Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire If Ron Paul Could Ever Get Elected the First Thing to Go Should Be Property Tax

Agreed.

If I decided I wanted to live a simple life by living off my own land, they'd take my land from me for not paying taxes so some worthless ghetto slob's children could go to school.

Doesn't seem very American to me.

I have long advocated that--which is why I think waaay too much attention is paid to the national scene....





It doesn't matter if RP couldn't get legislation through--an RP standing up to Congress with his bully pulpit could/would provide mucho motivation at the local/state level--and then we would have a very powerful trickle up effect........

Casey

Casey, I've got to disagree. First, the LP should try to start grooming some folks who have a reasonable chance of becoming popular on the National level. RP mixing it up with the GOP is absurdity and a bad joke. I can see the benefit of coaxing along some good folks into the GOP and start trying to taking it back, but it seems a bit too unlikely. The grassroots is the place to start, one, half nutty guy, thrown onto the National stage, is counter productive, IMO.

HunterJim has it right, in a post above...

oulofinn,

If RP had ran as a Libertarian he would not be on televised debates every month, and not have recieved the attention--I think it is a very smart move on his part to use the Republican party to sell a original conservative/libertarian (small L) message.

The Libertarians are really no worse than the extreme wings of Democrat and Republican parties. Yeah, there are nut case Libertarians out there, I don't even agree with all of the platform by any means.

But RP is being subjected to the same political ploy afforded anybody who steps outside the party lines. His ideas advocate significant change--and it is VERY easy to ridicule advocates of changing the status quo.

It takes somebody on the outside looking in to make change--those on the inside will instinctively attempt to preserve the status quo. And today there is darn little difference between the Repubs and Demos.

Don't worry, our system is designed to have lots of checks and balances, even a President Ron Paul with some public support can only move things so far during his term(s).

The problem is, electing more of the same status quo virtually GUARANTEES we continue down the same path.

We need somebody to upset the Washington DC applecart, start brand new debates about the necessity of many parts of federal government, somebody who can devolve enough power back to the states that the states can once again become the testing grounds for new ideas.

If it takes somebody a little bit kooky--so be it.

Casey

Let's look back at Ross Perot. A kooky, RICH guy who got to participate in the debates. He handed Slick Willie the job in "92". Had he been someone a bit less goofy...Who knows? Ron Paul reminds me of the guy he picked to run as VP.

I do agree that the 2 party system is horrible and I hate what the RINO's have done to the GOP. I don't think the LP can ever become a force to be reckoned with. Either something new, or somehow purging the GOP of the azzhats in power now.

But that is an importnat aspect of RP, he has been elected and reelected--a couple of decades apart too--he knows the system.

Perot was a CEO and a coporate businessman--contrary to what Wall Street tells us, being a successful business leader vs an effective politcal leader is two different things.

Bill Clinton didn't ruin the country--he just continued on the same course--and it appears he had a lot of help from a Congress controlled by the opposing party for 6 of his 8 years.

That is why we need somebody to rattle Washington's cage.

More of the same won't cut it.

Here on the Campfire the only defining issue is firearms (well OK, SteveNO wants to shoot everybody on camelback), but as Barak wrote a week ago, with the exception of a couple issues, things will go on the same way with all the "mainstream" candidates regardless of party.


Casey

Those "couple of issues" are pretty important ones. Taxes and gun control are surely not just minor after thoughts, IMO. Here in Texas, I don't think we've fallen quite as far down the "slippery slope" as much of the country and maybe that's why I can't see why we should just chitcan the GOP. It seems to me, that we still have a chance and it's not a lost cause. In the NE, Kali and NW I couldn't IMAGINE the frustration I'd have. I look at the liberal .gov of my home state of Wisconsin, and cringe at how the sheeple up there vote.

What I see is the LP lumping ALL other mindsets into one "unacceptable" pot and just blindly floundering, when I still think the GOP could become something better than it is. The Democrat party, to me, is a completely lost cause...

If guns and taxes are the primary issues on the agenda, RP is clearly the leader.

Even Hilary knows she can't win if she advocates any significant firearms restrictions. But it was the Republicans who advocated "licensing" guns so we can carry them in our pocket--when we already had the right to do so. That is a slippery slope if I have ever seen one. Government--regardless of party--will license guns out of existence--or see to it that only a few "right thinkers" posses them.

Ron Paul can be elected if enough people vote for him.

I live in a pretty conservative district--even the few Democrats are more like the old conservative Democrats........

There is not much difference between the mainstream candidates...

Casey

Not making fun of you but that is a pretty funny statement.

I'd love to see RP get a whirl at the whitehouse. Unfortunately, his foreign policy ideas will keep too many people away.

You just can't go saying we should be talking to Iran the way he did at the debate and expect serious consideration.

A real shame, The only candidate who has a clue that this is our country, not the gov'mints.

Strange things have happened in politics--maybe not stranger that RP being elected--but things have happened.

I don't think RP did as good in this recent debate as he has previously.


Casey

That's not true at all. A truly conservative president could do a lot to improve things. For one, he can refrain from taking the nation to war without a Congressional Declaration of War. That, by itself, would be a biggie in my book but, further, he is the chief executive, and is in charge of executing the laws. He also swore an oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States, which means he is empowered to refuse to execute laws which are unconstitutional on their face, which 90% of the US Code is. That would be an enormous improvement.

IMO they are unconstitutional and Fed trumps State and Local. My Grandpa told me about the dirty '30s when people around here survived on Jackrabbits, poke sallet and the like. They had everything paid for, but after a couple or three years, the guvmint came in and took it. That or they borrowed from the sorry assed banks in order to pay the taxes and the banks took it. Then everybody headed for California. My people here in Kansas and Oklahoma were too stubborn...or stupid, take your pick.

Unfortunately, Judge Hawkeye, the real judges...the ones with law degrees, presidential appointments and black robes, disagree with you. And I think even you will admit that we can't let each man be his own judge, or you simply have....well, Barakistan.


Not that you're not entitled to your opinion, just that it really doesn't matter except to you...well, you and your dog. My dogs usually agree with me. Only ones in the house who do.

That's why I'm so opposed to property taxes. Who'se the gov'mint to tell me how I should live.

Now if I want to be part of the system, well then I should help support it(ie, incoome taxes). Not support it for the common good which is what I believe property taxes are all about.

The problem is that the "common good" is a product of socialism and I shouldn't have to adhere to it if we are really a free country.

You mean the branch of government that is REALLY out of control......?



Arrest them for Disturbing Your Peace!


Casey

But the thing is, it doesn't violate the law for the president to uphold his oath of office. Additionally, I would point out to you that the executive and the judiciary are coequal branches of government. That means that they are not subject to one another. Furthermore, the president is an elected official, and is answerable to two things only. Firstly the US Constitution, due to his oath (and that not filtered by the high and mighty men in black) and, secondly, to the folks who elected him. That means that, ultimately, if he is perceived to have done wrong, it is up to the people to remove him at the next election, not the US Supreme Court. If he does something Congress believes is a high crime, or treasonous, they can impeach him. If the American people are behind him, however, Congress will not be successful. Ultimately, if he's not impeached and removed, any perceived misstep by him becomes a "political question," subjecting him to removal only by the electorate.

TRH,

Don't forget what happens to American presidents who attempt to upset the status quo.

They tend to end up like John F and Bobby Kennedy.

Remember what a good boy LBJ was? One might suspect he had been warned.

Yes, this time I am talking about a conspiracy.

Just imagine the information they might have gotten from Oswald, the patsy.

"He also swore an oath to preserve the Constitution of the United States, which means he is empowered to refuse to execute laws which are unconstitutional on their face, which 90% of the US Code is. That would be an enormous improvement."

He is NOT empowered to refuse to execute laws which are unconstititional on their face, i.e. 'in your opinion'. Only the US Supreme Court is empowered to determine the constitutionality of the statutes.

Let's just repeal all taxes. It would be cheaper and fairer. It would also cause us to create priorities.