PDA

View Full Version : Fred Thompson vs. Ron Paul


Taco John
01-06-2008, 01:16 AM
I thought that this was an interesting exchange...

REP. PAUL: Charlie, you really answered the question -- you answered it in your question, because you said how can we afford a trillion-dollar war and we can't afford health care? Well, that's the reason. The resources are going overseas. We're fighting a trillion- dollar war, and we shouldn't be doing it. Those resources should be spent back here at home.

There is an inflationary factor. We can't afford it. We do have good medical care, but the costs are so high now that our people in this country are actually going to India and getting their heart surgery done. They pay the plane ticket, the hospital, and the hotel and they get it for half price. So it's inflation.

But if you don't understand how inflation comes, we can't solve this problem. It comes from deficit financing with this war-mongering foreign policy we have.

We run up the deficits. We tax. We borrow. We borrow from the Chinese. We can't borrow enough. Then what do we do? We print the money, and then you wonder where the inflation comes? The value of the dollar goes down and prices go up where the government gets involved in certain things, like housing or medical care or education. Prices are skyrocketing. So you have to deal with the monetary issue to solve the problem of the medical issue.

MR. GIBSON: Senator Thompson.

MR. THOMPSON: Hmm. (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: Don't print any more money. We don't need any more money.

MR. THOMPSON: So if we would stop printing so much money, we could get out of the war and provide health care to everybody? (Laughter.)

REP. PAUL: If we get out of the war, we wouldn't have to print the money.

MR. THOMPSON: Okay. I just wanted to make -- I just wanted to --

REP. PAUL: What's wrong with backing the money by something --

MR. GIBSON: All right, let him go. Let him --

MR. THOMPSON: I wanted to make sure -- I wanted to make sure I had this right.

Let me -- let me break it down a little bit so I can understand it a little bit better.

REP. PAUL: Keep trying.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 01:18 AM
I'm not sure what Fred was trying to do there...

Ultra Peanut
01-06-2008, 02:33 AM
GOOOOOOOOOOOOLD

Silock
01-06-2008, 03:24 AM
I'm not sure what Fred was trying to do there...

Condescending douche-baggery. He didn't even address Paul's points.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 03:43 AM
Condescending douche-baggery. He didn't even address Paul's points.


I think you're right, but it came across as if he had no idea what was being said -- as if he couldn't grasp the (what I thought was easy-to-understand) concepts that Paul was explaining.

I don't know that it was good strategy on his part. I think he won some support on immigration last night, especially from McCain and Rudy -- both of which I think hurt their campaigns seriously during the immigration discussion (Romney to a lesser extent because nobody ever knows where that guy stands, but he's always willing to argue). But on the point of the economy, I think Fred came across as very unknowledgable.

Der Flöprer
01-06-2008, 03:55 AM
GOOOOOOOOOOOOLD

I've heard you bash Paul repeatedly. I've heard you back Obama. I've never heard why. Why do you endorse Obama? Why do you think Paul is a nutbag?

Ultra Peanut
01-06-2008, 06:30 AM
I've heard you bash Paul repeatedly. I've heard you back Obama. I've never heard why. Why do you endorse Obama? Why do you think Paul is a nutbag?A few highlights of my thoughts on the question:

Paul Cons
- Believes there's actually a "War on Christmas."
- Also believes there's a conspiracy by "powerful special interests" to create "a single nation [made] out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system."
- Sure, he made racist remarks in 1992 and is accepting donations from Stormfront, but he's totally not racist because those articles published under his name in the newsletter bearing his name were, uh... ghostwritten! AND WHY DO YOU HATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT HE SHOULD ACCEPT MONEY FROM ANYONE HE WANTS!
- While he doesn't think minorities should be able to just "force their way into the workplace," he does think zygotes should have the same rights as humans.
- Is totally supportive of shifting the tax burden to the middle-class and poor, while also envisioning a "solution" to health care in the form of tax refunds for medical care. Gee, thanks for reimbursing people for the surgery they can't afford to have in the first place!
- Wants to put us on the gold standard (read: destroy our economy).
- He's a vaccination-phobe, and opposes mandatory vaccinations for minor maladies like smallpox and polio.
- Speaking of health care, he's a proponent of "alternative medicine" and believes there's pressure from the bogeyman that is the UN to deny access to such wonderful stuff like colloidal silver. Ah, he and Kevin Trudeau are a match made in heaven.
- Hand in hand with that, he wants to do away with ridiculous organizations like the FDA. Let the invisible hand of the free market determine whether or not WE THE PEOPLE want rat feces in our food! And while we're at it, let's allow employers to force their workers to work overtime for no pay and keep them from having to do pesky stuff like ensure their employees' safety. OSHA? More like GoAwaySha! Also, the Department of Education? **** that, don't need it.
- Says nice things about freedom, but prefers states' rights to individuals' rights. When questioned on his rather conservative positions, he's quick to hop behind "States' Rights!!!" as a shield while failing to address why he thinks it would be fine for certain states to allow discrimination based upon race, religion, or sexual orientation should they choose to do so.

And this last one isn't entirely about him, but his supporters are either uninformed, insane (read: Stormfront, 9/11 truthers), or support him in spite of his crazy beliefs because he "won't be able to get that stuff past congress."

Obama Pros
- Absolutely nailed the Iraq war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8) from the start, exhibiting foresight, awareness, and an ability to slice through the hyperbole that permeated public consciousness at the time.
- Strong proponent of transparency in government (http://www.usaspending.gov/); evidenced by the link, which came about as a direct result of legislation he sponsored.
- Backs up his talk about lobbyists with his walk, and despite refusing money from lobbyists, his campaign is raising extraordinary amounts of money from individual donors.
- Religious, but doesn't allow his personal choices to interfere with the liberty of others (unlike a DR certain RON someone PAUL).
- Progressive energy policy, isn't afraid of nuclear power, and isn't a slave to ethanol despite living in the Midwest.
- He's an expert in Constitutional Law and a former Harvard Law Review president, making him eminently qualified to do away with the gross liberties the executive branch has taken over the past 8 years.
- Something that should interest a large portion of Paul fans is that he's pretty progressive regarding the War on Drugs. Nobody can come right out and say, "Hey, let's just make weed legal and be done with it," because that's political suicide, but he opposes medicinal marijuana raids.
- He's DAMN good at getting his goals accomplished, as evidenced by his time in congress and his tenure in the Illinois senate. People scoff at his talk of unity and openness and call him naive, but he's shown time and time again that he's incredibly capable of building coalitions that get things done. Under intense opposition in Illinois, for instance, he managed to get a bill passed that required all police interrogations to be videotaped. Remember that "uniter not a divider" line? The difference this time is, he actually is one.

And yes, he is flat-out inspiring and an orator the likes of which we've rarely seen. In short, he's the total package.

chagrin
01-06-2008, 06:45 AM
I'm not sure what Fred was trying to do there...

Of all the things I think you are, naive isn't one of them.

This statement, "MR. THOMPSON: So if we would stop printing so much money, we could get out of the war and provide health care to everybody?"

Is a perfect summarization of Ron Paul's very short sighted and stupid rant; Ron Paul was pandering to the audience, he sounded like a wile eyed goof ball, he always does.

I know you are in love with his ideals but saying something like: we need to get out of the war to stop printing money and raise the value of the dollar and give health care to America - that's just silly, and only naive, uneducated voters (I'm talking the 9 out of 10 people on the street that don't know anything) are going to buy it.

It's not condescending, Ron Paul is a lunatic and Fred was right in laughing at him because what Ron said was stupid.

chagrin
01-06-2008, 06:47 AM
And yes, he is flat-out inspiring and an orator the likes of which we've rarely seen. In short, he's the total package.


To you he's an inspiring orator - to me he's insane.

Ultra Peanut
01-06-2008, 06:51 AM
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Who are you calling insane?

Direckshun
01-06-2008, 07:26 AM
He's clearly referring to Ron Paul.

I'm pretty sure he misunderstood you, because you were clearly referring to Barack Obama.

Ultra Peanut
01-06-2008, 07:44 AM
Yes, yes. That was my assumption.

Baby Lee
01-06-2008, 08:15 AM
Obama Pros
My reticence on Obama continues to be, a progressive with a conservative temperment is like a box of chocolates.
He makes a compelling case that he'll be a reasoned decision maker, but there's still the fear, that he's not allayed, that he'll use that banked goodwill to push through wildly liberal policies.
It's the obverse of Bush's use of God's guidance to provide authority for his policies.

"Well, now Mr. Obama says he wants xxx policy. I've never supported it in the past, but golly, he's really put a lot of thought into it."

BucEyedPea
01-06-2008, 10:00 AM
Condescending douche-baggery. He didn't even address Paul's points.
He can't...he's too academically lazy to even bone up on the opposite viewpoint. So he's ignorant and comes off stupid. My respect for Thompson has dropped a lot in this campaign. I guess I really didn't know him that well. Freddie we hardly knew ye'!

BucEyedPea
01-06-2008, 10:19 AM
Obama Pros
- Absolutely nailed the Iraq war (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8) from the start, exhibiting foresight, awareness, and an ability to slice through the hyperbole that permeated public consciousness at the time.
:BS: Barack was still an Illinois legislator when we went to war in Iraq. Since he had NO vote to back up his words, he can say whatever he wants now.

However, some of his actions betray his words. Such has donating Pac money to help defeat anti-war candidate Lamont when he ran against liberal hawk Lieberman. He was backing a hawk. That and saying all options were to remain on the table regarding Iran...implying nukes. Bombing Pakistan when its govt is, at least on the surface, an ally in GWoT. He has mainly been critical on how we did Iraq, not that we did it at least until now. His words saying we have to spread our values around the world imply endless interventions. He has a neocon as a a foreign policy advisor.

He is definitely a fabulous speaker because he touches on the emotions of what has gone wrong which I agree with him...but offers no real new ideas. Just more govt, more welfare, more spending—just on different stuff.

I give him credit for character, certain values including on civil liberties.


Remember that "uniter not a divider" line? The difference this time is, he actually is one.
Don't trust politicians that make claims to things they can't do. There are people in DC ideologically opposed to some of his ideas and he just can't do this. Besides, bipartisanship can be just as destructive as divided govt. I prefer the latter. Then they can't muck up our lives, the economy etc.

And yes, he is flat-out inspiring and an orator the likes of which we've rarely seen.
Yes he is but it's sloganeering mainly.

In short, he's the total package.
That's a matter of opinion. He's a big govt welfare statist.
As for being educated at Harvard on Constitutional Law, I'm sure that is mostly from a liberal ala Lawrence tribe viewpoint. IMO that can be good or bad. Good on executive powers but not elsewhere. Not only that most who get a taste of power, rarely roll back the powers of their offices—if ever at all. I think you're being naive. There's only ONE man in this rate who has a history of action, not just words, on this point and that is Congressman Ron Paul. Including an actual vote against going into Iraq to back it up.

No leader is Moses though.

banyon
01-06-2008, 10:20 AM
I think you forgot that he would vote against the Civil Rights act and that he is fine with Pork, so long as it's in his district.

banyon
01-06-2008, 10:31 AM
:BS: Barack was still an Illinois legislator when we went to war in Iraq. Since he had NO vote to back up his words, he can say whatever he wants now.

Er, no. He could say whatever he wanted to then, but he cannot go back in a time machine and undo what he said during the war build up. He picked a side and got it right, bottom line.

However, some of his actions betray his words. Such has donating Pac money to help defeat anti-war candidate Lamont when he ran against liberal hawk Lieberman. He was backing a hawk. That and saying all options were to remain on the table regarding Iran...implying nukes. Bombing Pakistan when its govt is, at least on the surface, an ally in GWoT. He has mainly been critical on how we did Iraq, not that we did it at least until now. His words saying we have to spread our values around the world imply endless interventions. He has a neocon as a a foreign policy advisor.

Of course, he's a NEOCON! THEY'RE ALL NEOCONS!!!111!!
Seriously, do you read what you just typed before you post it? Ever?
:rolleyes:


He is definitely a fabulous speaker because he touches on the emotions of what has gone wrong which I agree with him...but offers no real new ideas. Just more govt, more welfare, more spending—just on different stuff.

Uh, yeah, he has no great ideas like JesusPaul."Er, let's do nothing and hope it works out in the end. It worked so well in late 1800's and the WWII buildup." Of course, by denifition sinceObama's plan isn't "let's do nothing" it will involve changes in government policy and yes, perhaps spending in different areas.




Don't trust politicians that make claims to things they can't do. There are people in DC ideologically opposed to some of his ideas and he just can't do this. Besides, bipartisanship can be just as destructive as divided govt. I prefer the latter. Then they can't muck up our lives, the economy etc.

You mean like abolish the Federal Reserve, stay out of all affairs of other nations, and pay for everything on taxes from whiskey? Yeah, you're the realist. We are naive. Whatever.

Ugly Duck
01-06-2008, 10:32 AM
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Who are you calling insane?

Like bytes through a router, these are the posts of our lives....

Hydrae
01-06-2008, 10:44 AM
Like bytes through a router, these are the posts of our lives....


:LOL:

Hydrae
01-06-2008, 10:58 AM
Of all the things I think you are, naive isn't one of them.

This statement, "MR. THOMPSON: So if we would stop printing so much money, we could get out of the war and provide health care to everybody?"

Is a perfect summarization of Ron Paul's very short sighted and stupid rant; Ron Paul was pandering to the audience, he sounded like a wile eyed goof ball, he always does.

I know you are in love with his ideals but saying something like: we need to get out of the war to stop printing money and raise the value of the dollar and give health care to America - that's just silly, and only naive, uneducated voters (I'm talking the 9 out of 10 people on the street that don't know anything) are going to buy it.

It's not condescending, Ron Paul is a lunatic and Fred was right in laughing at him because what Ron said was stupid.

So if we stop spending billions upon billions in another country we would need to continue to print more money? If we stop spending billions upon billions in another country we wouldn't have the resources to deal with health care? Not sure I follow your reasoning.

Let's go back to the Thompson quote that you put in here though, that is where the main discussion of this thread was aimed at:

MR. THOMPSON: So if we would stop printing so much money, we could get out of the war and provide health care to everybody?

He has the action/reaction scenario backwards. You get out of the war which allows you to stop printing money to pay for that war. I think he intentionally twisted that around backwards/ I am just surprised that the people in this forum, that are well informed and intelligent, would not see what he was doing. If we stopped printing money but continued to spend the way we are currently, this would not stop the war. That is stupid to even think the relationship works in that manner.

I also do not believe that you do not understand that the more money is printed, the less value each individual dollar retains. Or that spending those dollars in another country takes away from opportunities for all Americans. Our infrastucture is crumbling here, why are we spending billions of dollars improving the infrastucture in anther country? Our borders are leaking seives, why are we sending troops to guard the borders of other countries? We have healthcare issues (I personally do not think this is the crisis so many want to make it out to be, it is just another power/money grab IMO) here at home but we send billions of dollars to other countries in foriegn aid each year. Does anyone else send us foreign aid money to help our economy or our people?

Hmmm, rambling a bit here so I will stop and get off the soapbox.

wazu
01-06-2008, 11:08 AM
He was trying to imply that Paul is some kind of maniac for believing that deficit spending causes inflation.

He wasn't trying to state Ron Paul's position, he was trying to restate it incorrectly in laymen's terms so that all of the folks at home who can't keep up with Paul on economics would laugh and think Fred is a good 'ole boy with good 'ole fashioned sense. Not that boring booksmarts that nerdy, kooky, 'ole Paul has.

chiefforlife
01-06-2008, 11:47 AM
Its nice that Fred uses the National stage to polish his stand up routine, however it does nothing for his campaign.

Ultra Peanut
01-06-2008, 06:49 PM
:BS: Barack was still an Illinois legislator when we went to war in Iraq. Since he had NO vote to back up his words, he can say whatever he wants now.Try clicking on the link next time.

If video's not your thing, here's a transcript:

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 06:52 PM
I think you forgot that he would vote against the Civil Rights act and that he is fine with Pork, so long as it's in his district.



The Bill of Rights is the only Civil Rights Act that we need...

And you don't seem to understand anything about how the earmark system works. You're not alone.

banyon
01-06-2008, 06:58 PM
The Bill of Rights is the only Civil Rights Act that we need...

And you don't seem to understand anything about how the earmark system works. You're not alone.

Uh, yeah.

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1-thumb.jpg

Oh, and the classic "WE RON PAUL SUPPORTERS IS JUST TOO SMART YALL CANTS UNDERSTYANDS US!"

Whatever. I probably know more about how Bills are passed than you'll ever care to know.

What I do know is that Ron Paul made sure to write in so many earmarks into a bill that his district got more taxpayer money than all but acouple of TX congressional districts. Then, he symbolically (though in an empty way) voted against a spending bill chock full of his earmarks that he knew was going to pass anyway.

But go ahead and tell me what, if anything, about the "earmark system" you think it is I don't understand.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-06-2008, 07:17 PM
Sensationalism works well for the anti-paulites, just don't confuse the hatred for Paul with real facts.. Oh Noz Ron Paul gonna reinstitute slavery..Oh Noz he b-a nutjob. Welcome to a nation of Idiocrats.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 07:32 PM
Whatever. I probably know more about how Bills are passed than you'll ever care to know.

What I do know is that Ron Paul made sure to write in so many earmarks into a bill that his district got more taxpayer money than all but acouple of TX congressional districts. Then, he symbolically (though in an empty way) voted against a spending bill chock full of his earmarks that he knew was going to pass anyway.

But go ahead and tell me what, if anything, about the "earmark system" you think it is I don't understand.


Just like Penchief, you require me to educate you, rather than showing any knowledge on your own. Typical liberal.

Your rhetoric reveals that you don't understand the earmark SYSTEM. Sorry, but you just arent demonstrating knowledge of how it works. The money is already allocated. The trough is already there. The people's money is up for grabs. What is Ron Paul supposed to do? Ignore the fact that the money is there and not do anything to try to get any of it back for his district? Why should his constituents be denied the money they put into the system?

Taco John
01-06-2008, 07:34 PM
Dr. Paul’s Writings › Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One

Summary:

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.

by Ron Paul, Dr. June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-be-a-hollow-one/

Taco John
01-06-2008, 07:35 PM
Uh, yeah.

http://www.madisonavenuejournal.com/images/mlk1-thumb.jpg


Just out of curiosity, how does that picture disprove my point?

Baby Lee
01-06-2008, 07:47 PM
Just out of curiosity, how does that picture disprove my point?
I think it demonstrates, visually, the state of equality when there was 'just the Bill of Rights' without the augmentation of the Civil Rights Act, thereby suggesting the insufficiency of the Bill of Rights alone to guarantee said equality.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 07:50 PM
I think it demonstrates, visually, the state of equality when there was 'just the Bill of Rights' without the augmentation of the Civil Rights Act, thereby suggesting the insufficiency of the Bill of Rights alone to guarantee said equality.


I see. You're a supporter of hate crime legislation then? Creating new laws rather than enforcement of the laws we already have?

mlyonsd
01-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Your rhetoric reveals that you don't understand the earmark SYSTEM. Sorry, but you just arent demonstrating knowledge of how it works. The money is already allocated. The trough is already there. The people's money is up for grabs. What is Ron Paul supposed to do? Ignore the fact that the money is there and not do anything to try to get any of it back for his district? Why should his constituents be denied the money they put into the system?
Sorry but that sounds like most every other congressman I've grown to loathe.

Term limits man, term limits.

banyon
01-06-2008, 08:19 PM
Just like Penchief, you require me to educate you, rather than showing any knowledge on your own. Typical liberal.

Hold up on your insufferable name-calling and pigeonholing of those that disagree with you. If you'll recall from my earlier thread, this sort of "we're absolutely right and you're an idiot if you don't agree with us" is precisely the sort of vitriol that has turned off most even-keeled people from your candidate's campaign. As I've told you before progressive≠ liberal, or do you need me to "educate you again"? :rolleyes:

Your rhetoric reveals that you don't understand the earmark SYSTEM. Sorry, but you just arent demonstrating knowledge of how it works. The money is already allocated. The trough is already there. The people's money is up for grabs. What is Ron Paul supposed to do? Ignore the fact that the money is there and not do anything to try to get any of it back for his district? Why should his constituents be denied the money they put into the system?


My "rhetoric" doesn't reveal anything about my knowledge of earmarks in this thread because I am not in the habit of giving a definitional treatise every time I make a comment. At the very least, it doesn't reveal any negative inferences about my knowledge of earmarks, which although I know it would be convenient for you and your spendthrift candidate, simply isn't true.

Anyway to the point" What could Ron Paul do? Grab as much dough as possible! Ron Paul HAD NO CHOICE!!! As, I've stated before he could simply allocate those funds to pay off the debt. Additionally,Paul's actions also serve to reinforce this corrupt process through an implied acceptance. if he were truly against this budgetary allocation before the monies are distributed, where are his bill proposals to reform the process? Oh, that's right, there aren't any.

banyon
01-06-2008, 08:22 PM
I see. You're a supporter of hate crime legislation then? Creating new laws rather than enforcement of the laws we already have?

Supporting the Civil Rights Act doesn't logically entail that you have to support hate crimes legislation. They are premised on divergent rationales, one says people should get the same treatment "separate is inherently unequal" and the other says that the same crimes should be treated differently, mainly to make up for past injustices (I am not really keen on the hate crimes legislation either).

Taco John
01-06-2008, 08:28 PM
Hold up on your insufferable name-calling and pigeonholing of those that disagree with you.

Why? You don't...

As I've told you before progressive≠ liberal, or do you need me to "educate you again"? :rolleyes:

You're welcome to. I'd love to learn the difference. I've never seen you explain this in a way that draws much of a distinction.


[quote]My "rhetoric" doesn't reveal anything about my knowledge of earmarks in this thread because I am not in the habit of giving a definitional treatise every time I make a comment.

Absolutely it does. You don't need to give a definitional treaties. You could just use your rhetoric in a way that shows that you understand the subject, rather than throwing out ignorant rhetoric that betrays your intelligence.

Anyway to the point" What could Ron Paul do? Grab as much dough as possible! Ron Paul HAD NO CHOICE!!! As, I've stated before he could simply allocate those funds to pay off the debt. Additionally,Paul's actions also serve to reinforce this corrupt process through an implied acceptance. if he were truly against this budgetary allocation before the monies are distributed, where are his bill proposals to reform the process? Oh, that's right, there aren't any.


Right.... Ron Paul is supposed to penalize the people that voted for him by demaning that THEIR money be used to pay down the debt, while everyone else grabs for cash. Sounds REAL progressive. At the very least, you could strive for some consistency. Good grief.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 08:33 PM
Sorry but that sounds like most every other congressman I've grown to loathe.

Term limits man, term limits.


Of course it does. The system is set up that way. They create a budget and it's up for grabs. If you don't bring home any government cheese to your constituents, your opponent seizes on you as ineffective. You don't have to worry about term limits then, because they'll vote the guy out if he's not bringing enough of that money back home.

banyon
01-06-2008, 09:12 PM
Why? You don't...

I'll try to do better if you do.

You're welcome to. I'd love to learn the difference. I've never seen you explain this in a way that draws much of a distinction.

Here's the last time I tried: (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=171461&page=12&pp=15&highlight=progressive) you claimed you understood it then. Again, it's mainly the distrust of large institutions and corruption. Liberals don't really have those concerns. It's why you see so many left-leaning people say they can't and won't vote for Hillary. She isn't progressive in the least.


Right.... Ron Paul is supposed to penalize the people that voted for him by demaning that THEIR money be used to pay down the debt, while everyone else grabs for cash. Sounds REAL progressive. At the very least, you could strive for some consistency. Good grief.

My position is doing away with the earmarking process altogether. There's nothing inconsistent about that. Your guy is the one raising his right hand in indignation while grabbing fistfuls of cash with his left. Where again are Paul's bills to reform this blight in the legislative process?

Taco John
01-06-2008, 09:30 PM
Again, it's mainly the distrust of large institutions and corruption.


Only that distrust of large institutions doesn't seem to cross over into government... which progressives don't seem afraid to grow indefinitely.



My position is doing away with the earmarking process altogether.


Interesting, because Obama has almost double the earmark requests that Dr. Paul has. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/21/232145.aspx) What did you say his plan to reform the earmark system was again? I think I missed it.

banyon
01-06-2008, 09:50 PM
Only that distrust of large institutions doesn't seem to cross over into government... which progressives don't seem afraid to grow indefinitely.

No. Plenty of things are fine on a local level. Others aren't. Montesquieu had it right with checks and balances throughout the system. The problem is that some actors (the executive, lobbyists, corporations, and perhaps the Fed) have grown too large and dominant overthe original system. checking some of those interests (viz. corporations) necessarily involves a government counterweight, but others (the executive) require a government reduction.

Interesting, because Obama has almost double the earmark requests that Dr. Paul has. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/21/232145.aspx) What did you say his plan to reform the earmark system was again? I think I missed it.

Obama is a Senator, he represents approximately twice as many people as Dr.Paul (Ill 12 mill to 295 mill/435). Also, he is the one who sponsored the most dramatic earmark reform in the last twenty years, so at least that's a step in the right direction. He wanted the bill to be more aggressive, but due to lobbyists' efforts, it was of course watered down.

Bear in mind, also, that my candidate is still Mr. Edwards, who supports even stronger reforms than Obama. (http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/govt-reform/) Besides,I thought you liked Obama. Who are you going to support if/when Dr. Paul drops out?

banyon
01-06-2008, 10:07 PM
Also glad Taco that you dropped your insistence that we shouldn't have adopted the Civil Rights act. I agree with Paul on some things and can see where he is coming from on others, but if anyone is advising them, he needs to drop that stuff right away. That Act was tremendously important for minorities in this country and has remedied many abhorrent practices that our nation is better for having grown past.

Taco John
01-06-2008, 10:13 PM
The civil rights issue isn't anything he pushes, but when asked, Dr. Paul will tell you that he thinks all people should be treated equal as granted by the Contstitution. He finds it hypocritical for someone who champions the constitution to create bill tailored to specific individuals, when we could just insist that the government follow the laws already established that give everyone an equal voice.

I've never said that the civil rights act wasn't beneficial. But what I will say is that it was unecessary. The people pushing the act could have very well just pushed that the laws that were already established be enforced.

banyon
01-06-2008, 10:20 PM
The civil rights issue isn't anything he pushes, but when asked, Dr. Paul will tell you that he thinks all people should be treated equal as granted by the Contstitution. He finds it hypocritical for someone who champions the constitution to create bill tailored to specific individuals, when we could just insist that the government follow the laws already established that give everyone an equal voice.

I've never said that the civil rights act wasn't beneficial. But what I will say is that it was unecessary. The people pushing the act could have very well just pushed that the laws that were already established be enforced.

The Constitution doesn't treat everyone as equal. In fact it explicity treated them as unequal.

As for your second point, there were no laws in place to enforce that kept private establishments from discriminating.

Otter
01-07-2008, 08:20 AM
Waitwaitwaitwaitwait.

Who are you calling insane?

Someone who voluntarily wants their nuts removed?