Ron Paul

[EvilMonkey]

Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-aid. I hear they have both grape AND orange.

[YASNY]

Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-aid. I hear they have both grape AND orange.

 

Thanks for the super intelligent, well thought out response. No need in continuing what I thought was going to be a decent discussion. Have a good day.

[iamshack]

If you cannot read my post above and comprehend the economic meltdown that is coming to our dollar and our economy, well, I suppose that is your problem and not mine. To speak of a candidate based on "letters" written by someone is not the "real" issue. The real issue here is the future of my life, yours of your life, the people of America's lives.

 

I simply don't think you're overly educated on economics and don't have a firm understanding of how economics work in the different systems of government and that is fine by me - none of the candidates are at all educated on the matter, either. They're not the "most intelligent men" in the country - they are simply people who "can" and have the ability to run for office. If you can read that entire post that I wrote - and not understand that the real issue, the only not talked about because it doesn't benefit the media, is monetary & economic policy - then you will have it your way eventually. Continuing down the socialist path to universal care of everyone & thing will bankrupt the country - much like the USSR. And look at the USSR now. Our empires are not "so" different now. They were communist, but we are straying from the Republic, Free Market to becoming Socialist. When Socialism is intertwined with a police state, the fiscal & economic problems become too heavy and they break drown - much like communism over time. If you can not understand that - just because I have a feeling you have never actually read anything about economics outside of your standard classes in HS or college - then that is why you do not understand the magnitude of the problem. When universal care passes, along with the welfare/warfare state continues - the boom will be lowered & the rug will be pulled out from my feet, your feet, your neighbors feet, your towns, your counties, your cities feet. Knowledge of the brimming problem does not save you - so I will not be able to 'right' my life when it occurs - I can only hopefully look to educate some one the how and why the universal/welfare/warfare state is going to shred the economy & dollar to pieces. As I said - it is clearly apparent that you have not anything more than simple standard issues on economics - and thats not necessarily a bad thing as the actual candidates for president also have not & that is VERY evident. These candidates are not the "god of men", they're just men like anyone else who happened to stumble into power, or be in the right place at the right time, or parlay life events into new, government ones. Ron Paul is no different than that, either. The only difference is, he understands the sheer magnitude of the economic issues that are starting to rear their head.

 

You make Ron Paul sound like the anti-christ.

 

I also think you are underestimating the other candidates' understanding of economic issues drastically.

 

I'm not buying the Harvard economics degree.

 

And stop preaching so much.

[GoSox05]

Whatever. Enjoy the Kool-aid. I hear they have both grape AND orange.

 

 

Yeah we should all just vote for the old boring grumpy Fred Thompson. Hey Fred, go back to Law and Order.

[EvilMonkey]

Thanks for the super intelligent, well thought out response. No need in continuing what I thought was going to be a decent discussion. Have a good day.

Look, you said you were going to ignore everythign else except his stance on the constitution, so what else is there to discuss? Did you not read SouthsideIrish's post about how his views will effect our cyber security? That is a REAL threat. China has teams of hackers doing nothign but f***nig with American webistes, government and otherwise, just looking for things to exploit. How will Mr. Paul work to combat that? By decapitaing the very agencies that combat that. You and I spen alot of time on this here interwebthnigy, it would be nice if it still worked 5 years from now. His views on things like that effect everythgn else around us, which is why I suggested that you couldn't ignore them. But you stated your intent to be a single-issue voter, which is your right.

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah we should all just vote for the old boring grumpy Fred Thompson. Hey Fred, go back to Law and Order.

hahaha! And Ron Paul is a vision of sunshine and smiles?

[iamshack]

What does it matter? In truth, the Southern States that the RIGHT to secede. It is a state's right to secede if they don't agree with the federal government's rulings. The thing is - the states would have HAD to come back and unite for economic reasons. And even if they hadn't (which, economically they would have had to), it was the states' right to secede since they felt they were being treated improperly by the Union. And please, as the moron in that video said "We'd still have slavery" - please don't try to tell me you really, actually believe Lincoln fought to "Free the Slaves" as you learned in 4th grade. In fact - this is a Lincoln quote:

 

Abraham Lincoln:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

 

The Civil War was not fought (for the most part) over slavery. It was fought because the Confederate States did not want their lives dictated by the Federal Government. In that regard, the Confederates were right - in that the Federal Government should not be able to tell "all" states and all citizens how to live their lives. The Civil War was ridiculous to enter by the Union, as both the Confederate States would have HAD to return for economic reasons, and slavery would have come to an end soon afterward & without killing 600,000 people along the way. Read some books on it. Very interesting stuff.

 

That is up to the states to decide - which is what the Ron Paul movement is about. It is about citizens having the power to choose how to live their own lives - as long as they don't hurt other people in doing so.

 

You seriously don't think the American Civil War can be distilled down to this, do you?

[iamshack]

If you can truly read what I wrote and not understand that what OTHER candidates are doing - and what we are doing as a country WILL bankrupt our nation, crush OUR economy, and make the dollar next to worthless - then you my friend need to go take about 10 economy courses to truly understand what you are talking about because it is heavily apparent that you do not. If you think that Ron Paul's policies would do anything but lead to the dollar prospering again, then again, you need to take about 10 economy courses to understand why - and that does not simply entail reading what others (who have very little idea themselves) have stated various places online, thru wikipedia, etc. Take all the courses, read the 30-50 books that go along with it, and you will have some semblance of a clue of what you are speaking of. Until then, comment on other things, but do not comment on a subject that you clearly do not understand. As I stated in my 3 page long post above - the main reason I am with Ron Paul - is that he has a true understanding of economies and how they work. No other candidate has a CLUE. They don't even care. They are much like any other lay-person. They assume that the money must come from somewhere & that all will be well and fine in the end. And that is a very dangerous position. The fact of the matter is that IF Ron Paul was elected, he could only do a FEW things anyway. And the FEW things he could do would TREMENDOUSLY help. He could solely remove the troops from Iraq and stop the funding that is sent there - that would help the economy BEYOND belief. He could also veto any budget that was not balanced. That would be another HUGE step in the right direction. And truly, that is about all he would be able to get done. But after 4 years of that, the economy would get back on its feet and be thriving within a decade because of those 4 years & the American citizens would start to elect more and more people in the same mantra and the economy and dollar would strengthen incredibly & that would lead to a more prosperous nation. Sometimes - you have to look at what the president actually WILL be able to do. Those the two things Ron Paul WOULD be able to do. Bring the troops out of Iraq and from around the world in needless military bases & veto any unbalanced budget bills that would curtail the out of control spending - therefore CURB inflation & get the dollar and economy back to prosperity. Everything else would be a moot point. All anyone else will do is try to pass a bill on taxes that will get stifled in congress, try to pass healthcare which may pass, and throw more troops around the world - which the president has full power to do via the Patriot Act.

 

What is the reason for this crap?

[southsideirish71]

You seriously don't think the American Civil War can be distilled down to this, do you?

 

He is right it was about economics. However the slave part was the issue at hand, because of the economics of it. The southern states had an economy based on the cotton trade. Their built in labor source of slaves was the issue. Imagine the impact to their economy if all of a sudden all of their free laborers had to get paid fair wages. Some tall thin guy from Illinois who sure wasn't a saint, but ran and had some anti-slavery people tied to him. The southern states were so worried about slavery being repealed that when he was elected South Carolina and 6 other states immediately succeeded. What he kind of glosses over is the fact that the slavery issue was something that was at a boiling point. They had tried before to split the country on this issue on a live and let live with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, however the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 was the powder keg of the Civil War. It threw out the Missouri Compromise and started a small civil war. The rest was politicians on both sides aligning themselves with each side. Does anyone believe that Lincoln had the morals in his heart when he ran on this, probably not. But if you think that the civil war was not based on the slavery issue I suggest he should read the succession papers from the states. Thats where the reason for succession is laid out.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

Listen guys, I'm done with this subject. You need to do your homework on it to be able to understand it & until then I'm just wasting my time and energy preaching to those who A) already do understand this, and B ) don't understand it because they don't understand how economics work. That is my entire argument. I agree fully with Ron Paul's economic policies. Do your homework and you will come to the exact same conclusion as I have and as anyone else with a true and intelligent view of how economics, monetary policies, and fiscal policies intertwine and operate. Until I am convinced you KNOW (which you don't with any intelligent certainty) this stuff, my argument is on hold.

 

Your argument is extremely simplistic and filled with arrogance.

[NorthSideSox72]

Listen guys, I'm done with this subject. You need to do your homework on it to be able to understand it & until then I'm just wasting my time and energy preaching to those who A) already do understand this, and B ) don't understand it because they don't understand how economics work. That is my entire argument. I agree fully with Ron Paul's economic policies. Do your homework and you will come to the exact same conclusion as I have and as anyone else with a true and intelligent view of how economics, monetary policies, and fiscal policies intertwine and operate. Until I am convinced you KNOW (which you don't with any intelligent certainty) this stuff, my argument is on hold.

Your leap from "I believe his policies will do positive things for the dollar" to "anyone who thinks they won't doesn't know anything" is sort of laughable. Its thunderously arrogant, inaccurate, and basically says that everyone is dumb but you and the other aPaulstles. You want to argue why, great. But, in case you were unaware, there are at least a few people on this board who post regularly in the Buster who WORK in finance and frankly, probably, know a heck of a lot more than you do on this subject.

 

[EvilMonkey]

He already explained that they were "his" newsletters, but they were not written by him personally - and that they aren't his own words, etc. He took the blame for the newsletters being distributed without him "proofreading" what was going out. So, he did 'own up' to the fact that they were distributed under his name & at his own mistake of not proof-reading them. His fault for not proofreading? Sure. His words? Definitely not. The thing is, some of his biggest and strongest supporters are african-american.

Just curious: the newsletters have been goingon since 1978. He was made aware of the content of the newsletters in 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. However, the newsletters continues evern afetr that with much trhe same articles. If he knew by then of the tings being written under his name, why did he chose to not stop it?

 

Oh, and in addition to his african-american supporters, he also had white supremacist supporters, so what does that matter?

[iamshack]

He is right it was about economics. However the slave part was the issue at hand, because of the economics of it. The southern states had an economy based on the cotton trade. Their built in labor source of slaves was the issue. Imagine the impact to their economy if all of a sudden all of their free laborers had to get paid fair wages. Some tall thin guy from Illinois who sure wasn't a saint, but ran and had some anti-slavery people tied to him. The southern states were so worried about slavery being repealed that when he was elected South Carolina and 6 other states immediately succeeded. What he kind of glosses over is the fact that the slavery issue was something that was at a boiling point. They had tried before to split the country on this issue on a live and let live with the Missouri Compromise of 1820, however the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854 was the powder keg of the Civil War. It threw out the Missouri Compromise and started a small civil war. The rest was politicians on both sides aligning themselves with each side. Does anyone believe that Lincoln had the morals in his heart when he ran on this, probably not. But if you think that the civil war was not based on the slavery issue I suggest he should read the succession papers from the states. Thats where the reason for succession is laid out.

 

This is a little better. And not to nitpick, but it is secession, not succession.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your economics argument. England and other European nations were very much straddling the fence on which side to take at the outset of the War. Had the Union simply allowed the Confederacy to secede, there is a very reasonable chance that the Confederacy's economy could have sustained itself on exports of cotton and other cash crops to Europe, at least for some period of decades. And had that occurred, no one can really speculate what the United States would be today...

[southsideirish71]

This is a little better. And not to nitpick, but it is secession, not succession.

 

I'm not sure I agree with your economics argument. England and other European nations were very much straddling the fence on which side to take at the outset of the War. Had the Union simply allowed the Confederacy to secede, there is a very reasonable chance that the Confederacy's economy could have sustained itself on exports of cotton and other cash crops to Europe, at least for some period of decades. And had that occurred, no one can really speculate what the United States would be today...

 

Damn spellcheck

[CWSGuy406]

Look, you said you were going to ignore everythign else except his stance on the constitution, so what else is there to discuss?

 

Since I absolutely hate when people do this... No -- Yasny did not say that. He said this:

 

I happen to think that the fact we have drifted away from the letter of the constitution is most pressing issue facing this nation and that getting our focus back on it is the single most important issue of this election.

 

(Bolded for what I thought was the most emphasized part of that sentence, not Yasny -- just a FWIW.)

[EvilMonkey]

Since I absolutely hate when people do this... No -- Yasny did not say that. He said this:

(Bolded for what I thought was the most emphasized part of that sentence, not Yasny -- just a FWIW.)

When I said "But you can't ignore his other positions because you are enamored with one of them" he replied "You know what Alpha, I can do exactly what you suggest I can't." So yes, he did.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Alpha Dog

[santo=dorf]

I laughed how people joke about how much Ron Paul is winning over the "internet crowd" yet then those same candidates and critics talk about how important it is for our nation's youth to vote and participate in the process of making laws. That's exactly what Ron's doing. Call him a "kook" for his stances, but at least he's consistent. I'd rather have that over a flip-flopper.

Edited January 13, 2008 by santo=dorf

[CWSGuy406]

When I said "But you can't ignore his other positions because you are enamored with one of them" he replied "You know what Alpha, I can do exactly what you suggest I can't." So yes, he did.

 

No, he didn't -- he clarified and said that while he may not agree with some of his other 'positions', he feels the constitution one is the most important point. You've taken that quote completely out of context.

[rowand's rowdies]

ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested".

 

also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) (

) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age.

 

I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now.

 

And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply.

 

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

[Kyyle23]

ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested".

 

also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) (

) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age.

 

I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now.

 

And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply.

 

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

 

 

 

 

return volley!

 

 

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested".

 

also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) (

) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age.

 

I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now.

 

And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply.

 

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

Most experienced? You need to do a little reading. He is nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field for both parties. I like some of what Ron Paul brings to the discussion, but, you need to be a little more aware of your facts.

 

[mr_genius]

Most experienced? You need to do a little reading. He is nearly the LEAST experienced candidate in the field for both parties. I like some of what Ron Paul brings to the discussion, but, you need to be a little more aware of your facts.

 

Hasn't Ron Paul been in congress for a total of like 20 years or something? I think he was elected to his current seat in 1996, and also served in the late 70's and early 80's. Not 100% sure on the number of years.

 

edit: Ok, I looked it up. Looks like he has 15 years experience in congress.

 

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 22nd district. In office January 3, 1979 – January 3, 1985

 

Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Texas's 14th district, Incumbent, assumed office January 3, 1997

Edited January 14, 2008 by mr_genius

[southsideirish71]

ya, i love the patriot act, and the internet being regulated. can't wait to be arrested for talking about illegal activities (non terrorist) on my cell phone and over the internet. maybe there can be a pop up saying "you've been arrested".

 

also, anyone who thinks we shouldn't pull out of Iraq immediatly, talk to (1) a current or recently former member of the military (who supports Ron much more than anyone else) (

) and (2) go enlist to make sure we leave the "right way". I'm sure they will take you, no matter what age.

 

I'm sure the never will be born children and grandchildren and so on of the US military members who will die before we finally leave thank you for your thoughts into why we should not leave right now.

 

And my theory on who should be President, IF NOTHING ELSE, is that it should be the MOST EXPERIENCED (check) and MOST KNOWLEDGABLE (check) person who wants the job. Simply.

 

Also, Alpha Dog is just trying to stir people up and refute everything just to make them mad. I do this, too. But not over the internet like a 9 year old. Just saying.

 

 

I love the Orwellian paranoia everytime the Patriot Act is brought up. Criminals who commit crimes or plan them understand the risks of their actions. So I would suggest that if you are planning or you are talking about criminal or illegal activity on your cell phone then you have bigger problem than the feds listening to your calls. You realize that Cell Phone transmissions are relatively easy to crack and that anyone, even thoses outside of the feds can listen to your calls. Those cute little bluetooth headsets and their frightening pin of 1111 or whatever your default pin is, are real hard to defeat as well. I just did a security eval where I was able to intercept all of the keystroke information coming from someone's bluetooth keyboard 200 feet away. Sat out in the parking lot and picked up everything. The same utility allows you to listen to phone calls, and to actively take over the call. And that works pretty well. But make sure you worry about the Feds, not John Q identity thief. I would say the 60% of people who have open access points should worry about war drivers more than the government listening to their phone calls. Its good to be worried about your safety and privacy, its another to be paranoid about the black helicopters and the CIA agent worrying about you, the private citizen.

 

There is an active member of this forum who is currently serving in Iraq namely Nuke. If you wish there is a sticky thread where you can ask Nuke questions. I am sure he will be more than happy to give you his feelings as the career enlisted man on politics. He is far from shy on the subject of politics.

Edited January 13, 2008 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

Hasn't Ron Paul been in congress for a total of like 20 years or something? I think he was elected to his current seat in 1996, and also served in the late 70's and early 80's. Not 100% sure on the number of years.

15 years, on and off since the 70's as a house rep. Compare that resume to, for example...

 

McCain: Vietnam vet and POW, Navy liaison to the US Senate in the late 70's, Congressman 1983-87, Senator 1987-present, 2000 major party Prez candidate

Huckabee: Lt Gov for 2 terms, US Senator briefly, then Governor for about 10 years

Richardson: Former energy secretary, former US Congressman, UN Ambassador to US, 2-term Governor

Biden: 6 term US Senator - 34 years

Dodd: US Rep 6 years, US Senator 25 years

Thompson: 10 Years US Senate, a bunch of years as a lobbyist

 

Ron Paul has never made it past US Representative, failed in numerous political bids... his resume is just not anything like the most prolific, and I'd say is closer to the bottom of the pile in that regard.

 

[mr_genius]

15 years, on and off since the 70's as a house rep. Compare that resume to, for example...

 

McCain: Vietnam vet and POW, Navy liaison to the US Senate in the late 70's, Congressman 1983-87, Senator 1987-present, 2000 major party Prez candidate

Huckabee: Lt Gov for 2 terms, US Senator briefly, then Governor for about 10 years

Richardson: Former energy secretary, former US Congressman, UN Ambassador to US, 2-term Governor

Biden: 6 term US Senator - 34 years

Dodd: US Rep 6 years, US Senator 25 years

Thompson: 10 Years US Senate, a bunch of years as a lobbyist

 

Ron Paul has never made it past US Representative, failed in numerous political bids... his resume is just not anything like the most prolific, and I'd say is closer to the bottom of the pile in that regard.

 

His resume seems to be line with the the candidates of both parties

 

I would say his experience is middle of the pack, if you count in Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, ect. I wouldn't say losing an election should disqualify anyone form running again. McCain has lost before, so has Romney, so has Edwards. Experience is not an issue with Ron Paul. He's not going to win the GOP nomination because of his political stances (mainly because of his consistent opposition to the Iraq war), not because of his lack of experience.

 

Biden and Dodd seem to have the most experience, and they aren't getting any votes.

Edited January 13, 2008 by mr_genius