. There's no excuse why I couldn't just walk out of highschool and into a job. There's no excuse why anyone should have to settle for any less than their best just because some robber barons decided to yank the rug out from under us.

We must end the fed, fractional reserve banking, end all foriegn aid, end all wars, and federal taxes must be lowered to almost zero.

Maybe if we're economically well off more people will be more willing to support environmental protections.

The feds have highjacked the environmental movement! Everything the feds touch dies.

 

Sorry, but I think you've become so radically ideological, so anti-government, that you can't pick out the truth from the lies anymore.

 

I'm not anti-government. I'm anti big government. If you think I can't see the truth rom the lies anymore than why don't you tell me the difference.

I'd agree with you if you said oil companies influence the government. But I think you're the one that has become 'radically idealogical' i you think that the absolute only reason for a war in Iraq was oil. Gas is so expensive now, there has never been another time in history where big oil profits have been threatened more. What are they gonna do next, go to war with the sun?... the wind?... oh I know since my home state of Pennsylvania has so much natural gas they may as well go to war with them. I you say that we'd be better off had the internal combustion engine never been invented I'd agree with you 100%. But I absolutely 100% would consider you pretty damn naive if you think that humans can affect Earth's climate in a big way by burning whatever fuel conceivable. I beleived it a long time ago, like in fourth grade. I would agree with you if you said BP should have had massive fines for what happened in the Gulf. They should have had a lot more than what they got. Exxon shoulda had a lot more done to them for what happened in 1989 too! You keep on preaching your message man! It's righteous and good. I got respect for you because you got a good heart. But I still do not think it is the federal government's job to force anything onto us except freedom.

That said, the feds shouldn't be giving tax breaks to any company for any reason. Because we need to have a 0% fed tax rate for everybody. The only thing they should have the power to tax is interstate commerce and tarrifs.

Would you agree with me if I said WalMart is evil?
Would you agree with me if I said your taxes are too high?
Would you agree with me if I said every adult who is able to work should be able to get a job if he or she wants it?

Judging by your sig, you're a democrat... hows that workin out for ya?
By the way, I'm niether democrat nor republican.

 

I am not a Democrat. I dislike the Democrats, I hate the Republicans, I kinda like the Libertarians, except that they would not protect the environment, so I am against them, too. I consider myself a progressive independent.

How can you say you're not anti-government when you want a zero tax rate?

 

taxing interstate commerce is fucking retarded, FYI
why would you want to discourage interstate trade? that is exactly what this country WANTS and NEEDS. made in us is a huge thing and is important to support our neighbors and ourselves

federal government isn't a bad thing, it just needs to stop giving breaks to those who need it the least

 

I would say you're just buying right into corporate propaganda there. For example...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/05/b...-environmental-regulation.html?pagewanted=all

 

Deflation, no environmental protection, no income tax, no capital gains or corporate tax, no EPA, proposing a new gold standard, ending the central bank, no student loans or PELL grants, no food stamps or unemployment, less corporate regulation, pulling the US out of international organizations, all combined with a man who doesn't believe in evolution, thinks sodomy and anti abortion laws are fine as long as they're at the state level, doesn't think health care is a right, and straight up said in a debate a few months ago he'd let a 5 year old child die vs forcing a hospital to treat them?

Yeah I don't think I'll vote for Paul. My desire for legal drugs is far lower than my desire to ruin civilization.

 

Hippie

As I’ve pointed out that is the con the wealth based propaganda machine is pumping out and it seems that you have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

They claim that right wing libertarianism which is an extreme form of neo-liberalism is in someway about ‘freedom’, the true free market.

Yep you really have fallen for it.

The only ‘freedom’ that is being promoted by the neo-liberals you support is the freedom of the few to exploit the many.

Try reading - Free market = Plutocratic Tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36

 

Hippie

The rest of your rants seem based on the idea that since you just know your views are right then anyone that opposes your views must be wrong.

The problem is that the evidence seems to indicate so far that you are rather gullible; I mean you have fallen for the whole right wing libertarian con game seemingly without question.

For example virtual all respectable authorities believe in human influenced climate change but since you think you are right they must be wrong. But in the pasts whenever deniers have tried to explain why they’re right and everyone else is wrong it inevitably came back to disrespectable evidence or some alien/lizard type conspiracy theory.

 

I think that since the main stream dems and repubs have don such a poor job of things it is time to change things.

 

I agree, and think that if Ron Paul can win the primary we might once again have a 2 party political system. At least Ron Paul appears to recognize the sources of our problems, but it would also require a large change in both houses of Congress for him to accomplish much.

I would vote for him, if he can get through the primaries, and since the State I vote in will go Republican, I would vote for him if he runs on a third party ticket.

It looks like the Republican and Democrat parties are making a bipartisan effort to assure Mitt Romney will be the Republican candidate, so that an Obama defeat will just result in a change of pace, rather than a change in direction.

 

I dont vote so i picked one of the NO options...

However IF I DID VOTE,YES I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM!!

 

Indie

Does he?

The problems seem to stem from wealth having gained too much power and influence.

Ron Paul’s ideas would give more power and influence to wealth.

To me that sounds doesn’t sound like he doesn’t have a clue what the problem is.

 

Balbus

I've never been robbed by a rich person, so class warfare isn't a political motivating factor.
You're welcome to vote for Obama, but then again aren't you a UK citizen?

 

Indie

LOL – well the majority of the people in the western world have, I mean we are going to pay for the neoliberal financial crisis one way or another, especially through cuts in public services and the knock on rise in social problems.

If you actually look at thinks you could be think that class warfare has been taking place over many years - a war of wealth on the rest of us.
For example here is something from Paul Krugman

“As background, it helps to know what has been happening to incomes over the past three decades. Detailed estimates from the Congressional Budget Office - which only go up to 2005, but the basic picture surely hasn't changed - show that between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted income of families in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. That's growth, but it's slow, especially compared with the 100 percent rise in median income over a generation after World War II. Meanwhile, over the same period, the income of the very rich, the top 100th of 1 percent of the income distribution, rose by 480 percent. No, that isn't a misprint. In 2005 dollars, the average annual income of that group rose from $4.2 million to $24.3 million. So do the wealthy look to you like the victims of class warfare?”