Ron Paul makes a major move...

[shootfighter1]

The key issue is gov spending...totally agree.  If the gov stops excessive spending and borrowing, I am less concerned about the method of taxation.

I do not agree that the fair tax benefits the rich and I've seen statistical analysis which is compelling.  As usual, I'm sure you'll find credible arguments on each side.

[Dos Equis]

I like Ron Paul, but just to keep his candidacy in perspective, he got about million votes.  Jesse Jackson had about 6 million in one of his campaigns.  I wonder how many Al Sharpton got in 2004? 

[stormshadow]

How does the US pay for defense? or anything for that matter?

The states pony up to pay for defense and all other federal government funding.

People pay the state government, and the state government funds the Fed.

Do you not see the chaos resulting from our current system where the Federal Government collects directly from the people and then redistributes to the states??

The house of representatives was representation at the federal level for the people, the Senate was representation for the states.

The 17th amendment destroyed the states representation by handing the Senate over to the people.  Thus a major Check was removed and allowed power to consolidate at the federal level because the states had no more representation in Washington.

The masses can become DUMB and vote away their liberty... Direct State representation via the Senate at the federal level was a check against this.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I like Ron Paul, but just to keep his candidacy in perspective, he got about million votes.  Jesse Jackson had about 6 million in one of his campaigns.  I wonder how many Al Sharpton got in 2004? 

Please for all our sakes stop thinking like that. Stop being a follower and become a leader of sorts. If I followed what pop culture does, I'd be fvcked hard.

[CQ]

Ron Paul is a wash.

I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.

[Bindare_Dundat]

Ron Paul is a wash.

I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.

If anyone believes Ron is a lunatic than they are just another robot that accepts the reality they were handed to them from the day they were born.

It amazes me that this has happened over and over throughout history. We have been blessed with thinkers that do so outside the box and we have robots that condemn them for giving us knowlesdge that we may not understand yet. People need to stop being so fvucking arrogant and stop and listen.

[Dos Equis]

Please for all our sakes stop thinking like that. Stop being a follower and become a leader of sorts. If I followed what pop culture does, I'd be fvcked hard.

Thinking like what?  Just stating the facts.  Jesse Jackson got about six million votes and Ron Paul got about a million.  You dispute those facts?  

[Dos Equis]

Ron Paul is a wash.

I like him, like his policies, but the fact remains he comes across as a lunatic to the public for a zillion reasons.

He was never a viable candidate.  The large CT nut following didn't help either. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

Thinking like what?  Just stating the facts.  Jesse Jackson got about six million votes and Ron Paul got about a million.  You dispute those facts?  

I dont dispute those facts but I also don't let them dictate my way of voting or dictate what I think is right.

Hitler had a huge following at one point also, whats the point?

[CQ]

If anyone believes Ron is a lunatic than they are just another robot that accepts the reality they were handed to them from the day they were born.

I am not even speaking on his policies, I mean *him*. He simply comes across very badly and that is reality.

Why do they wear suits at debates - not jeans and a cowboy hat? Public perception and societal norms matter.

Slap Paul's polices into Edwards/Biden/Romney he would have done way better.

It amazes me that this has happened over and over throughout history. We have been blessed with thinkers that do so outside the box and we have robots that condemn them for giving us knowledge that we may not understand yet. People need to stop being so fvucking arrogant and stop and listen.

I agree 100%.

Thing being, the average voter is no rocket scientist. To win, one must play the game.

[Bindare_Dundat]

I am not even speaking on his policies, I mean *him*. He simply comes across very badly and that is reality.

Why do they wear suits at debates - not jeans and a cowboy hat? Public perception and societal norms matter.

Slap Paul's polices into Edwards/Biden/Romney he would have done way better.

I agree 100%.

Thing being, the average voter is no rocket scientist. To win, one must play the game.

This has been beaten to death, the thread isn't about what he looks like, it's about the message, I don't know why the rest of you give his delivery or look so much more importance as is evidenced by how many times it's brought up.

[Dos Equis]

I dont dispute those facts but I also don't let them dictate my way of voting or dictate what I think is right.

Hitler had a huge following at one point also.

You should always vote your conscience.  I'm just putting his candidacy in perspective.  

[Bindare_Dundat]

You should always vote your conscience.  I'm just putting his candidacy in perspective.  

Agian, you and I have beaten that topic to death, lets focus on whats more important, yes?

[Dos Equis]

This has been beaten to death, the thread isn't about what he looks like, it's about the message, I don't know why the rest of you give his delivery or look so much more importance as is evidenced by how many times it's brought up.

It shouldn't be important, but it is.  That's why we talk about it.  It helps explain why he couldn't win. 

[Dos Equis]

Agian, you and I have beaten that topic to death, lets focus on whats more important, yes?

I think they should let him speak at the convention and McCain should consider including him in his cabinet, assuming he endorses and/or doesn't undermine him during the campaign. 

[Bindare_Dundat]

It shouldn't be important, but it is.  That's why we talk about it.  It helps explain why he couldn't win. 

Wasted energy my friend. YOU are the one bringing it up all the time. If you agree it shouldnt be so important, why bring it up all the time instead of spreading the message that you say you agree with so much?

[shootfighter1]

Yes, its the message thats important.
I understand what CQ & Beach are saying.  RP didn't come off nearly as smooth as Obama or Romney.  Speaking of that, still not sure how McCain beat Romney.

[Decker]

The states pony up to pay for defense and all other federal government funding.

People pay the state government, and the state government funds the Fed.

Do you not see the chaos resulting from our current system where the Federal Government collects directly from the people and then redistributes to the states??

The house of representatives was representation at the federal level for the people, the Senate was representation for the states.

The 17th amendment destroyed the states representation by handing the Senate over to the people.  Thus a major Check was removed and allowed power to consolidate at the federal level because the states had no more representation in Washington.

The masses can become DUMB and vote away their liberty... Direct State representation via the Senate at the federal level was a check against this.

I don't see how using the States as a de facto IRS solves anything.  In fact, the lack of uniformity in procedure would probably handcuff the experiment out of the gate.

While don't agree with your opinion on the effect of the 17th amendment as far as the degree of damage done to federalism, I do see a problem with undue influence in washington.

Direct State representation, to me, is not a guard against stupidity of people.  That's an education issue.  I like more democracy rather than less.

[Dos Equis]

Wasted energy my friend. YOU are the one bringing it up all the time. If you agree it shouldnt be so important, why bring it up all the time instead of spreading the message that you say you agree with so much?

I bring up the facts.  You can agree or disagree.  It's just reality.  Political races are partly a beauty contest.  Why the heck do you think Obama is the Democrat nominee?  He gave a great convention speech, he looks good, and sounds good.  Ain't a whole lot of substance to his "message," but his delivery is a knockout.  That is the world we live in.    

And what "message" are you talking about?  I like the guy, I agree with him on many issues, but he is not even a blip on the radar right now.  I like Huck too and I'm not spreading his "message" (whatever it is).  

[CQ]

It shouldn't be important, but it is.  That's why we talk about it.  It helps explain why he couldn't win. 

It is why he stood no chance from the onset.

A truly savvy man ignores *should* and looks at reality.

Not to be overdramatic, but I *should* be able to go out in a tiny dress at 3am in the worst part of Washington DC for a 2 hr walk unarmed by myself. I *should* be able to that, reality tells me I would be a fool.

Paul could have gotten some speech coaching, body language help, nice suits etc, and come across way better. It is common sense to be President one must appear normal at minimum, the fact he did not try to in turn makes me doubt his mindset.

[MRDUMPLING]

I have researched it pretty throroughly.

Here's a great site that does a good job debunking the fair tax.  http://www.fair-tax.org/

So have I...I have read both books by the authors of the fair tax and the bill.  The second one being written and published in rebuttal to the above website that you referenced.

-That site is a wash as it insults people which is never good for your arguement.(insulting IQs, etc.)  Not only some of the points that it lists has is wrong. 

-The Fair Tax does not try to get rid of the IRS.  That is the biggest myth about the Fair Tax.

-The authors do note the outrageous spending of our government.  That is a different subject to discuss as whatever the tax code is they(government) will spend it on something stupid. 

-The Fair Tax is the most researched bill in the history of our country.

-The Fair Tax gets rid of the Payroll Tax(among others), which is one of the most idiotic taxes ever put into law. 

-While it may not necessarily be the best ever, I believe the proposed system is currently the best alternative as to what we have right now. 

-People shouldn't have to give up their wealth as they worked for it.  The current tax code punishes production while the Fair Tax at least tries to tax consumption. 

[Decker]

So have I...I have read both books by the authors of the fair tax and the bill.  The second one being written and published in rebuttal to the above website that you referenced.

-That site is a wash as it insults people which is never good for your arguement.(insulting IQs, etc.)  Not only some of the points that it lists has is wrong. 

-The Fair Tax does not try to get rid of the IRS.  That is the biggest myth about the Fair Tax.

-The authors do note the outrageous spending of our government.  That is a different subject to discuss as whatever the tax code is they(government) will spend it on something stupid. 

-The Fair Tax is the most researched bill in the history of our country.

-The Fair Tax gets rid of the Payroll Tax(among others), which is one of the most idiotic taxes ever put into law. 

-While it may not necessarily be the best ever, I believe the proposed system is currently the best alternative as to what we have right now. 

-People shouldn't have to give up their wealth as they worked for it.  The current tax code punishes production while the Fair Tax at least tries to tax consumption. 

Their is not 'the' fair tax.  Various politicians have been pushing the 'fair tax' since the early 1990s. 

Which points at the web site I listed are wrong?

So the the flat fair tax replaces the (almost) flat payroll tax.  I don't see the benefit.

[Bindare_Dundat]

It is why he stood no chance from the onset.

A truly savvy man ignores *should* and looks at reality.

Not to be overdramatic, but I *should* be able to go out in a tiny dress at 3am in the worst part of Washington DC for a 2 hr walk unarmed by myself. I *should* be able to that, reality tells me I would be a fool.

Paul could have gotten some speech coaching, body language help, nice suits etc, and come across way better. It is common sense to be President one must appear normal at minimum, the fact he did not try to in turn makes me doubt his mindset.

Why do focus so much on his suit and delivery when in your own words you said you agree with his policies? I wish you spent as much time discussing the policies you agreed with instead of wasting both our time with pure nonsense. Notice I didnt say, talk about him being president, I said talk about his policies.

So lets see, so far you agree with his policies but doubt his mind set because he didnt wear the suit you thought he should wear and he didn't speak as fluently as say someone like Obama. ok...the truth is vanity is more imporatant to you than substance.

[Bindare_Dundat]

 

And what "message" are you talking about?  

you know, the ones you posted yourself last December, or did you forget already?

[Bindare_Dundat]

Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck.  Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue.  Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion-- a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000!  Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels?  Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.