Is anyone else impressed with Ron Paul like I am? [Archive]

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 12:02 AM

I support Ron Paul but, not for the reasons most people like him. The first thing most people notice about Paul is his consistent position on the war, civil liberties, and a weak central government. Like it or not, it is very different from the opinions from the rest of the candidates.

Ron Paul piqued my interest with his stance on monetary policy/reform.

"A paper monetary standard means there are no restraints on the printing press or on federal deficits. In 1971, M3 was $776 billion; today it stands at $8.9 trillion, an 1100% increase. Our national debt in 1971 was $408 billion; today it stands at $6.8 trillion, a 1600% increase. Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested."

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. A system of capitalism presumes sound money, not fiat money manipulated by a central bank. Capitalism cherishes voluntary contracts and interest rates that are determined by savings, not credit creation by a central bank. It's not capitalism when the system is plagued with incomprehensible rules regarding mergers, acquisitions, and stock sales, along with wage controls, price controls, protectionism, corporate subsidies, international management of trade, complex and punishing corporate taxes, privileged government contracts to the military - industrial complex, and a foreign policy controlled by corporate interests and overseas investments. Add to this centralized federal mismanagement of farming, education, medicine, insurance, banking and welfare. This is not capitalism!"

"Good morning, Mr. Greenspan. I understand that you did not take my friendly advice last fall. I thought maybe you should look for other employment, but I see you have kept your job."

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ji_G0MqAqq8"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ji_G0MqAqq8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

patteeu

06-06-2007, 12:04 AM

He's the Dennis K of the GOP.

He'd be in every Presidential nomination race if I had my say. I'd never vote for him but he brings up the issues and he does it with authority.

Speaking of Dennis K, did he recruit that Gravel guy from Alaska to make him look more mainstream? Holy smokes, Gravel is a hoot.

Ultra Peanut

06-06-2007, 12:10 AM

People from Alaska aren't recruited, they're made... insane by the weather, apparently.

CRONUS

06-06-2007, 12:30 AM

People from Alaska aren't recruited, they're made... insane by the weather, apparently.

It is funny how so many diverse people agree on Gravel appearing to be a very poor candidate.

Silock

06-06-2007, 12:49 AM

Ron Paul is the only actual conservative in this whole circus right now.

I don't think he's weak on defense at all. I think he's just non-traditional, as traditional nowadays mirrors giant government on both sides of the aisle. Ron Paul wants to try and get us back to the way the country was before the New Deal.

Also, he's not "anti-war." He just follows the Just War Theory, which is an incredibly sound ethical position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war

Silock

06-06-2007, 12:49 AM

It is funny how so many diverse people agree on Gravel appearing to be a very poor candidate.

I love him. The guy has balls and he's not intimidated by anyone. That's awesome :)

SNR

06-06-2007, 01:50 AM

I understand his constitutionalist ideals and like them to an extent but he is so weak on defense and just doesn't come off as a very good leader to me. He comes off as a blowhard who appears to fit better under a democratic label. The guy is flat out a liberitarian and has no realm in the GOP field. I respect people who like him for his constitutional values, but I can't repsect the many that like him for his anti war mindset.No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.

ChiefaRoo

06-06-2007, 02:08 AM

The guy is saying all of the right things to get support. He needs money, but if he can continue to get his name thrown out in discussions for serious White House contenders, there's no better man for the job, I think.

In fact, I'm contemplating contributing to his campaign. Every other Republican on that debate doesn't impress me at all. It's Ron Paul or bust for me. And bust for me means voting Democrat.

NO!, NEIN!, NEGATIVE! and finally, Hell no. Duncan Hunter would make a far better dark horse candidate but my money right now is on Fred Thompson. I like him and am looking forward to hearing his views. If he starts to weasel on immigration, or get a limp with a border fence then I'm going for Giuliani as I think he would be as good or better wartime Pres. than Thompson. McCain can eat me with his "American won't work to pick lettuce" quote and his offbeat anger issues worry me a bit. Romney? He seems too contrived for my tastes and the rest of the field just isn't going to win. Thompson or Giuliani for me, we'll see.

ClevelandBronco

06-06-2007, 02:15 AM

No, you're wrong. It's the other 9 candidates that don't belong in the GOP field. The Republican Party was built on small government, low taxes, and a non-interventionist foreign policy and has been that way for years. The party the way it is now is a complete shit hole, with big government, an economy spiraling into a deadly inflation, a shit massive debt, and a foreign policy that hasn't produced results at all. That's the Bush party, and it's the one Ron Paul wants to change.

The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.

Silock

06-06-2007, 03:16 AM

The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.

It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.

There IS a way to ratchet back government. It's called "getting rid of policies and laws that are absolutely unnecessary." People only believe there's no way to trim down government because there's hardly anyone alive today that remembers a time when no one even cared about being a United States senator. All the action was in the state legislatures.

We might as well re-write the Constitution at this point. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has actually read and understands the Constitution. He's not advocating anything that the founding fathers didn't advocate.

Direckshun

06-06-2007, 08:02 AM

Speaking of Dennis K, did he recruit that Gravel guy from Alaska to make him look more mainstream? Holy smokes, Gravel is a hoot.
No shit. :shake:

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 08:16 AM

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 08:20 AM

It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.
:clap: :clap:

Yep! Not only that but Ronald Reagan won in a landslide with that message years ago. The Reps were put in when Clinton shifted left after running as a moderate and a tax cutter. Right now the people are anti-Washington with low regard for both parties, congress and the president.

I don't think Ron Paul would be able to get everything he wanted but ya' can't say his message is a losing one. It seems to have shifted elections before.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 08:27 AM

The Republican party will not change to resemble anything like what Ron Paul is advocating. Not in this election, not ever. That ship has sailed because it's a losing message, and real politics is never about losing. Mr. Paul enjoys one percent support right now. One whole percent.
Conventional polls have often not included his name though.
He also had little name recognition when taken.
He does have broader support on the net.

The American electorate would like to vote us into international peace and personal prosperity while we watch TV, shop the web, and tax the rich. It won't work, but that's what we'd like to do. There's no way that a guy like Ron Paul appeals to the masses, ever.
Ron Paul has little appeal to that portion of the electorate if most of those even vote.

The best the GOP can do is slow down the growth of government. (Yes, many of George W. Bush's social policies remain a mystery to me.) There's no way to ratchet government back significantly from where it is now.
Well the GOP isn't even doing that.
They're not doing it because they completely lack the WILL to do so which is a lack of vision and leadership. They are not even selling this anymore. Not explainiing or educating the people on why it's better. Bush governs to the left of LBJ and that's true on domestic policy.

It's a pipe dream, and only the folks who regularly discuss stuff like this on political forums are going to make it appear that Ron Paul is a serious candidate. It's not happening, and it's not going to influence the guy who gets the nomination. One percent isn't worth it.
Well, even if there may be truth in this...it's also apathy to just plain give up.
There's a lot of busy people out there working to restore some sanity to our govt. It doesn't happen by just giving up.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 08:38 AM

I support Ron Paul but, not for the reasons most people like him.
Since that time, our dollar has lost almost 80% of its purchasing power. Common sense tells us that this process is not sustainable and something has to give. So far, no one in Washington seems interested."

:clap: :clap:

I think it was 7 years ago, the dollar was worth .04 ¢
Inflation= the hidden tax
See, this is what the NeoCon supply-siders don't let us in on....it requires huge deficits....because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

"Capitalism should not be condemned, since we haven't had capitalism. ......This is not capitalism!"

This is what I've been tryin' to say here. We don't have capitalism and it's not capitalism ( free enterprise and markets and trade that are voluntary). Therefore it is not capitalism that is causing our health care crisis, energy crisis, loss of jobs overseas and our poor education performance etc. It's too much govt. We're going the way of every other socialism just slower.

But ya' see as big govt Newt Gringrich says....he's gonna just make our bureaucrats entrepeneurial. LMAO! He thinks he can mix the two and just make socialism work....like Gorby.

Don't forget the GOP is the party that gave us the progressive income tax!

htismaqe

06-06-2007, 09:40 AM

It's not a losing message. It's a different message. As it stands now, there's virtually NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER between a Republican and a Democrat.

There IS a way to ratchet back government. It's called "getting rid of policies and laws that are absolutely unnecessary." People only believe there's no way to trim down government because there's hardly anyone alive today that remembers a time when no one even cared about being a United States senator. All the action was in the state legislatures.

We might as well re-write the Constitution at this point. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that Ron Paul is the only candidate that has actually read and understands the Constitution. He's not advocating anything that the founding fathers didn't advocate.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

listopencil

06-06-2007, 10:18 AM

IN A POST-9/11 SOCIETY RON PAUL IS A THREAT TO THE STATE

Every free thinking American is a threat to The State at this point. The State is a disgusting, bloated animal living off of our blood, toil, tears and sweat. **** The State.

Ultra Peanut

06-06-2007, 10:24 AM

smashthestate

listopencil

06-06-2007, 10:25 AM

smashthestate

Vote Libertarian.

banyon

06-06-2007, 10:27 AM

It's probably not surprising that I have serious policy disagreements with him, esp. on domestic issues and economic policy.

But of all the Republican Candidates in the field, he is probably the one I have the most respect for. He is a man of principle and conviction and surrounded by empty shells (and shills).

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 10:38 AM

Ron Paul on TDS. This is from Monday night, I didnt even know he was on or I would've recorded this.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6haC0eIyRaA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6haC0eIyRaA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Forward Dante

06-06-2007, 10:44 AM

Ron Paul piqued my interest with his stance on monetary policy/reform.

If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.

because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

I think you're thinking of Cheney. Bernanke certainly does think deficits matter. Cheney's quote was taken out of context too, in context he was actually pretty much correct, which is not to say that on the whole deficits dont matter.

BIG_DADDY

06-06-2007, 11:05 AM

Vote Libertarian.

Absolutely. I would vote for satan over Hillary.

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 11:30 AM

If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/h6/discm3.htm

Discontinuance of M3

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

Measures of large-denomination time deposits will continue to be published by the Board in the Flow of Funds Accounts (Z.1 release) on a quarterly basis and in the H.8 release on a weekly basis (for commercial banks).

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.

***I think this last bit is BS. How can we expect our government to exercise some oversight if the Fed decides not to publish stats on the money supply?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy)

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes in decreasing the size of government. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve. Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!".

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." He is frequently considered an advocate of small business. Jack Farris, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business....He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."

Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP). of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money for those on Wall Street and poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Minimize federal interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He also endorses defederalization of the healthcare system.

In an interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Importance of the gold standard

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through re-introduction of the gold standard. A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "...restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions. In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.” Paul's personal financial disclosures reveal extensive private investments in gold and silver, through equities and warrants in companies including Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain Dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East," this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 11:34 AM

If it weren't for these views, I would be 100% behind him. His views on the monetary system are just so ridiculous and out of mainstream economic thought I could never support him.
I like him on a lot of his monetary reform issues.

But, do you think he would get to really reform all those things?
President is only one part of our govt. I think he'd get maybe 20% or maybe a bit more or less that is considered outside the mainstream. At least it would move things in the right direction and open up some debates on those items you can't support. Change has to begin somewhere.

I think you still should support him for this reason. True change has to start somewhere. Besides he's right, we're on an unsustainable path making the same mistakes on monetary issues as past history has shown leads nowhere but down.

I think you're thinking of Cheney. Bernanke certainly does think deficits matter. Cheney's quote was taken out of context too, in context he was actually pretty much correct, which is not to say that on the whole deficits dont matter.
Well then NeoCons tend to pooh-poh deficits.

BIG_DADDY

06-06-2007, 11:39 AM

http://www.federalreserve.gov/Releases/h6/discm3.htm

Discontinuance of M3

On March 23, 2006, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System will cease publication of the M3 monetary aggregate. The Board will also cease publishing the following components: large-denomination time deposits, repurchase agreements (RPs), and Eurodollars. The Board will continue to publish institutional money market mutual funds as a memorandum item in this release.

Measures of large-denomination time deposits will continue to be published by the Board in the Flow of Funds Accounts (Z.1 release) on a quarterly basis and in the H.8 release on a weekly basis (for commercial banks).

M3 does not appear to convey any additional information about economic activity that is not already embodied in M2 and has not played a role in the monetary policy process for many years. Consequently, the Board judged that the costs of collecting the underlying data and publishing M3 outweigh the benefits.

***I think this last bit is BS. How can we expect our government to exercise some oversight if the Fed decides not to publish stats on the money supply?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Economy)

Lower taxes and smaller government

Paul believes in decreasing the size of government. He supports the abolition of the income tax, most Cabinet departments and the Federal Reserve. Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!".

John Berthoud, president of the National Taxpayers Union, an organization that promotes lower tax rates, has said, "Ron Paul has always proven himself to be a leader in the fight for taxpayer rights and fiscal responsibility... No one can match his record on behalf of taxpayers." He is frequently considered an advocate of small business. Jack Farris, president of the National Federation of Independent Business, has said, "Congressman Ron Paul is a true friend of small business....He is committed to a pro-small-business agenda of affordable health insurance, lower taxes, tort reform, and the elimination of burdensome mandates."

Paul has also been an advocate of Employee-owned corporations (ESOP). of inflation, Congress and the president would instead have to raise taxes or cut government services, either of which could be politically damaging to their reputations. He states that the "inflation tax" is a tax on the poor, because the Federal Reserve prints more money for those on Wall Street and poor people pay higher prices for goods as more money is placed in circulation.

Minimize federal interference

Paul opposes virtually all federal interference with the market process. He also endorses defederalization of the healthcare system.

In an interview on The Daily Show with John Stewart, Paul said he favors ending the United States Post Office legal monopoly on first class mail delivery by legalizing private competition.

Importance of the gold standard

In 1982, Ron Paul was the prime mover in the creation of the U. S. Gold Commission, and in many public speeches Paul has called for the return to a commodity-backed currency through re-introduction of the gold standard. A commodity standard binds currency issue to the value of that commodity rather than fiat, making the value of the currency as stable as the commodity. Ron Paul supports the gold standard to prevent inflation. The Minority Report of the U.S. Gold Commission states that the federal and state governments are strictly limited in their monetary role by Article One, Section Eight, Clauses 2, 5, and 6, and Section Ten, Clause 1, "The Constitution forbids the states to make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt, nor does it permit the federal government to make anything a legal tender." The Commission also recommended that the federal government "...restore a definition for the term 'dollar.' We suggest defining a 'dollar' as a weight of gold of a certain fineness, .999 fine."

Paul has also called for the removal of all taxes on gold transactions. In 2002 he proposed legislation abolishing the Federal Reserve Board, enabling “America to return to the type of monetary system envisioned by our Nation's founders: one where the value of money is consistent because it is tied to a commodity such as gold.” Paul's personal financial disclosures reveal extensive private investments in gold and silver, through equities and warrants in companies including Newmont, IAM Gold, Barrick Gold, Golden Star Resources, Golden Cycle Gold Corp, Pan American Silver, Great Basin Gold, Eldorado Gold, Freeport McMoran Gold & Copper, Apollo Gold Corp and Placer Dome.

Paul suggests that current efforts to sustain Dollar hegemony, especially since collapse of the Bretton Woods system following the United States' suspension of the dollar's conversion to gold in 1971, exacerbate a rationale for war. Consequently, when petroleum producing nations like Iraq, Iran, or Venezuela elect to trade in Petroeuro instead of Petrodollar, it devalues an already overly inflated dollar, further eroding its supremacy as a global currency. According to Paul, along with vested American interests in oil and plans to "remake the Middle East," this scenario has proven a contributing factor for the war against Iraq and diplomatic tensions with Iran

Wow, sounds too good to be true.

DanT

06-06-2007, 12:09 PM

I've enjoyed reading his columns on www.lewrockwell.com in the past few years:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Forward Dante

06-06-2007, 01:17 PM

I like him on a lot of his monetary reform issues.

But, do you think he would get to really reform all those things?
President is only one part of our govt. I think he'd get maybe 20% or maybe a bit more or less that is considered outside the mainstream. At least it would move things in the right direction and open up some debates on those items you can't support. Change has to begin somewhere.

I think you still should support him for this reason. True change has to start somewhere. Besides he's right, we're on an unsustainable path making the same mistakes on monetary issues as past history has shown leads nowhere but down.

Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.

Well then NeoCons tend to pooh-poh deficits.

That they do. But are you calling Ben Bernanke a Neocon? I've never heard that.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 01:25 PM

Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.

I don't know if that makes him dumb.

That they do. But are you calling Ben Bernanke a Neocon? I've never heard that.
I haven't a clue if he is or not. I just thought I'd change my post to reflect more what the line of thought is amongs our current Reps. To be honest, I thought I saw an oped at LewRockwell.com attributing what I posted about deficits not mattering to Bernanke. I just can't recall exactly for sure.

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 01:27 PM

CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/03/who-won-the-debate/#comments.) is censoring the user comments. CNN replaced the entire comments page

here is what the comments looked like last night:

The GOP presidential debate just ended — who shined and who faltered? Add a comment to weigh in.

Filed under Uncategorized Posted 6/5/2007 11:05:00 PM | Permalink 179 Comments comment | Add a comment

Ron Paul
Posted By Neil, Lexington Ky : June 5, 2007 9:13 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Joe, San Francisco, CA : June 5, 2007 9:14 pm

Only one candidate stood out strongly: Doctor Ron Paul! Ron Paul, Dr. Ron Paul! :)
Posted By Dave, Naples, NY : June 5, 2007 9:15 pm

Ron Paul won. Without a question. It's so ridiculous to see that these guys keep pumping the same neo-conservative line about them "hating our freedoms" when CIA reports have historically said otherwise.
Posted By Elias Ambler : June 5, 2007 9:16 pm

Ron Paul won the debate. He is the only candidate that seems to be honest and not out of touch. He is also anti-amnesty and believes that Americans have the right to privacy and believes in property rights (anti-eminent domain: none of the other candidates have even touched it). Before this debate I was unsure about who to support (Democrat or Republican) and with this debate I'm totally with Ron Paul.
Posted By Jerel Poor, St Louis Missouri : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Justin Kansas City, MO : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Brian, Lapeer, MI : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul. All the other candidates not only fail to grasp the failure in Iraq but are chomping at the bit to nuke Iran proactively. Wow, talk about being detached from reality.
Posted By Ty Todd : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

Ron Paul again.
Posted By Sammy, Dyersburg, TN : June 5, 2007 9:18 pm

The one candidate who is consistently right on the issues is Duncan Hunter. But he's all steak and no sizzle.
Posted By Ron, Phoenix, Arizona : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Top three (in order): Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo. I like Gilmore, sort of like Romney, but I don't trust Giuliani, McCain, or Brownback, or Hunter.
Posted By Tim Jost, Denver, CO : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Ron Paul won hands down.
Posted By Mark, Detroit, Michigan : June 5, 2007 9:19 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By Karen Vallejo, CA : June 5, 2007 9:20 pm

Ron Paul blew them out of the water.
Posted By Jeff Workman from Welch, West Virginia : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

It was boring, boring, boring! I could have sworn Bush was doing all the talking. The repetitive "my friends" from McCain showed just how superior he feels…just like Bush. If nominated, he does not have my vote!!!!
Posted By Lorraine Moser, Myrtle Beach, SC : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

Ron Paul is the only true conservative among them.
Posted By Chris, Larkspur, CA : June 5, 2007 9:21 pm

Ron Paul shined again as the only candidate who avoided rhetoric and came through with a strong message that was well received.
Posted By Jonathan Sacramento, CA : June 5, 2007 9:22 pm

Ron Paul dominated the competition and made them look like fools once again.
Posted By Kirk, Myrtle Beach SC : June 5, 2007 9:22 pm

Ron Paul
Posted By A.L. Dawson : June 5, 2007 9:23 pm

Ron Paul won. He showed that he is the only conservative on that stage. He understands our Nation's great founding principles that continue to guide us today.

Giuliani was terrible. He ran around questions. Even God doesn't want to hear him speak. Though only about 4 of 10 candidates answered what is the worst thing that GWB has done as president.

BIG_DADDY

06-06-2007, 01:30 PM

Giuliani was terrible. He ran around questions. Even God doesn't want to hear him speak. Though only about 4 of 10 candidates answered what is the worst thing that GWB has done as president.

That's easy, only taking care of the ultra wealthy, banks, oil companies ect.

Forward Dante

06-06-2007, 01:32 PM

I don't know if that makes him dumb.

To me, and essentially every economist, it seems dumb to get rid of a stable, well-managed (rules or discretionary based) fiat currency in favor of a currency that would be much more volatile, not under our control, and that would suck all the credit out of our economy.

BIG_DADDY

06-06-2007, 01:35 PM

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 01:40 PM

Yeah, but if he's dumb enough to support reversion to the gold standard, I just cant take him seriously, even if I like everything else.

the main point is that the Government should print the money itself. the Fed's practice of fractional reserve banking is the root problem.

Ron Paul advocates a dual currency, one backed by gold, the other is not. It's more of a fail safe in case the fiat money collapses.

Forward Dante

06-06-2007, 01:58 PM

the main point is that the Government should print the money itself. the Fed's practice of fractional reserve banking is the root problem.

Ron Paul advocates a dual currency, one backed by gold, the other is not. It's more of a fail safe in case the fiat money collapses.

How does a dual currency work without a dual price system? I genuinely dont know because this is a new idea to me, I read several of Paul's articles on the gold standard but I dont see anything about a dual currency.

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 02:00 PM

I'll look for the video, that's where I heard it from

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 03:01 PM

To me, and essentially every economist, it seems dumb to get rid of a stable, well-managed (rules or discretionary based) fiat currency in favor of a currency that would be much more volatile, not under our control, and that would suck all the credit out of our economy.

Every economist? Well, that's just not true. Not Mises, Hayek, Sennholtz or any other non-Keynesian but free-market non-mercantilist economist. "Every" economist simply means mainstream, status-quo Keynesians or mercantilists. I don't know if you're Keynesian or not but that is how most are educated today. Really its just status quo, and agreed upon reality. The new guys on the block always get ridiculed.

Now, not challenging you here, but why is a fiat currency more stable?
Why is it when things get shaky in countries and people plan to get out they usually resort to buying gold? I ask you this seriously.

I don't purport to know everything about gold versus fiat. Sennholtz says money can be anything people value the most...it's just that gold historically gold winds up being the most valued....especially when things get shaky.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 03:05 PM

Anybody address health care?
Guiliani did...and I have to say he actually sounded conservative and I liked his answer on that...that alone however.

He did not call for a govt system or bloated bureaucracy or to turn bureaucats into entrepreneurs like the alchemist Gingrich.

Private health accounts and tax credits even for individuals.

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 04:11 PM

Fishpicker

06-06-2007, 04:23 PM

Forward Dante:

I found this quote regarding 2 currencies.

"It is not really my position to close the Fed down. It would require too much adjustment to do that overnight. I advocate competing currencies--to legalize another currency that we can work in. That means repealing legal tender laws and repealing all taxes on gold and silver. If people want to use another money, then they can, and if not they can use paper."

the rest of the article is here (http://www.reason.com/news/show/38384.html)

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 04:23 PM

havent found that video yet...still looking

check out Ron Paul's Library (http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/) it has 700 documents (speeches to Congress & articles from the the Congressional website) . 80 documents on the Economy/Monetary policy from Ron Paul.
BTW, folks (especially Fishpicker,Taco and Cleveland Bronco who have mentioned this issue) call your congresspeeps and senators on that immigration bill. They're all back from Memorial Wknd break...and Ted Kennedy is trying to slip in a North American Union provision to become law within the immigration bill without debate. This despite several states fighting parts of this successfully at the local levels. It's just not on the national radar either. We don't want Ameros, like Euros, eventually do we?

Call...don't just be part of the chattering classes.

Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)

ClevelandBronco

06-06-2007, 05:26 PM

BTW, folks (especially Fishpicker,Taco and Cleveland Bronco who have mentioned this issue) call your congresspeeps and senators on that immigration bill...North American Union provision to become law within the immigration bill without debate....

I'm not buying what your saying yet. Provide proof, please.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 06:29 PM

I'm not buying what your saying yet. Provide proof, please.
That's easy enough call and ask up on the hill...in fact call Kennedy's office.
That's good enough right? I can get it but I can't do it right now.

BucEyedPea

06-06-2007, 07:06 PM

Here ya' go. I got it from an email from a friend.

S1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007
Section 423 (S Amdt #1150) offered on May 21, 2007 by Senator Ted Kennedy. It promotes Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America/// “the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Certain members of congress and the WH wrote it.

But you'll have to find a link if that's what you want...I couldn't find.
I don't know if something that is pending would be posted to the net yet by the govt.

There's also Ruben Hinojosa's (D-TX) Hope Fund Act of 2007 (H.R. 1999) which allots $5 million to La Raza in 2008, and $10 million each year thereafter. So La Raza, an anti-American group which supports amnesty etc. will be funded by US taxpayers.

patteeu

06-06-2007, 07:56 PM

patteeu

06-06-2007, 08:06 PM

See, this is what the NeoCon supply-siders don't let us in on....it requires huge deficits....because as the new fed chmn says....deficits don't matter.

Neocon supply-siders! The new, improved bogeymen. LMAO

This is what I've been tryin' to say here. We don't have capitalism and it's not capitalism ( free enterprise and markets and trade that are voluntary). Therefore it is not capitalism that is causing our health care crisis, energy crisis, loss of jobs overseas and our poor education performance etc. It's too much govt. We're going the way of every other socialism just slower.

But ya' see as big govt Newt Gringrich says....he's gonna just make our bureaucrats entrepeneurial. LMAO! He thinks he can mix the two and just make socialism work....like Gorby.

It's weird because sometimes you say things that are insightful and sometimes you say things that make me think you don't have a clue what the terms you throw around mean. See neocon supply-siders above for an example. There is nothing about "neocon" or "supply-sider" that suggests that deficits don't matter even though there may be some neocons and some supply-siders and even some neocon supply-siders who believe that. It would be like saying this is what left-handed people don't let us in on.... it requires huge deficts.

Don't forget the GOP is the party that gave us the progressive income tax!

The party that gave us the progressive income tax, whatever it was called, is long gone and it bears very little relationship to the current positions of either of our major parties. The name of the party isn't nearly as important as what it stands for.

Silock

06-06-2007, 09:00 PM

Speaking of now knowing what you stand for, that perfectly describes today's Republican party.

Forward Dante

06-06-2007, 09:03 PM

Every economist? Well, that's just not true. Not Mises, Hayek, Sennholtz or any other non-Keynesian but free-market non-mercantilist economist. "Every" economist simply means mainstream, status-quo Keynesians or mercantilists. I don't know if you're Keynesian or not but that is how most are educated today. Really its just status quo, and agreed upon reality. The new guys on the block always get ridiculed.

Now, not challenging you here, but why is a fiat currency more stable?
Why is it when things get shaky in countries and people plan to get out they usually resort to buying gold? I ask you this seriously.

I don't purport to know everything about gold versus fiat. Sennholtz says money can be anything people value the most...it's just that gold historically gold winds up being the most valued....especially when things get shaky.

Well I said "essentially every" and you perhaps should have given examples of living economists who support it. Nothing against Hayek he's a hero of mine, but more as a moral philosopher than for his actual economics work which is pretty outdated.

Now, a fiat currency certainly isnt inherently more stable, but when economists properly understand monetary policy (as we do in the US) the dollar is treated almost as a gold standard itself. When things get "shaky" people put their money in dollars, its the world's reserve currency after all. The US dollar is best run as a stable, fiat currency not subject to the uncontrollable vicissitudes of the world gold market.

This being said, I'm sorry for always sh*ting up Ron Paul threads with this pointless debate, I really do like the guy and his positions except for this one, which I just find silly.

Hooray for a Constitutional government.

listopencil

06-06-2007, 10:16 PM

Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)

That's amazing. I was posting on an immigration thread earlier an was thinking that we needed to examine just that.

CRONUS

06-06-2007, 10:23 PM

...

Call...don't just be part of the chattering classes.

Don't forget to mention support for Paul's end of birthright citizenship bill while you're at too. :)

I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.

ClevelandBronco

06-06-2007, 10:42 PM

Here ya' go. I got it from an email from a friend.

S1348 Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill of 2007
Section 423 (S Amdt #1150) offered on May 21, 2007 by Senator Ted Kennedy. It promotes Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America/// “the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Thanks. That's not a North American union.

There's also Ruben Hinojosa's (D-TX) Hope Fund Act of 2007 (H.R. 1999) which allots $5 million to La Raza in 2008, and $10 million each year thereafter. So La Raza, an anti-American group which supports amnesty etc. will be funded by US taxpayers.

That's exactly the kind of crap I expect from a politician of either party from Texas. (EDIT: Ron Paul excluded.)

La Raza is anti-American, and that not a term I like to throw around willy nilly.

go bowe

06-07-2007, 03:25 PM

I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.yeah, that pesky 14th amendment keeps getting in they way...

Wrasse

06-07-2007, 04:26 PM

I knew very little about this guy until I read this thread...I've been watching and reading anything I can get a hold of on this guy that is presented on the Internet...he's my new hero.

Thanks for this thread!!

Must...go...find...more...

Silock

06-07-2007, 04:46 PM

I hope that Paul realizes he has to have the constitution changed, you cannot just pass a bill ending birthright citizenship.

Being that he's probably the only candidate who understands the Constitution, I think he knows.

Taco John

06-07-2007, 05:58 PM

Taco John

06-07-2007, 06:49 PM

Congratulations to Ron Paul for being the first candidate that I have ever supported with a monetary donation (https://www.ronpaul2008.com/donate/).

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9dPyj_fTZBg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

BucEyedPea

06-07-2007, 08:27 PM

Thanks. That's not a North American union.
Okay. So what is it?

If you're a conservative...this source should be acceptable to you.
North American Union plan headed to Congress in fall (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830)

As WND reported last week, the controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration with remarkable similarities to the CSIS plan.[/quote]

There's lots of links within that including a pdf.
It's not going to scream "union"...it'll never pass.

BucEyedPea

06-07-2007, 08:34 PM

Neocon supply-siders! The new, improved bogeymen. LMAO
You mean you fell for the bait? :p

[quote]It's weird because sometimes you say things that are insightful and sometimes you say things that make me think you don't have a clue what the terms you throw around mean. See neocon supply-siders above for an example. There is nothing about "neocon" or "supply-sider" that suggests that deficits don't matter even though there may be some neocons and some supply-siders and even some neocon supply-siders who believe that.

NeoCons are big advocates of ss pat....with no intention of cutting spending.
So the bold part is what I meant. And spending never really gets cut.

The party that gave us the progressive income tax, whatever it was called, is long gone and it bears very little relationship to the current positions of either of our major parties. The name of the party isn't nearly as important as what it stands for.

:thumb: Correct. It was far more conservative then, despite that amendment.
Now it's really progressive. Good catch pat. That's what I like about you! :D

BucEyedPea

06-07-2007, 08:53 PM

Well I said "essentially every" and you perhaps should have given examples of living economists who support it. Nothing against Hayek he's a hero of mine, but more as a moral philosopher than for his actual economics work which is pretty outdated.

Is Keynes still alive? I
Seems our system still follows him resolutely despite his flaws.
Mises has his own institute to carry on his studies and his work is just as valid, eventhough we ignor it. LewRockwell carries on his work today. Although I don't remember what Mises said about gold, exactly.

What's wrong with a dead man anyway....IF his ideas are still valid?
That seems like an arbitrary claim.

I actually like Sennholtz. ( who happens to be a Misean too.) Ever hear of him? I loved his "Money and Freedom."
BTW he's still kicking too. I've even met him. He says money should just be whatever people value.

Now, a fiat currency certainly isnt inherently more stable,

Good. I'd agree with that.
I think one can say that money is basically an idea backed by confidence.

There's things that can undermine that confidence.

...but when economists properly understand monetary policy (as we do in the US) the dollar is treated almost as a gold standard itself. When things get "shaky" people put their money in dollars, its the world's reserve currency after all. The US dollar is best run as a stable, fiat currency not subject to the uncontrollable vicissitudes of the world gold market.
No when things get really, really shaky people have historically put their money in gold. I know that much at least on this.

It's true that it's been dollars for awhile...but afaiu we're in a dollar slide. Ya' know so long as people want dollars ( because they value them more than anything else) that all works out fine. But there's no permanent guarantee of that. I mean some claim we did Iraq because SH was going to trade oil for euros. The Saudi's take dollars. If China who pays our debt decides dollars are worth it...well then we're okay. But if not...well. It won't be pretty. Things don't stay the same forever.

This being said, I'm sorry for always sh*ting up Ron Paul threads with this pointless debate, I really do like the guy and his positions except for this one, which I just find silly.
Ya' know I've no problem with it. So long as it relates to his views. I'd actually like to learn more about this gold thing.

Hooray for a Constitutional government.

PBJ

BucEyedPea

06-07-2007, 10:15 PM

Being that he's probably the only candidate who understands the Constitution, I think he knows.
I looked it up, because he raised a good point. Apparently Paul's bill is actually a Constitutional Amendment. From what else I just did a quick search on this idea has had some controversy in the past....as regards those who are aliens still maintaining allegiance to another nation....s/g along those lines.

Additionally, one of the most absurd incentives for people to come to the US illegally is the promise of instant US citizenship to anyone born on our soil. That is why when Congress returns next week I will be re-introducing my Constitutional amendment to deny automatic citizenship to individuals born on US soil to parents who are not US citizens or who do not owe permanent allegiance to the United States.

Tough to pass an amendment but with things running at high fever right now...it would seem possible. The politicians would get in the way though.

And for Cleveland Bronco...this same Paul article also discusses SPP bill as a union.
There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico, and the prime minister of Canada, known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America.” This somewhat secretive agreement – a treaty in all but name – aims to erase the borders between the United States, Canada, and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul389.html

Fishpicker

06-07-2007, 10:38 PM

this same Paul article also discusses SPP bill as a union.

the SPP (nafta super-highway) is the actuary arm of the NAU. All of it is an outgrowth of the original NAFTA agreement.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/prtR-h8oKqU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/prtR-h8oKqU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Ron Paul on NAFTA, WTO, & SPP

sportsman1

06-07-2007, 11:43 PM

Unless your idea of "strong on defense" is sending kids to die for no apparent reason.

Yes that is exactly what I mean.. ROFL

Boyceofsummer

06-08-2007, 12:12 AM

he will most likely get my vote!

YOU DA MAN PAUL!

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 12:27 AM

Silock

06-08-2007, 12:35 AM

I cannot really believe there are so many people who will ignore that this guy wants to eliminate the FAA, CDC and just about every other worthwhile government agency as he would enact his radical view of the world.

Because private or state-funded agencies couldn't possibly do the job as efficiently as the federal government, right?

See? I TOLD you we were way further off on policy than you thought :)

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 12:44 AM

Because private or state-funded agencies couldn't possibly do the job as efficiently as the federal government, right?

See? I TOLD you we were way further off on policy than you thought :)

Not sure what you mean, distributed functions such as are required to have an FAA or CDC won't be effectively handled by the states acting separately. Nor can private industry be trusted to put our safety before their profit incentlve. I am a realist.

RedDread

06-08-2007, 12:47 AM

Paul has been a powerful presence at the debates but he doesn't fit with either of the parties due to his isolationism and extreme liberal economic leanings.

BucEyedPea

06-08-2007, 12:49 AM

Paul has been a powerful presence at the debates but he doesn't fit with either of the parties due to his isolationism and extreme liberal economic leanings.

Liberal???

Oh well, we all know that extreme is a relative term.

Logical, I thought you claimed to be a libertarian when I first got here?
Why do you have a hard time with parts of govt privatized?

Our Founders were considered radical and extreme too.

RedDread

06-08-2007, 12:53 AM

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 12:58 AM

Liberal???

Oh well, we all know that extreme is a relative term.

Logical, I thought you claimed to be a libertarianwhen I first got here?

Our Founders were considered racidal too.He is far beyond the pale when it comes to being a libertarian. Too extreme for me.

BucEyedPea

06-08-2007, 01:02 AM

Far beyond the pale for libertarianism?

That IS libertarianism.

BucEyedPea

06-08-2007, 01:05 AM

economically liberal means something a bit different, basically it's near total deregulation of all markets and privatizing of many government institutions. Paul is almost a pure capitalist which is economically liberal. This is a tenant of the republican party but not to the extremes that Paul takes it.
Okay, I get what ya' mean now....you're using it in the "classical liberal" sense and not what it's come to mean today. Good for you. Yes, Paul is completely laissez-faire. I just think a radical jolt of this would start to move things back rightward toward the balanced center as he'd have a congress to contend with.
If nothing got signed...well heck! We'd at least be left alone. :) The more current issues that has most people upset would get dealt with at least. It won't happen with the others...all others.

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 01:10 AM

Far beyond the pale for libertarianism?

That IS libertarianism.There are shades of libertarianism.

For example I believe we should remove education from the national governments purview. States should control highway laws. No national welfare program. We could go up and down the list of federal agencies and I would probably want to eliminate at least half of them and put them under either state or private control but there are many like the Armed Services, CIA, NSA, CDC, FAA etc that I believe should in fact must remain Federal to protect and preserve the general welfare of the people.

Fishpicker

06-08-2007, 01:15 AM

Not sure what you mean, distributed functions such as are required to have an FAA or CDC won't be effectively handled by the states acting separately. Nor can private industry be trusted to put our safety before their profit incentlve. I am a realist.

the CDC doesnt do jack to protect the public. they dont have enough vaccines to prevent anything. They dont even have enough vaccines for the people who want to update immunizations.

here, let me give you an example of just how ineffective the CDC is...

Associated Press - May 31, 2007 1:44 PM ET

ATLANTA (AP) - The father-in-law of the tuberculosis patient under the first federal quarantine since 1963 works in a CDC laboratory aimed at preventing the disease and has co-authored papers on tuberculosis.

Bob Cooksey said he gave his son-in-law Andrew Speaker "fatherly advice" when he learned he had contracted the disease. Speaker has a rare and dangerous form of tuberculosis that has proved resistant to drugs.

Cooksey said that had he know his daughter was at any risk, he would not have allowed her to travel. He said he did not act in any official capacity with the CDC on the case.

Cooksey, a microbiologist at the CDC's Mycobacteriology Laboratory Branch, said his daughter Sarah married Speaker a few weeks ago.

A spokesman for the Colorado hospital where Speaker will be treated said doctors plan to begin immediately with two antibiotics, one oral and one intravenous. He also will undergo a basic physical exam, a test to evaluate how infectious he is and a CT scan and lung X-ray.

Speaker is a 31-year-old personal injury attorney who practices law with his father in Atlanta. According to a biography posted on a Web site connected with Speaker's law firm, he attended the US Naval Academy, graduated from the University of Georgia with a degree in finance, then attended University of Georgia's law school.

His father, Ted Speaker, unsuccessfully ran for a Fulton County Superior Court judgeship in 2004, the same year his son was admitted into the Georgia Bar.

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 01:23 AM

Fishpicker,

C'mon man the news media survives off of negative news, you of course are only going to hear the negatives. Does not matter whether we are talking about the CDC, FAA, Iraq, or what Ron Paul stands for. I know all aboiut that story, in fact did you know that Andrew Speaker left the Naval Academy under questionable circumstances.

Fishpicker

06-08-2007, 01:52 AM

Silock

06-08-2007, 03:12 AM

I don't get it.

Some of you guys like to pick out that "Well, Ron Paul isn't *this way*, so I won't support him." However, the candidates that some of you WILL support also present you with issues that you aren't 100% on.

There is no perfect candidate, and I don't expect everyone to believe the exact same way. But I'm a realist, and the reality is that Paul is a constitutionalist, and far more conservative than any other candidate running. If you call yourself a conservative, Ron Paul is the candidate that makes the most sense, even if there are some things that you and he disagree on.

I know that most Americans aren't too liberal and aren't too conservative. We tend to be somewhere in the middle. Show me the middle of the road candidate. All I see are variations on the same theme from both parties. At least Ron Paul is intelligent and sticks to his guns. He doesn't sell out to special interest groups for the sake of political clout. That's not something we've seen from a POTUS in a very, very, very long time.

Politically, he's a very, very good candidate. He's conservative, but appeals to liberals on foreign policy, which they consider to be the most important matter facing us right now.

'Hamas' Jenkins

06-08-2007, 05:43 AM

I am more skeptical of federal government than I am of the MSM. In addition to the negative news you mention there is plenty of news that isnt presented in the MSM. The CDC is one of the most dogged on agencies from a long list of extraneous agencies.

If the CDC is eliminated, who is going to perform the basic "shoe leather" epidemiology for new and emerging diseases in this country? Do you really trust Glaxo-Welcome to act in the best interests of the private citizen?

Silock

06-08-2007, 07:05 AM

I don't think he wants to eliminate the CDC. I've never read anything of his suggesting that we do that. We he DID suggest was to get rid of *SOME* of the stockpiles of vaccines by the CDC that are financed by the government as a way to reduce spending.

Of course, there are some critical vaccines that need to be controlled by the Feds, but his position is that there are large numbers of stockpiled meds by the CDC that would be better served by allowing the market to bear them.

Fishpicker

06-08-2007, 09:12 AM

If the CDC is eliminated, who is going to perform the basic "shoe leather" epidemiology for new and emerging diseases in this country? Do you really trust Glaxo-Welcome to act in the best interests of the private citizen?

No I dont trust GlaxoKlineSmith to look out for us. And if I wanted to read up on epidemiology I wouldn't start research with the CDC. I'd probably pick from any number of medical journals. The CDC is more concerned with Bioterrorism than they are with epidemics.

I dont practice medicine and I'm not in government so :shrug:

CRONUS

06-08-2007, 09:15 AM

Fishpicker

06-08-2007, 09:37 AM

I heard him say it on Bill Mahers show, Maher was shocked and made him repeat it to verify he had heard Paul right.

real time 3/30/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo6KIusCBoU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xo6KIusCBoU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

the CDC isnt mentioned in this clip...

real time 5/25/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vEkjPkXHSEw"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vEkjPkXHSEw" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

the CDC is not mentioned here either.

I think you are mistaken Logical

Silock

06-08-2007, 09:43 AM

I heard him say it on Bill Mahers show, Maher was shocked and made him repeat it to verify he had heard Paul right.

Got any way to verify that?

BucEyedPea

06-08-2007, 10:18 AM

If Ron Paul is a Constitutionalist, then as a president he'd mainly be responsible for the current wars, and foreign policy which I think are major concerns.

He'd be over govt agencies too. If we follow the Constitution it would be the Congress that would initiate revenue bills. Sure, he could take the lead on it but Congress would have to go along.

So what are Paul's campaign issues, specifically for this election?
This is from his site http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

1) War and Foreign Policy

2) Border Security and Immigration Reform
He has the best plan out of everyone and would lead to implement as opposed to operating on an agenda American's won't support like the current administration.

3) Privacy and Personal Liberty

4) American Independence and Sovereignty
"International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation."

5) Debt & Taxes
"We need a new method to prioritize our spending. It’s called the Constitution of the United States."--Ron Paul

6) Property Rights and Eminent Domain

Seems most of the first 4 ( save ICC) liberals could support and most Americans will. The rest, including Reps would argue over parts of 4,5 and 6. IOW how those things would be implemented; not just if left in.

So people fight about money, not just from a lack of it, but because different things are valued. Nothing new here. But a doozy of a donnybrook on these issues is just what's needed. Support Paul and open up the debate.

'Hamas' Jenkins

06-08-2007, 01:21 PM

No I dont trust GlaxoKlineSmith to look out for us. And if I wanted to read up on epidemiology I wouldn't start research with the CDC. I'd probably pick from any number of medical journals. The CDC is more concerned with Bioterrorism than they are with epidemics.

I dont practice medicine and I'm not in government so :shrug:

Epidemiology isn't just conducted through reading medical journals or doing lab experiments. It requires a number of feet on the ground, doing research into behavior patterns and figuring out contacts, something that a medical journal is completely incapable of doing.

The CDC is primarily concerned with infectious diseases. Pigeonholing that into only bioterrorism is way off base.

Who do you think were the medical "first responders" to Legionairre's Disease, AIDS, the Tylenol poisoning, etc??

Fishpicker

06-08-2007, 02:11 PM

Epidemiology isn't just conducted through reading medical journals or doing lab experiments. It requires a number of feet on the ground, doing research into behavior patterns and figuring out contacts, something that a medical journal is completely incapable of doing.

I'm not suggesting a journal can replace an agency. I'm pointing out that there are alternate sources for that info aside from the CDC itself. I think a centralized federal agency is a bit unwieldy for public health concerns.

The CDC is primarily concerned with infectious diseases. Pigeonholing that into only bioterrorism is way off base.

I'm exagerating but the CDC is involved with DHS and all that mess. I wonder what portion of CDC's funding is defense related.

Who do you think were the medical "first responders" to Legionairre's Disease, AIDS, the Tylenol poisoning, etc??

well, the CDC was designated to be the first response.

anyways, this is all a moot point. (a tangent of a moot point) Ron Paul didnt say he was going to do away with the CDC.

go bowe

06-08-2007, 02:14 PM

if dr rp didn't have so many loony ideas, i would vote for him (if obama doesn't get the nod)...

i wish some other candidate would pick up his slogan "they don't hate us because of who we are, they hate us for what we do"...

he's 100 percent correct about that statement (with the exception of the religious hatred of christians, on the part of islamic fundamentalists)...

patteeu

06-08-2007, 09:16 PM

NeoCons are big advocates of ss pat....with no intention of cutting spending.
So the bold part is what I meant. And spending never really gets cut.

Some neocons are big advocates of ss, others aren't.

Being a supply sider has nothing to do with whether or not you have an intention of cutting spending.

But other than that, I agree. :p

Fishpicker

06-14-2007, 10:37 AM

Ron Paul arrives at the colbert report

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS62aGQ852M"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CS62aGQ852M" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ErBROBgERs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7ErBROBgERs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Fishpicker

06-14-2007, 11:39 PM

Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson 6/14/07

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0yIDxS6418"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N0yIDxS6418" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Taco John

06-15-2007, 12:47 AM

I fricken love Ron Paul.

Sadly, I don't think Americans would be open to electing an actual conservative.

CRONUS

06-15-2007, 12:48 AM

Fishpicker, are you auditioning for the role of "the recxjake of Ron Paul"?

Fishpicker

06-15-2007, 01:13 AM

I might as well. Even the devil has advocates.

CRONUS

06-15-2007, 02:54 AM

Oh hell why not 100

patteeu

06-15-2007, 07:54 PM

Taco John

06-15-2007, 08:51 PM

patteeu

06-16-2007, 06:34 AM

Two things:

Ron Paul isn't an isolationist. That's a misnomer. He believes in constitutional non-intervetionalism. Huge difference.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, then our foriegn policy is miracle grow. Leaders like Rudy Giuliani will bring terrorism home.

Could you explain this "huge difference" to me between what you're calling an "isolationist" and what you're calling "non-interventionalism"? Because what I'm calling "Ron Paul isolationism" is indistinguishable from the latter.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, it's not going to kill itself off. Left unchecked, it will take over the lawn and choke off all of the grass.

http://blogs.iberkshires.com/BreedEmAndWeep/wp-content/IMG_2716.jpg

ChiTown

06-16-2007, 07:37 AM

I fricken love Ron Paul.

Sadly, I don't think Americans would be open to electing an actual conservative.

God help me, but I couldn't agree more, TJ. I'm sick of the Republican Hawks that have completely ****ed up the TRUE ideals of the Republican Party. Ron Paul, while an unrealistic candidate, speaks more for me than any other candidate running today.

Taco John

06-16-2007, 11:51 AM

Could you explain this "huge difference" to me between what you're calling an "isolationist" and what you're calling "non-interventionalism"? Because what I'm calling "Ron Paul isolationism" is indistinguishable from the latter.

Second, if our enemy is a growing weed, it's not going to kill itself off. Left unchecked, it will take over the lawn and choke off all of the grass.

http://blogs.iberkshires.com/BreedEmAndWeep/wp-content/IMG_2716.jpg

It's amazing to me that you can't make the distinction between non-intervetionalism and isolationism. Non-intervetionalism is the true hallmark of conservativism, and I'm not talking just about foriegn policy.

I guess to fully answer your question, I'm going to need a definition from you.

Define isolationist.

BucEyedPea

06-16-2007, 01:14 PM

It's amazing to me that you can't make the distinction between non-intervetionalism and isolationism. Non-intervetionalism is the true hallmark of conservativism, and I'm not talking just about foriegn policy.

I guess to fully answer your question, I'm going to need a definition from you.

Define isolationist.
I've been through this argument before with pat, and many other modern super-hawk conservatives. I even checked the whole history of the word.

It was coined by our early budding internationalists way back in the early part of the 20th century ( I believe...or thereabouts.) for use as a perjorative. The word is definitely a misnowner because that word actually means, being cut off and having NO CONTACT...from the world which of course folks like Paul, myself, and other paleo-conservatives, including right libertarians don't believe in—AT ALL.

For instance Paul believes in TRUE free trade with the world, not the centrally-managed-trade, subsidy-laden, protectionist-filled, free-markets-for-profits but socialism-for-losses-trade-pacts such as nafta, gatt, wto etc. These also compromise our independence and sovereignty for a type of globalism that makes us inter-dependent politically and is destroying our middle-class. They are merely socialism aka corporate socialism under closer examination as they resdistribute America's wealth. These are the types of things both party's politicians are voting for in a bi-partisan sell-out with the Newt Gringrich-type NeoCons leading the way. True free-trade is a grass roots thing where the people make choices that will benefit them and the govt has a far lesser role. (like making sure they don't protect certain industries with protective tariffs...but even Bush has done that).

One cannot term any of this as isolationist—AT ALL.

The country that comes to mind that fits the word "isolationist" was mid 19th century Japan who was truly cut off from the world and was way behind events and trends of the world.

Nope Paul,many paleo-conservatives, paleo-right libertarians don't believe in the 19th century Japanese model AT ALL. In fact discourse is favored with all the people of the world. The philosophy is based on ideas being more powerful than bullets.....and America's message of liberty with limited govt is too powerful a message. Cultures that are in communication with one another through trade grease the wheels of peace. And when we have a problem with another country, since we are NOT utopians, we use our ambassador system...the way it always was before the UN.

Ronald Reagan said, and I don't have time to get the exact quote that "war is created by govts". I'd even add that it's created by the few...who are usually in govt. RR also said we would "never be an agressor nation." RR did not finalize the bringing down of the mightly Soviet Union with constant war. That was the Soviet's game. However, the NC's advising Bush have also re-lost Russia and may have even provoked a new Cold War with them. Their foreign policy actions have not improved conditions and these things NEVER have.

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist...which is why he even said on the video in the earlier part of this thread he "prefers the term"...."non-interventionist." It means a lack of political intervention inside other countries and not taking sides in the conflicts of other countries.

The model that would apply would be the Swiss one. How often are they attacked? They mediate conflicts. They don't take sides, provoke or have their armies fight an ally's enemies directly or their military battles in lieu of their own army. I'm referring to this idea that former CIA-binLaden counter-terrorism unit agent Giraldi has written about on Hamas and Hezbollah being Israel's enemies and are not a threat to the American mainland. ( but may become ours soon enough).

Not only that but the Swiss are armed to the teeth. Those mountains are filled with military airplane hangers etc etc. They have a citizen militia and they leave an enormous amount of decision making and power to it's local cantons. Power is decentralized. They have a high standard of living compared to most of Europe too.

Now that I've said all that, even an isolationist believes in some interventions. When someone like pat refers to WWII as an interventionist war for America, as pat has, then you know they are NOT duplicating the concept exactly but entering in their own arbitraries into it.

Oh and btw Pat, Boortz is not a real libertarian. He's considered a Neo Con in libertarian circles. In fact many NC's who professed to be libertarians at the time of the invasion of Iraq and just before, were skewered in the libertarian press. After that they backed off. Boortz has the wrong viewpoint and needs to change it.

The Constitution provides for the "national defense" not "national interests" such as oil and balance of power arrangements for such resources or making a small ally secure by going after it's enemies. If we believe in markets, and Paul, Giraldi and the other two former CIA counter-terrorism agents who are with Paul do, then they have to sell their oil to us to survive. If they don't the market will step up somehow.

I'd say paleo-conservative Buchanan who is more of a protectionist, is closer to an isolationist...but even he isn't one purely either.

BucEyedPea

06-16-2007, 01:38 PM

I agree with Neal Boortz when he says that he's a long time admirer of Ron Paul and he agrees with him on many, many things, but that he's not the right person to lead the country in the GWoT.

If you believe that the threat of terrorism is just a small group of criminals who shot their wad on 9/11 then I can see why you'd be a big Ron Paul fan in 2008. But if you believe our enemy in the GWoT is a large and growing, violent movement centered around an ideology that is incompatible with western civilization (in the same way that revolutionary communism was a threat to us) then I don't see how you can come to the conclusion that Ron Paul isolationism is the way to go.
The error here in your logic is that the communist ideology (international socialism really) was not caused by anything America did or abetted later by America in the main. America was not a super-power then and was certainly far less interventionist, even if Wilson was one of the early originators of interventionism and lied us into WWI...the war that was supposed to end all wars but which started them all. By that I include today's present ME conflict.

WWI spawned WWII ( which spawned the Cold War) and the MidEast conflict between Palestine and Israel which gave rise to rampant anti-semitism and terrorism. In fact I read a recent article about Nasser of Egypt, even though an enemy of the west, was at least a secular Arab nationalist. ( WWII lead to nationalist movements globally including Vietnam) Nasser lost the 1967 war to Israel...but this is what I mean about winning a war but not winning the peace....it gave rise to the fundamentalist Islamic movement and it's use of terrorism, at least per that article. Makes sense to me. I never knew much about him before. I plan to do more reading about this in the future. I just noticed that it seemed to make Paul's point even more relevant.

Taco John

06-16-2007, 05:10 PM

I had guessed that the term "isolationist" originated as a perjorative term. I was hoping for a good laugh by trying to get patty to define it, doubting that he'd attempt, and knowing that he'd continue to use the word regardless of it's lack of authenticity.

patteeu

06-18-2007, 02:47 PM

patteeu

06-18-2007, 03:03 PM

The error here in your logic is that the communist ideology (international socialism really) was not caused by anything America did or abetted later by America in the main. America was not a super-power then and was certainly far less interventionist, even if Wilson was one of the early originators of interventionism and lied us into WWI...the war that was supposed to end all wars but which started them all. By that I include today's present ME conflict.

WWI spawned WWII ( which spawned the Cold War) and the MidEast conflict between Palestine and Israel which gave rise to rampant anti-semitism and terrorism. In fact I read a recent article about Nasser of Egypt, even though an enemy of the west, was at least a secular Arab nationalist. ( WWII lead to nationalist movements globally including Vietnam) Nasser lost the 1967 war to Israel...but this is what I mean about winning a war but not winning the peace....it gave rise to the fundamentalist Islamic movement and it's use of terrorism, at least per that article. Makes sense to me. I never knew much about him before. I plan to do more reading about this in the future. I just noticed that it seemed to make Paul's point even more relevant.

The error in logic is yours. The origins of the threats are not particularly relevant to my point. The global communist revolution was incompatible with US-style individual freedom and capitalism in a way that is very similar to the current incompatibility between the global islamist revolution and free society. Both represent a clash of civilizations regardless of causation.

patteeu

06-18-2007, 03:13 PM

Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist...which is why he even said on the video in the earlier part of this thread he "prefers the term"...."non-interventionist." It means a lack of political intervention inside other countries and not taking sides in the conflicts of other countries.

Of course he prefers the term "non-interventionist." I prefer the term "foolishly naive."

Now that I've said all that, even an isolationist believes in some interventions. When someone like pat refers to WWII as an interventionist war for America, as pat has, then you know they are NOT duplicating the concept exactly but entering in their own arbitraries into it.

I'm a non-interventionist.

Oh and btw Pat, Boortz is not a real libertarian. He's considered a Neo Con in libertarian circles. In fact many NC's who professed to be libertarians at the time of the invasion of Iraq and just before, were skewered in the libertarian press. After that they backed off. Boortz has the wrong viewpoint and needs to change it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. If they don't agree with you down the line, they are either a neocon or a socialist or both. Got it. I don't care what label you want to pin on Boortz, he's right about Paul.

The Constitution provides for the "national defense" not "national interests" such as oil and balance of power arrangements for such resources or making a small ally secure by going after it's enemies. If we believe in markets, and Paul, Giraldi and the other two former CIA counter-terrorism agents who are with Paul do, then they have to sell their oil to us to survive. If they don't the market will step up somehow.

As I've pointed out to you on several occasions, embargoes are possible. Our nuclear weapons embargo proves that money and a willingness to purchase does not necessarily mean that a sale will be made. Belligerent nations in control of major oil resources can make life very difficult for a US that is absolutely dependent on a steady flow of oil. Saddam and Kim have proven that some tyrants are willing to see their populations starve if it suits their purpose.

Cochise

06-18-2007, 03:15 PM

So, is Paul polling above 1% these days...?

BucEyedPea

06-18-2007, 06:16 PM

So, is Paul polling above 1% these days...?
He has a big internet presence...like 60%

He's not mentioned in conventional polls that often anyways.
He doesn't have a lot of name recognition in them but does on the net.

I'll be honest with you. I think the best thing would be for the GOP to lose.
Because I think Paul's statements will help make it conservative again.

BucEyedPea

06-18-2007, 06:17 PM

The error in logic is yours. The origins of the threats are not particularly relevant to my point. The global communist revolution was incompatible with US-style individual freedom and capitalism in a way that is very similar to the current incompatibility between the global islamist revolution and free society. Both represent a clash of civilizations regardless of causation.
The flaw is it need not have to.

BucEyedPea

06-18-2007, 06:56 PM

Of course he prefers the term "non-interventionist." I prefer the term "foolishly naive."

Well you were the one falsely labeling him an "isolationist" soley because a radio talking head said he was. Paul and paleo-cons always use that term. Boortz endorsed the Iraq war too at the start...he turned out wrong. And he wrong about Paul too. Paul is not an isolationist. It's a false label.

I think it's foolishly naive to believe known liars over and over again. Doing more of the same is deemed insanity.

I say it's rank lies and propaganda. And the lying with a vengeance is happening again with regard to Iran according to former CIA agents who say Cheney, an energy socialist, is trying hard to find cause for it.

I'm a non-interventionist.
You are not. Your statements on this board, particularly in the past two months, are CLEARLY in the mercantilist imperialistic camp. Such as the idea we can start a war for any reason we want and due to national "interests" can invade a nation for oil. That was the Soviet Union's game, Napoleon's game etc etc etc.

You are an interventionist when it suits your needs. This is no different than the left.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. If they don't agree with you down the line, they are either a neocon or a socialist or both. Got it. I don't care what label you want to pin on Boortz, he's right about Paul.

That's a mischaracterization to simplify this as "just because I don't agree with it." That's a lie. I don't agree with the NC pov is what it means and that pov dominates the GOP right now. Pollution. That doesn't mean everyone who shares it is a NC. RR are their natural allies due to Israel, but they are not NC's. I don't think mylon or Cochise are. Have said as much about Cochise. It's a type of conservative but they really aren't. Bill Bennet, Jack Kemp are also nc's. Now what did they say recently that I disagree with?

I also didn't pull this out of my head about Boortz. It was dicussed on one of my other boards over two years ago with a Falcon fan who was a big supporter of Boortz, and of Iraq earlier, but is no longer as well as in articles as to who these cats are, which included Boortz. FP is mainly what defines a NeoCon but not the only thing. It is the prevailing pov in today's GOP and most non-religious hawks. It is your entire reading list and your chosen quotes.

Another example as to how ideas are powerful and get adopted in a group is watching Fred Thompson now endorse compassionate conservativism and drpping a nuke on Iran. Same thing.

As I've pointed out to you on several occasions, embargoes are possible. Our nuclear weapons embargo proves that money and a willingness to purchase does not necessarily mean that a sale will be made. Belligerent nations in control of major oil resources can make life very difficult for a US that is absolutely dependent on a steady flow of oil.

The evidence does not back your fears. Embargoes do not work either, not for long, because it often hurts the embargoer sometimes even more. This is why the OPEC cartel collapsed. we survived it without any loss of human life for that oil and it came back down. Nuclear weapons is mostly a govt issue as opposed to a strict trade issue as it is for oil.

Here's a graph of how your fp solutions affect these prices and availability of oil with the so called belligerent nations:

http://www.mises.org/images4/oilprices.jpg

It doesn't produce the results you claim. It spikes prices. It's a foolish fallacy. Govt usually doesn't work. It's no different here. War is just another govt program.

Saddam and Kim have proven that some tyrants are willing to see their populations starve if it suits their purpose.

Yeah so? What does that have to do with us? We can't make over the world or rogue nations. It's not that easy. They have always been around. As soon as we get rid of one there's another.

Didn't you just say you were a non-interventionist? You're making a case here for intervention when you just said you were a non-interventionist. You sound like Woodrow Wilson here. That's neoconservativism. Why don't you just set up a world govt then if that's your concern to keep 'em all in line. You're simply advocating that the right do the dirty work of the left by being some sort of independent UN or an empire. That is neoconservative because it's left. It is not conservative.

The sanctions on Iraq starved his people. He was a socialist who improved education, healthcare etc in his country with oil revenues. He did some good things. Now we have thousands of SHs. But the sanctions starved his people to death. You can say he did it, but that's why they don't work because the wind up punishing the people instead. they never punish the leaders. We played a role in that.

Iraq was not a threat to the US. Nor is Iran or NK, despite what they do to their people. But we can make them one if we insist on making over the world which is a neoconservative platform. The NC's are using the right as "useful idiots" to do the dirty work of the left—makeover the world and safe for democracy. They lie and exaggerate to create false threats and security because they know the right will fall for security arguments more than the left and use the military.

patteeu

06-19-2007, 05:39 PM

Well you were the one falsely labeling him an "isolationist" soley because a radio talking head said he was. Paul and paleo-cons always use that term. Boortz endorsed the Iraq war too at the start...he turned out wrong. And he wrong about Paul too. Paul is not an isolationist. It's a false label.

It's not a false label, it's a label that you, and Taco, and Paul want to run from because you don't like the sound of it. But instead of arguing about labels, I'd rather talk about the policy that Paul advocates. That's what I have a beef with. I think it's foolishly naive to think that we can withdraw from the middle east in the way that you and Paul advocate. I don't think it's a worthy goal to try to turn a superpower into a second or third rate power on the theory that no one will bother us because we won't be as much of a threat to them as a result.

You are not. Your statements on this board, particularly in the past two months, are CLEARLY in the mercantilist imperialistic camp. Such as the idea we can start a war for any reason we want and due to national "interests" can invade a nation for oil. That was the Soviet Union's game, Napoleon's game etc etc etc.

You are an interventionist when it suits your needs. This is no different than the left.

Nope, I'm a noninterventionist. Of course, when I think it's essential for our security and to preserve our interests, I'll support intervention, but I'm not for intervening in every little small-scale ethnic cleansing.

Everyone is an interventionist when it suits their needs. Duh.

The evidence does not back your fears. Embargoes do not work either, not for long, because it often hurts the embargoer sometimes even more. This is why the OPEC cartel collapsed. we survived it without any loss of human life for that oil and it came back down. Nuclear weapons is mostly a govt issue as opposed to a strict trade issue as it is for oil.

Here's a graph of how your fp solutions affect these prices and availability of oil with the so called belligerent nations:

**image deleted**

It doesn't produce the results you claim. It spikes prices. It's a foolish fallacy. Govt usually doesn't work. It's no different here. War is just another govt program.

What result am I claiming? Your image shows that the US has been successful at keeping the oil flowing from the middle east for decades and that those who might have been inclined to cripple our economy with an oil embargo have thusfar not been able to accomplish it. That's all it shows. Whether those wars were necessary or not, whether they have helped the cause or not, the result has been flowing oil.

Embargoes can work. You haven't refuted my example of our nuclear weapons/technology embargo that has been extremely successful. An oil embargo would be much more difficult to pull off over the long haul, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be accomplished long enough to cause us great grief if the right people gained control of the oil. And even if the folks who controlled the oil wells wanted to sell, blockades or other interventions from our enemies could create a great deal of trouble for us. As long as our military is prepared to prevent this, we don't have to worry about it. Under a Paul/Taco/BEP foreign policy, we would be at the mercy of the rest of the world and whoever decided to fill the vacuum. No thanks.

Yeah so?

The reason your theory tells you that an oil embargo won't work is because it assumes that those who control the oil will act in their own financial self-interest. Saddam and Kim were examples of leaders who have acted against their country's self interest and against their own financial self interests (although the oil for food program minimized this particular impact on Saddam).

patteeu

06-19-2007, 05:43 PM

BTW, just to prove that your definition of isolationism versus noninterventionism is not universally shared, here is what the people at about.com (http://worldnews.about.com/od/glossaryi/g/isolationism.htm) have to say about it:

Isolationism: A term most frequently used in the context of American history and politics, isolationism refers to a non-interventionist foreign policy which avoids what Jefferson termed "entangling alliances" with other countries. It was first used by military interventionists to criticize those who were against the United States entering World War I, and again during World War II.

Proponents of isolationist policies have often held that the best way to promote US interests is to preserve US freedom of action by remaining disengaged from problems in other parts of the world. However, pursuing such a course has clearly become more difficult for states in the era of globalization: what begins as a local problem may very quickly become a problem for everyone.

Of course, it was probably some socialist neocon who wrote it just to make Ron Paul look bad or something. I'm sure you can find a definition more to your liking somewhere else on the internet.

Taco John

06-19-2007, 06:14 PM

Any way you spin it, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. Non-intervention is not the same as Isolationist, even if there were such a thing as Isolationists.

Thomas Jefferson is the father of Non-interventionalism (“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none.”), and even he saw fit to protect America's interests in America's first battle against Islamists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War). Non-interventionalism != Isolationist.

The thought that Ron Paul is weak on defense is nothing short of deceit. Ron Paul just isn't unecessarily too quick on the trigger, where he will shoot himself (and America) in the foot, like your kind has.

BucEyedPea

06-19-2007, 07:40 PM

It's not a false label, it's a label that you, and Taco, and Paul want to run from because you don't like the sound of it.

Now see, this here is presumptive. I've seen and had this debate long before 9/11 or Paul running for the nomination. At least 10 years now. And I've had the SAME position on it as I do now as have others like Paul.

So you are in error if you think it's just the sound of it. You are projecting because you LIKE the perjorative sound of isolationist. It's hardly difficult to define. It's blatently obvious it means to be cut off from the world. What is not obvious is that promiscuous military interventions are what these isolationists disagree with.

But instead of arguing about labels, I'd rather talk about the policy that Paul advocates. That's what I have a beef with.

Yet you and Boortz use a label here yourself. Projection. There is nothing wrong with labels. Your name is a label. An accurate label would simply reflect and identify a position accurately. Isolationism does not do this. Paul and myself have argued specifics not just labels. You're the one running away from the argument with this. Boortz wants to smear him.

Furthermore, you and I have had numerous discussions getting into the specifics of this debate, over and over, endlessly in a circular repetitive action.
So what if I just use a short label to identify the same arguments or thought. I don't have to enumerate each and every time. But you simply cannot falsely accuse me of running away from this debate. You're just saying desperate things now not based on fact.

And Paul has stated his stands in the videos posted in this thread, on tv, in the debates, as well as on the House floor and in op-eds repeatedly with specifics. What specifics has Boortz engaged in besides relying on the "isolationist" label?

I think it's foolishly naive to think that we can withdraw from the middle east in the way that you and Paul advocate. I don't think it's a worthy goal to try to turn a superpower into a second or third rate power on the theory that no one will bother us because we won't be as much of a threat to them as a result.
I know that. I don't agree and Paul doesn't agree. He is for trading and having discourse with them. He's not for invading and putting troops on their lands for NO good reason. Especially not for obtaining oil as you advocate. You actually have openly advocated conquest for oil. That's extremely interventionist.

Nope, I'm a noninterventionist. Of course, when I think it's essential for our security and to preserve our interests, I'll support intervention, but I'm not for intervening in every little small-scale ethnic cleansing.

Nor is Paul. He just doesn't have as liberal and loose a construction of the label "interests." Broad, vague and undefined.

What result am I claiming? Your image shows that the US has been successful at keeping the oil flowing from the middle east for decades and that those who might have been inclined to cripple our economy with an oil embargo have thusfar not been able to accomplish it. That's all it shows. Whether those wars were necessary or not, whether they have helped the cause or not, the result has been flowing oil.
You say we wouldn't be able to get oil or affordable oil.
No my image shows that the price spikes stem from our intervention politically in the ME: it's conflicts and wars. Take a look at it. War makes supplies uncertain and markets shaky.