Republicans, how do you honestly feel about the primary?

Do some critical thinking when reading the smear articles:

- Ron Paul hasn't changed his stances on issues to get votes in his 3 decades in office even when he is the lone voice on an issue or when a different stance would get more support. There is nothing wrong with logistically choosing what party to run in or changing parties and it doesn't signify a change in position.

- The claims of him being anti-Semitic are false. It's not anti-Semitic to want to end foreign aid to all nations or as a start amend the budget to end it for Israel, Jordan, Egypt, and Pakistan yet there were articles claiming that he wanted to end aid to Israel without the articles mentioning the other nations and it was implied that he was anti-Semitic, because of it. He was called anti-Semitic for not voting for a bill that was called "Recognizing Israel's Right to defend Itself", but He didn't vote for it, because he is not going to approve any bill that is condoning attacks that were done. He does recognize Israel's right to defend itself, but doesn't think the U.S. should be a part of it. He was actually one of the few in Congress who didn't vote for a bill which criticized Israel for its attack on the Iraq nuclear reactor.

- The Newsletters have been explained and Ron Paul has said that he is morally responsible for not knowing everything that was in them. He has never said anything racist or backed racist policies. If you can find any video of Ron Paul saying something racist, I would like to see it. Wanting racism prevented other ways than through centralized federal power is not racism. Claims of racism or anti-Semitism can be a very powerful tool for political opponents and many will shamelessly use that tactic. Here is a video which explains his stance on another issue related to the subject. He has the right approach on it, instead of the pandering that is usually done (start at 3:10):

As I implied the party change was logistical, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. He is trying to get the Republican party back to supporting small government and being fiscally conservative. Political parties evolve and Ron Paul's ideas are changing the Republican party, considering the youth support that is coming in and will probably continue to come in to support his ideas. The Republican party may evolve into the party which is opposed to infringing on liberties for perceived security, opposed to nation building, and opposed to preemptive wars, and the Democrat party may end up being the war party, which wants to increase control over the citizens.

The idea of getting rid of the Federal Reserve is to get the printing of the money supply out of the hands of the a group which is largely unaccountable. The partial audit which happened through the efforts of Ron Paul showed that the Federal Reserve unaccountably gave over 60 trillion in bailouts to big banks with many of them being foreign banks. The government has functioned without a privately owned central bank in the past. The only President to ever pay off the national debt was Andrew Jackson and he was able to accomplish it after getting rid of the central bank.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to legislate related to commerce between the states. Commerce within the states could be regulated by the states.

Ron Paul does take Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security into account in his plan. He would end spending on wars and foreign aid while keeping those programs solvent and allowing people under 25 to opt out. His plan shows the numbers and it cuts the debt by 1 trillion in the first year and balances the budget in 3:
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/th...

I have seen interviews where Ron Paul talks about the Civil Rights Act and how it is established and has been tested in the courts, so that isn't going to be eliminated. It's obvious to me that Ron Paul's disagreement with the Civil Rights Act is about preferring that racism be prevented without having to use the power of centralized government.

Well, what I see taking place is he's realizing he isn't going to get elected for whatever reason and he's grooming the stage along with his son for a future moment.

Both parties waged war on personal and civil liberties and neither party is less guilty than the other in this regard. They both committed atrocities in regard to our freedoms and the principles our country was founded upon.

I understand his positions. I agree with several of his positions. I disagree with others.

Congress legislating ANYTHING to the states is contraindicated when Paul's positions regarding the fed are applied across-the-board. The irony here is another bureaucracy must be created to monitor states' interstate commerce IF he dismantles the fed in the manner he claims. Isn't this simply trading one entity for another? How would he handle federally related commerce in the states (cigarettes, booze, certain lotteries, medicine, etc.)? Theoretically, we could end up with 50 different sets of rules, regulations, guidelines, minimums, taxes, etc., regarding EACH commodity. A federal entity would HAVE to monitor/regulate/inspect/enforce such a gargantuan task and it can't be the legislature. In other words, why bother? It's simply going to cost additional money which in turn, will have the opposite effect of what he purports to change. If I'm missing something, by all means, please let me know.

I support his position to cut foreign spending, end the wars and other positions he holds. However, his platform regarding SS and medicaid does not equate a plan for health care. In fact, his position calls for a spending freeze on this only "health care" many Americans have now which will 100 percent compound the problem, guaranteed. Many states now are in dire financial straits and basic economics tells us in no way can any state take on additional debt let alone afford to provide medical care for their citizens. If they could, they certainly wouldn't be looking to the fed to have their state declared a federal disaster area in order to qualify for millions in aid after a calamity like an earthquake, hurricane, tornado outbreak or what have you.

How, pray tell, does one prevent racism without enforcing discrimination laws?

I don't have the answers but at least people like Paul are getting people talking about the real problems facing the country. That's a start.

Ron Paul is not saying to leave everything to the States. He is saying that the powers that aren't given to the federal government in the Constitution are to be left to the states or to the people per the tenth amendment.

One of the powers of Congress is "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;", so that is something that can be legislated by the federal government. Dennis kucinich had been working on legislation to nationalize the Federal Reserve, which I also think would be fine. It would basically wipe out a lot of the debt and interest owed, because there would be no point in the government paying interest to itself. The Federal Reserve currently basically makes debt based money. Every time money is printed the government owes more interest and goes more into debt. Money wouldn't be debt based if it was printed by the government instead of privately owned banks.

“He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation” -James Garfield-

Commerce is basically handled by private enterprise. In relation to state taxes, there are already different rules made by every state.

Another power from Article 1, Section 8; "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;", so federal consumption taxes are legal based on that. Some would make the case that income taxes aren't Constitutional, based on certain parts of the Constitution. There were even times in history when income tax was ruled unconstitutional

Ron Paul talks about his approach to health care and insurance in the following video:


Racism can be dealt with by the public avoiding establishments with racist policies and for example not voting for a candidate who would use the N word. A law isn't needed to prevent that. Constitutionally, arguably related legislation should be left to the states. Anyone worried about Ron Paul's stance on the Civil Rights Act should realize that he wouldn't make any attempt to overturn that, and even if anyone ever tried to, they wouldn't make any progress. If you realize that he approaches that issue from a Constitutional point of view and not as a way to allow people to be discriminated against, than you should realize that he isn't being racist in having that stance.

Personally I am fine with some hedging on the Constitution, such as the Civil Rights Act, abortion laws, and other laws that arguably shouldn't be made at federal level, but it might be a good idea to have a fairly strict Constitutionalist as President at this point to turn around the move toward complete centralized control. Ron Paul is fairly strict in his Constitutional interpretations, but does use common sense in that he wouldn't just try to drop arguably unconstitutional programs that people have paid into or become dependent on. I would also be fine with Gary Johnson as President. We need a President who has the peoples' interests at heart, not Presidents who are beholden or compromised and forwarding the agenda of powerful interests.

You hit on some great points but as you inform, several must be legislated and there is no way on God's green earth Republican and Democrat leaders and representatives will vote the same in this lifetime toward abolsihing the fed in any manner. I have another bone with the banks in that 52 percent of deposits in this country are held by five banks. The ties of JP Morgan and the fed require complete severance along with the revocation of these "too-big-to-fail" banks' operating status.

I am familiar with the claims of certain income tax being illegal. In complete fairness, I advocate and support a flat percentage tax across the board.

Yes, we agree on one of your suggestions that SOME racism can be dealt with by the "public avoiding establishments with racist policies," certainly. That was NEVER in contention. The question is HOW do you get the public to do so? You can't without legislation and here's why .... the public consists of racists. Racists are part of the public. All types exist, including closet racists who say one thing but vote another. Your concept and intentions may be golden but you will never get people to change a taught and acquired behavior without legislation. People "know" what is right, that doesn't mean they will adhere to the right thing. If they did, we wouldn't require prisons and the entire judicial system and network of police, etc.

Paul's entire take on the health care issue is based on several false premises such as volunteer groups will step up and do "their share" and take care of the poor. And just like I touched on with the racism issue, where or what is the inducement to do so? Not gonna happen. Also, he advocates tax credits and medical saving accounts in regards to medical procedures, completely discounting the fact most people without health insurance are without it not by choice but because they can't afford it. Middle income families no longer have disposable income laying around (like they did just a few short years ago) to toss in a medical savings account that would provide adequate capital in case of emergency. If they did, they'd simply purchase insurance. Ditto for the tax credits. Most families can't afford to wait once a year to realize an actual in-pocket credit. This is where Paul (and every other politician) is completely out of touch with mainstream America, not realizing the actual costs to a family with say, two or three school-age children, in regards to health care costs and related expenses such as wellness and maintenance visits (regular checkups, blood work, physicals, etc.). Now, add in the parents' costs and any emergencies with kids (if you have kids, you know the doctor is a very integral part of their growing up) and together the costs can quickly become prohibitive.

Paul says socialized medicine "can't work" and is trying to sell the old line, "people still look to the U.S. for quality healthcare" which now constitutes propaganda, harkening an era that no longer exists. This is where I posit he's lost his mind. Every country ranking above ours (we now rank #37) proves that socialized medicine" not only works, but works better than what we have. Thirty-six countries have better longevity rates, infant mortality rates and a better quality of living overall, thanks to socialized medicine.
http://www.photius.com/rankin...
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/...
As long as politicians continue to deny the reasons why our country country ranks where it does, nothing will change. Paul offers no solution for the majority of uninsured (and insured) Americans in regards to health care costs but I'm not picking on him because like I informed, NONE of the candidates are focusing on this very real and pressing issue as it doesn't affect any of them. Bleating false patriotic chants of "Rah-rah, we're Number 1" when it's no longer true lost its luster long ago.

I have to question your comment regarding folks who aren't "beholden" to powerful interests. Checking out Paul's major contributors (Bank of America, AFLAC, Microsoft, and many more), what assurances do we have Paul won't do the same?

As I maintained before, I like several of Paul's positions, others I think are absolutely ludicrous. Given the sorry field of candidates, I still haven't made up my mind who I'm voting for, like millions of other Americans.

The world monetary system would be affected if we began arbitrarily printing money and tweaking our currency system which is but one in a long line of proverbial dominoes or "players" on the world market. This is why it will never occur UNTIL each and every politician in office now is vanquished, voted out, retired, etc. for good.

I'm paying close attention to what each candidate says. As of this writing, I will not vote for Romney, Gingrich, Santorum or Obama. That leaves Paul and the other "lesser" candidates. I really NEED Paul to offer something solid in regards to the health care situation. I've e-mailed his campaign and exchanged several e-mails with one of his campaign's organizers and they all send me similar links like that of which you provided, showing Paul's ideas and talking points but no place does he actually say what HIS platform is to address the immediate crisis in need of immediate attention and again, no candidate (in my humble opinion) can present honest talking points about the deficit, spending, Budget, etc. while ignoring what now constitutes 17 percent of America's spending. Imagine what shape this country's people would be in if they weren't beholden to medical costs. Why, seniors alone would once again be able to enjoy their final years and not worry about being a pauper or eating or paying the rent or buying medicine ... a return of the American dream, the RIGHT to quality medical care for all after paying a lifetime of taxes and other deductions that if appropriated correctly, could more than pay for every man, woman and child's medical needs in this country for the length of their life. It works in 26 other countries ranking higher than ours, it's time the fed provide what we pay for ANYWAY, such as the best medical insurance available for congressmen and other officials. They work for US, why should the worker bee have better benefits than his "boss?" It should be equal across the board. Medical care should not be dictated by financial status as allowed by past politicians resulting in a health care system rife with corruption and monopolies.

Thanks for the intelligent discussion, Alien.

Yes, many of us are having difficulties selecting a candidate this time around, much more than any time in the past.

Not certain how eugenics entered the equation but you have me curious enough to perform a little research and see if it relates in any manner to any of the other countries.

I agree with several of your points in relation to a commune style country and communities and it would indeed take a radical shift in thinking and an evolution of consciousness for this to come to fruition. Your ideas spurred one of my own ... instead of looking for an entire country to reach such a level why not begin with a smaller community or state? I am inclined to believe such an approach would first work at a community or state level and as word of its success spread, so would the concept. For example, Arizona could secede since it seems to be continually pissed off at every other state and the feds and everything American in particular. It could then incorporate its own infrastructure of government. We could have states as red as Arizona with its own state autonomy and version of government whereas libertarian-type states could provide those of us interested, in our version of Shangri-La. Imagine, folks giving out free food, drink, care, provisions, etc. at the state line of California whereas the state lines of Arizona and Texas would be lined with Gestapo-type guerrillas demanding ID, blood test, urine test, DNA test, fertilization test and background check before detaining and transporting one to the indoctrination center. Alright, so some of this was written tongue-in-cheek but you get my gist. It would probably have a stronger chance to succeed if implemented on a smaller scale to set an example, sort of like some of the communes in Tennessee and community Sunday brunches (of organic and all member-grown or prepared food items) taking place across America.

Thanks for the Africa information.

Yep, we see all kinds of undue influence and encroachment from the feds regarding state autonomy at all levels.

Regarding health care rationing, it is my opinion that is exactly what we have now and I do not believe this is the most effective manner in regards to providing health care.

I prefer using the French mode of health care. Despite the country spending LESS than what the U.S. spends on health care it consistently ranks better than ours and often, unbiased sources report the French health care system as being the best in the world. Insurance premiums are tied to income levels and everyone receives the same level of care. Physicians remain in private practice yet draw their salary from the public insurance fund. If you're wealthy you can continue to visit private hospitals for-profit hospitals but the gist of it is the care is near equal regardless which option one selects. In fact, France recently cited America as THE example of a health care system of which to stay far away from. A world renown health care economist recently asserted the French health care system is the "only credible alternative to the Americanization of world medicine." Citizens are required to purchase health insurance via NON-PROFIT agencies. American politicians are trying to keep their fingers and constituents' fingers in the cookie jars by pushing for private insurers which is guaranteed to create a boondoggle of red tape, inequality and expense ... in other words, exactly what we have now but with a smokescreen of different names, terms and players.