Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe) NewsFlash Everyone but the Paulites are projecting John McCain the winner in New Hampshire   (boston.com) divider line 425
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

5957 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2008 at 8:29 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

425 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-08 10:33:46 PM  
Also, our system is flawed (Ron Paul has tons of support). The problem is the Electoral college no longer works or is necessary. Bush wouldn't have even won if it was based off popular vote.

Many people think the whole system is outdated
 
2008-01-08 10:37:30 PM  
Greywar

By dismantling large chunks of the federal system, he devolves large amounts of power to the states. For example, a federal garuntee of education dates back to the colonization of Ohio and the rest of the Northwest territory (although, as an educator, I feel that the AFT/NEA have ruined our education system, I still acknowledge that the founders established public ed for very good reasons).

Similarly, Paul's desire to remove the power to tax without replacing it with a viable alternative (FairTax, w00t!), removes too much of the power the feds have, both in terms tax=death and in terms of simple income. This is vital in many ways, as one of the first acts of the early administrations was the foreign adventure of the Barabary Pirates (thus beginning the tradition of the US never not being at war with someone, somewhere), and the funding for a defense department must come from somewhere. Unless we go 20's-30's style isolationist economically (with accompanying crippling depression), Americans will be abroad and will have property abroad and will expect it protected.

Third, his position wrt immigration is contrary to the free movement of all peoples, and which, while not enumerated, definitely was encouraged, as shown on the Ohio, Franklin/Tennessee, and Mississippi frontiers.
 
2008-01-08 10:37:59 PM  
rewind2846:

Good points. Really the primaries are going to determine the winner here. Whoever the republican winner is will be president.

Oddly enough Ron Paul might have done better then whomever the republicans pick simply because he is getting a lot of the independent voters.

I don't think the republican party TRULY understands how farked they are. Unless we catch the front running democrat skull farking a infant on live TV, they're doomed.
 
2008-01-08 10:38:31 PM  
ScubaDude1960:

why don't you all move to North Korea?

Because I don't speak Canadian. Why don't you move to Chic Corea?
 
2008-01-08 10:41:49 PM  
MatrixOutsider: John McClane wins?

I'd freakin' vote for him. He'd kick some major ass!
 
2008-01-08 10:43:38 PM  
EngineerAU: It's fun to look back at threads from just two weeks ago and see how many Paul supporters were predicting him surprising everyone with his wins.

Two weeks ago? There were quotes in the Iowa thread predicting Paul's giant leap in percentage of the votes come NH.

/As someone said in that thread: can we officially call him the Snakes on a Plane candidate now?
//For lots of fun, look for the post with straw poll results from Iowa & NH being used to predict Paul's results in NH.
 
2008-01-08 10:44:42 PM  
luidprand: Greywar

By dismantling large chunks of the federal system, he devolves large amounts of power to the states. For example, a federal garuntee of education dates back to the colonization of Ohio and the rest of the Northwest territory (although, as an educator, I feel that the AFT/NEA have ruined our education system, I still acknowledge that the founders established public ed for very good reasons).

Similarly, Paul's desire to remove the power to tax without replacing it with a viable alternative (FairTax, w00t!), removes too much of the power the feds have, both in terms tax=death and in terms of simple income. This is vital in many ways, as one of the first acts of the early administrations was the foreign adventure of the Barabary Pirates (thus beginning the tradition of the US never not being at war with someone, somewhere), and the funding for a defense department must come from somewhere. Unless we go 20's-30's style isolationist economically (with accompanying crippling depression), Americans will be abroad and will have property abroad and will expect it protected.

Third, his position wrt immigration is contrary to the free movement of all peoples, and which, while not enumerated, definitely was encouraged, as shown on the Ohio, Franklin/Tennessee, and Mississippi frontiers.


I agree on many of these, but heres the thing....presidents do not have the power to change much of what you are talking about. I think our federal system is TOO involved with many of the things you talk about.

As for taxes-heres something interesting, Ron Paul is not saying get rid of taxes, he is saying, get rid of personal taxes. And NOT REPLACE THEM. Smaller federal government.

As for flat taxes....at first I was for them, but I've come to realize what will happen. "income" will be defined to get by it. For example-Mr banker makes 15 Billion in "retirement income" sa a golden parachute. And Congress will pass laws allowing retirement income to be exempt. The rich who can better structure their "income" will simply avoid it that way. And the rest will get hosed. Dunno. I would like everyone to pay equally, but I just know our govt would fark it up.
 
2008-01-08 10:46:01 PM  
39-36, cmon
 
2008-01-08 10:47:14 PM  
farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2008-01-08 10:49:39 PM  
OK, I've officially given up hope of a Ron Paul win. Hope was slim in the first place, but now I'd say it's completely gone. Ah well, we gave it a good shot, and it was nice, for the first time in my life, to actually have a politician on the national stage that I could be enthusiastic about.

Hey, give me a couple of decades, and maybe I'll give politics a try myself. I'm a little more moderate and a better public speaker than Ron is, so maybe I'll have a chance.
 
2008-01-08 10:53:43 PM  
We are a fortunate people, we are allowed opinions, and I respect yours. But there are no such things as Paulistinians, thats a neo-con, and you my friend need to educate yourself before you come in here and pretend your smart...

Concerning these supposed statements Ron Paul made:
Link (new window)

and the TRUTH, Newspaper apologizes:
Link (new window)

VOTE FRAUD in NH:
Link (new window)

Why People Who Really Know the FACTS, Love Ron Paul:
Link (new window)

VOTE FRAUD IN IOWA:
Link (new window)
luidprand: veryequiped
Subby should mention that the 'Paulites' encompass the majority of the people, ask around! Your country has been stolen again Americans.

If this is true, where are the signs, where have the votes been?

It seems to me that Paulistinians are the political equivalent of evangelicals - they seem to think that if you proclaim His name enough ("Ron Paul! Ron Paul!") people will come to Him. The problem is, there are many of us who have read His platforms and His writings, we still reject Him. I'd vote for Obama before Paul, and Obama wants to gut NASA. I'd even vote for Hillary first.

It is not Ron Paul's people which alienate me, it is not the various weird writings that may or may not have been ghostwritten for him, it is Dr. Paul's policy statements that repel and disgust me.

As I reject Satan and all his works, so too with Ron Paul
 
2008-01-08 10:55:01 PM  
Come on, lastie!
 
2008-01-08 10:55:28 PM  
g026r: EngineerAU: It's fun to look back at threads from just two weeks ago and see how many Paul supporters were predicting him surprising everyone with his wins.

Two weeks ago? There were quotes in the Iowa thread predicting Paul's giant leap in percentage of the votes come NH.

/As someone said in that thread: can we officially call him the Snakes on a Plane candidate now?
//For lots of fun, look for the post with straw poll results from Iowa & NH being used to predict Paul's results in NH.


I was one of the ones in the Iowa thread predicting a big jump in NH. I was predicting him to finish with a percentage in the high teens, and for NH to be his best state. With the glut of independent voters, "live free or die" attitude, and the free state project in NH, it was entirely rational for me to predict a number approaching 20%.

Turns out I was dead wrong, but it wasn't all based on blind optimism, and I was *not* one of the ones predicting a Ron Paul win.

However, it is very interesting that he did better in Iowa than in NH. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one, since NH seems to be more his type of voter.
 
2008-01-08 10:56:16 PM  
SherKhan: ScubaDude1960:

why don't you all move to North Korea?

Because I don't speak Canadian. Why don't you move to Chic Corea?


I love jazz
 
2008-01-08 10:59:57 PM  
TeddyRooseveltsMustache
And it was written. He who hath an action figure shalt win the presidency



So you do you mean Larry Craig...

www.vicalecorporation.com

or Dick Cheney?

www.vicalecorporation.com

PS: Elvis 4 Prez!
 
2008-01-08 11:00:29 PM  
jack21221: Turns out I was dead wrong, but it wasn't all based on blind optimism, and I was *not* one of the ones predicting a Ron Paul win.

However, it is very interesting that he did better in Iowa than in NH. I'm having trouble wrapping my head around that one, since NH seems to be more his type of voter.


I can understand expecting a higher percentage of the votes come NH, given the independent vote. I wasn't expecting him to place in the top 3, but I was still expecting him to do better percentage-wise than he appears to be doing.

That said, I was also expecting Giuliani to do much better in NH than he is doing. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
 
2008-01-08 11:00:37 PM  
Greywar: A few folks here make fun of Ron Paul, but what is REALLY so funny about someone that wants both the letter and the spirit of the constitution to be followed? Whats wrong with you people?

He wants his version of the letter and spirit of the Constitution followed. Many, many people do not agree with that version.

I, for example, believe it idiocy to think that the Founders did not intend for us to have a right to privacy. I take a far more broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause than he does. I don't like that he states that he'd have voted for the clearly unconstitutional DOMA, nor his attempts to shield DOMA from judicial review - something I consider to be an essential check and balance on the power of the rest of the Federal government. I do not like his belief that states' rights should trump individual rights.

"I'm for the Constitution" is like saying "I'm for healing people". It's a great statement, but "I'm for healing people" could be said by a witch doctor with genuine feeling and the best intentions. I still wouldn't go to them for medical treatment.
 
2008-01-08 11:06:33 PM  
ceejayoz: "I'm for the Constitution" is like saying "I'm for healing people". It's a great statement, but "I'm for healing people" could be said by a witch doctor with genuine feeling and the best intentions. I still wouldn't go to them for medical treatment.

If the witch doctor is actually the only one even trying to heal people, would you rather remain ill?
 
2008-01-08 11:09:17 PM  
If an alleged-libertarian can't even break into double-digits in NEW HAMPSHIRE, will you STFU about him on every forum and discussion group in North America soon?

Of course, obviously, it's the MSM. No, it's the evil election laws. No, it's because he wasn't allowed into the debates (the sonring might wake up Fred Thompson, y'know).

Or, no, it's because he's a cult not a candidate. But hold it together Paultards, please. You've got a chance in...where? Alaska, maybe?
 
2008-01-08 11:12:04 PM  
Ron Paul is a racist nut job that couldnt run a bath, let alone the country.

He is evil, he is weak, he needs to go!
 
2008-01-08 11:15:43 PM  
Greywar: I agree on many of these, but heres the thing....presidents do not have the power to change much of what you are talking about.

Sure he does. A president hostile to the Department of Education wouldn't have to get rid of it - he could just remove it from the Cabinet, veto any bills that included funding for education, appoint utter morons to any positions he can, etc.

Not only that, but "his ideas are nuts, but he can't implement them!" just doesn't do much as a campaign slogan. I'm always amazed when Paul supporters trot this one out.
 
2008-01-08 11:16:27 PM  
Meh, if I vote for one of the frontrunners just because they're marginally less annoying than the other frontrunners, they'll think I agree with everything they say. Better to pick the candidate I feel is best, even if he doesn't have much chance to get the nomination, because maybe one of the candidates will go "Hey, there are all these votes I could be getting if I actually did something people liked."
 
2008-01-08 11:17:00 PM  
GoldSpider

If the witch doctor is actually the only one even trying to heal people, would you rather remain ill?

Prayer and bleeding, here we come?

/yes, I have been watching The Tudors too much
//why do you ask?
 
2008-01-08 11:18:53 PM  
GoldSpider: If the witch doctor is actually the only one even trying to heal people, would you rather remain ill?

Absolutely. A well-intentioned witch doctor might actively harm me.

That's about how I feel about Paul, too. Good intentions, but I think he has the potential to harm the country more deeply than many of the idiots running things currently.
 
2008-01-08 11:19:17 PM  
Snarfangel 2008-01-08 11:16:27 PM

By that logic it would seem that more votes could be had by being Mr. 9/11 over Mr. Constitution.

/at least as of when I wrote this
 
2008-01-08 11:20:47 PM  
ceejayoz:
I, for example, believe it idiocy to think that the Founders did not intend for us to have a right to privacy. I take a far more broad interpretation of the General Welfare clause than he does. I don't like that he states that he'd have voted for the clearly unconstitutional DOMA, nor his attempts to shield DOMA from judicial review - something I consider to be an essential check and balance on the power of the rest of the Federal government. I do not like his belief that states' rights should trump individual rights.


*boggle*

So...on one hand we should have no privacy, and on the other hand states rights should not trump individual rights.

OK...

Steps away....
 
2008-01-08 11:21:39 PM  
ceejayoz: Greywar: I agree on many of these, but heres the thing....presidents do not have the power to change much of what you are talking about.

Sure he does. A president hostile to the Department of Education wouldn't have to get rid of it - he could just remove it from the Cabinet, veto any bills that included funding for education, appoint utter morons to any positions he can, etc.

Not only that, but "his ideas are nuts, but he can't implement them!" just doesn't do much as a campaign slogan. I'm always amazed when Paul supporters trot this one out.


Fair enough response.
 
2008-01-08 11:24:58 PM  
Ron Paul in headline = 300+ responses! It's a law of teh interwebs!
 
2008-01-08 11:27:06 PM  
Democracy is a stupid idea.
 
2008-01-08 11:28:18 PM  
Greywar: So...on one hand we should have no privacy, and on the other hand states rights should not trump individual rights.

Uh, what? I believe we should have privacy. I believe it's protected by the Constitution. Ron Paul does not believe it is protected by the Constitution.

Re-read the post.
 
brx
2008-01-08 11:30:07 PM  
I just felt compelled to post.. I'm a Ron Paul supporter.
 
2008-01-08 11:30:10 PM  
veryequiped

I am basing my opinions on Paul's campaign site. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that racist statements and actions were the product of niavety on Paul's part or otherwise unsanctioned. I choose to reject him on the issues.

From his site:
* American Independence and Sovereignty - he rejects NAFTA and the FTAA, while I strongly support both (I agree with him on the UN, but for different reasons)
* Border Security and Immigration Reform - he supports tighter restrictions on immigration and tighter controls on illegals, while I am an open borders and amnesty advocate
* Debt & Taxes - he wants to remove the Fed and influence by foreign countries. I contend there is no viable way to do so without severally harming our economy, both short and long term
* Education - he wants a broad decentralization with vouchers. I agree on vouchers, but would reform the centralized system with a stricter core curriculum required of all schools that receive federal assistance
* Environment - he wishes to get rid of the EPA, something that was one of many of Nixon's great accomplishments. Private industry can police itself, but usually won't (nor should it, as their primary concern must be the shareholders)
* Health Care - His reforms are good ideas, but I'm in favor of a semi-socialized voucher system
* Health Freedom - He wants to get rid of the FDA. It may be hidebound, but it serves a large number of useful functions.
* Home Schooling - I agree that home schooling can be a good idea, but I still see the need for federal tests to determine that the HSers are learning, say, evolution and algebra
* Life and Liberty - He is strictly pro-life, while I am Catholicly pro-life (rape, incest, and health of the mother are allowed)
* No Taxes on Tips - no argument
* Privacy and Personal Liberty - no argument
* Property Rights - I agree with his position on eminent domain, but I feel that it is the government's duty to protect our environmental interests as a community
* Racism - I agree with the ideal of his sentiments, but it has been necessary (and may be in the future) for the gov't to step in to ensure equal access to life, liberty, and property (yet another Nixon/Eisenhower success)
* Social Security - he has a few good statements here, but, oddly enough, he doesn't go for the proven efficacy of a semi-privatized systems and prefers to work in the established framework
* Second Amendment - He is very pro-gun. I am very much not (though I know statistics prove me wrong - call it the last vestiges of the radical liberalism of my youth)
* War & Foreign Policy - He's very much an isolationist, while I am a globalist who is favor of an active Western hegemon (it need not be the US, but something similar)

So, you see, as someone who has bothered to read this through, I am very strongly against large portions of his policies, and those I agree with are more than adequately represented by many other candidates.

As to the voter fraud, if it is as bad as you allege, please show me some MSM sources which support it - even local papers.

/Radical Moderates Forever!
 
2008-01-08 11:30:17 PM  
ceejayoz: Greywar: So...on one hand we should have no privacy, and on the other hand states rights should not trump individual rights.

Uh, what? I believe we should have privacy. I believe it's protected by the Constitution. Ron Paul does not believe it is protected by the Constitution.

Re-read the post.


My bad. lol.
 
2008-01-08 11:32:42 PM  
Face it: If it comes down to Clinton vs. Guiliani, many of you will be wondering if all those racist smears on Paul were really true.

It will be a couple of years for most of you to figure out that no, they weren't. Similar false smears weren't correct against Goldwater, Buchanan, Gerald Ford, or Dukakis with Horton, but they work It's all bullshiat, and Americans fall for it every time.
 
2008-01-08 11:34:49 PM  
Anyone watch the Daily Show? Stewart had a political stratagest on that said something to the effect of 'Ron Paul is a great example of how people will turn to any bad solution when offered no other solution' and 'he's the kind of guy that, the more you learn about him, the more worried you get'. I'd be interested to know exactly what things he's referring to, but in the meantime I feel bad for him, because he has almost certainly brought about the wrath of a Paul supporter E-mail bomb upon himself.
 
2008-01-08 11:34:54 PM  
tkirby:

Democracy is a stupid idea.

Democracy is ultimately just a mirror.
 
2008-01-08 11:36:41 PM  
Blacklight: Face it: If it comes down to Clinton vs. Guiliani, many of you will be wondering if all those racist smears on Paul were really true.

No, if it were Clinton v. Guliani (unlikely - Guliani's making an absolutely dismal run thus far) I'd vote without enthusiasm but also without hesitation for Clinton over Guliani.

I'd still be glad Paul's out of the running. His radical steps backwards would be more damaging, IMO, than either Clinton or Guliani.

Just because you have a severe hard-on for Paul doesn't mean everyone else shares it. I know that has been hard for Paul supporters to believe on FARK this election season, but it's still true.
 
2008-01-08 11:36:58 PM  
Snarfangel: Meh, if I vote for one of the frontrunners just because they're marginally less annoying than the other frontrunners, they'll think I agree with everything they say. Better to pick the candidate I feel is best, even if he doesn't have much chance to get the nomination, because maybe one of the candidates will go "Hey, there are all these votes I could be getting if I actually did something people liked."

This is only true if the likely winner imagines s/he can pick up YOUR protest vote with a policy change WITHOUT losing other votes from current supporters. That's the flaw in seeing Ron Paul as a way to pull all of politics towards some creamy nugget libertarian fantasy.

The GOP assumes you will either cave and vote GOP, whoever they run, or you will go 3rd-party and therefore not count at all. In other words, you have absolutely no chance of bartering your votes to anyone in the GOP. That will not change no matter how much you wish it weren't so.

Frankly, the Democrats have too often tried to make nice with wacko left-wing marginal believers who still either didn't come out and vote or went with a protest waste of breath.

Rail about the unfairness of the two-party system, limited choices, sell-outs and so on. Welcome to America. It's the game we have. You either get the constitution changed, drop out on the political theory that "if no one will play my way then I'm not playing", or get in the mud and try to get what can be got by moving the point closer to the goals you think are most important. Those who choose the last option are sleazy sell-outs and we're still more likely to get something done in the long run.
 
2008-01-08 11:37:08 PM  
luidprand: * Debt & Taxes - he wants to remove the Fed and influence by foreign countries. I contend there is no viable way to do so without severally harming our economy, both short and long term

I would be willing to debate this with you. How would removing a central bank hurt our economy long term? Would it cause more damage than controlling inflation? Do you believe that inflation caused by our runaway credit issues is the lesser of any evil that competing currencies would create? Do you believe that Grisham's Law is indeed economic law? Do you think JM Keynes is the progenitor of the only sound economic philosophy?
 
2008-01-08 11:39:59 PM  
ceejayoz: Blacklight: Face it: If it comes down to Clinton vs. Guiliani, many of you will be wondering if all those racist smears on Paul were really true.

No, if it were Clinton v. Guliani (unlikely - Guliani's making an absolutely dismal run thus far) I'd vote without enthusiasm but also without hesitation for Clinton over Guliani.

I'd still be glad Paul's out of the running. His radical steps backwards would be more damaging, IMO, than either Clinton or Guliani.

Just because you have a severe hard-on for Paul doesn't mean everyone else shares it. I know that has been hard for Paul supporters to believe on FARK this election season, but it's still true.


You were the one that made me re-read The Economic Consequences of the Peace, how ironic that you would post here about "steps backwards". I look forward to hearing in what way his economics would be as you explain, now that I'm more familiar with the subject matter.
 
2008-01-08 11:43:01 PM  
Blacklight
How would removing a central bank hurt our economy long term? Would it cause more damage than controlling inflation? Do you believe that inflation caused by our runaway credit issues is the lesser of any evil that competing currencies would create? Do you believe that Grisham's Law is indeed economic law? Do you think JM Keynes is the progenitor of the only sound economic philosophy?

Because I believe a fiat currency is a more accurate representation of capital movement and creation than other systems, especially ones based on a zero-sum metal (or any other zero-sum systems). I believe manipulation of inflation and unemployment to keep them around 1-3% and 3-5% respectively is healthy for the long-term, steady growth of a system, and the wild fluctuations of the Great Depressions and great booms cause excessive policies (such as those by FDR and Johnson) that ultimately cripple a viable economy.

/And Keynes can suck my tiny, Italian...
 
2008-01-08 11:43:31 PM  
Blacklight: luidprand: * Debt & Taxes - he wants to remove the Fed and influence by foreign countries. I contend there is no viable way to do so without severally harming our economy, both short and long term

I would be willing to debate this with you. How would removing a central bank hurt our economy long term? Would it cause more damage than controlling inflation? Do you believe that inflation caused by our runaway credit issues is the lesser of any evil that competing currencies would create? Do you believe that Grisham's Law is indeed economic law? Do you think JM Keynes is the progenitor of the only sound economic philosophy?


This would be just such a wonderful debate to participate in. A theoretical tour de force about how economic THEORY works and whose theory is better. I might not collapse into a epileptic seizure for the first 3-4 minutes. But, please, proceed.

After all, I'm sure if you explain to us just how convinced you are a central bank isn't really needed, we'll all rush out to change our votes and bet everything on the economic reasonings of someone on an Internet forum. Yep, that always happens.
 
2008-01-08 11:48:35 PM  
Blacklight: I look forward to hearing in what way his economics would be as you explain

Perhaps the best illustration is the statistics on the severity and frequency of recessions.
 
2008-01-08 11:51:08 PM  
wejash:
This would be just such a wonderful debate to participate in. A theoretical tour de force about how economic THEORY works and whose theory is better. I might not collapse into a epileptic seizure for the first 3-4 minutes. But, please, proceed.

After all, I'm sure if you explain to us just how convinced you are a central bank isn't really needed, we'll all rush out to change our votes and bet everything on the economic reasonings of someone on an Internet forum. Yep, that always happens.


No, but what is important is that most people will attack Paul's economics, by stating that it would be a step backward, with armchair economics that they read on wikipedia.

It displays that most people are happier to spew rhetoric than actually understand the subject matter. It's the same people that call Paul crazy. If you don't understand both sides of the argument, wouldn't it be intellectually lazy as fark to call a guy crazy because YOU don't understand it? As uncomfortable as that is to grasp, it's a demon you need to need to wrestle down. I'm not saying I'm a massive economic mind, but I've taken the time to sift through JMK's General Theory, some of Mises, and Road to Serfdom by Hayek. I don't agree with Paul on everything, but I totally disagree with Keyne's mathematical model on consumption and inflation.

Paul/Mises/Hayek have it right.
 
2008-01-08 11:51:18 PM  
luidprand: * War & Foreign Policy - He's very much an isolationist, while I am a globalist who is favor of an active Western hegemon (it need not be the US, but something similar)


Ron Paul is not an isolationist
 
2008-01-09 12:01:12 AM  
ceejayoz: Blacklight: I look forward to hearing in what way his economics would be as you explain

Perhaps the best illustration is the statistics on the severity and frequency of recessions.


I'm not sure of your point and how it relates to Paul? Do note that there were numerous central banks in US history that were dismantled, almost always due to fraudulent banking practices. How interesting that the chart doesn't cover Biddle's central bank that Jackson almost lost re-election over to veto, nor does it cover the past 6 years of massive inflation.

You'll have to put this chart into context for me and the point that you are trying to make.
 
2008-01-09 12:02:21 AM  
deltabourne

Ron Paul is not an isolationist


Really? From Ronpaul2008.com

War & Foreign Policy
The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we're paying the price.

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.


Pay special attention to paragraphs 2-4

American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

The ICC wants to try our soldiers as war criminals. Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor's prescription to take herbs and vitamins. Alternative treatments could be banned.

The WTO has forced Congress to change our laws, yet we still face trade wars. Today, France is threatening to have U.S. goods taxed throughout Europe. If anything, the WTO makes trade relations worse by giving foreign competitors a new way to attack U.S. jobs.

NAFTA's superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.

And a free America, with limited, constitutional government, would be gone forever.

Let's not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.


Pretty much the entire thing is isolationist.

/The US has been involved in non-stop military or economic warfare since its inception. We have only declared war 11 times. There's a reason the concept of "declaration of war" is very vague in the Constitution
 
2008-01-09 12:08:14 AM  
Blacklight

I can't speak for him, but the data presented by ceejayoz shows the highest growth/lowest recession to be in the past 50 years, with the mildest ones being those most recent, correlating with the increased effect of the Federal Reserve system.

/When my parents bought their first house in '74, interest was in the mid-teens
//When my wife and I bought about two years ago, the interest was 6%
///And has gone down since
////Since home ownership is the primary factor in economic independence, the much lower and nonfluctuating interest rates encourage home ownership and therefore economic growth
//unless you get more house than you can afford, then it sucks to be you, dumbass
 
2008-01-09 12:08:41 AM  
Blacklight: No, but what is important is that most people will attack Paul's economics, by stating that it would be a step backward, with armchair economics that they read on wikipedia.

It displays that most people are happier to spew rhetoric than actually understand the subject matter. It's the same people that call Paul crazy. If you don't understand both sides of the argument, wouldn't it be intellectually lazy as fark to call a guy crazy because YOU don't understand it? As uncomfortable as that is to grasp, it's a demon you need to need to wrestle down. I'm not saying I'm a massive economic mind, but I've taken the time to sift through JMK's General Theory, some of Mises, and Road to Serfdom by Hayek. I don't agree with Paul on everything, but I totally disagree with Keyne's mathematical model on consumption and inflation.

Paul/Mises/Hayek have it right.


People don't CARE about Paul's economic theories. Seriously. Don't care. Don't care one farking tiny bit. (Love nothing better than debating with econ majors who still get a rush over a Hayek/Keynes debate...or should I be personal enough to refer to him by his initials as well, to show I'm really well-read on academic theory? 'Cause I know that gets chicks hawt. SNORE.)

It is, bluntly, irrelevant what Paul thinks or proposes or even whether he is right. If he won, the money would go away from this country faster than you can say, "gold standard." If he had a shot, everyone with much capital would run it offshore rapidly until they saw what the hell would come of it all. And so would most foreign investment.

It doesn't really matter whether he's right, it matters that most everyone in the financial world thinks he's nuts. What the entire financial world believes to be true has a tendency to become true. Whether that is reasonable or not, the folks making the decisions don't care about JMK vs Hayek and they have a couple years and several billion dollars on you. They won't be listening.
 
2008-01-09 12:12:07 AM  
luidprand: deltabourne
Ron Paul is not an isolationist
Really? From Ronpaul2008.com
War & Foreign Policy



8% in a State jam-packed with libertarians.
Eight percent.

Do ya think quoting from your holy book is really going to help now?
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report