Where do YOU split with the good doctor?
- Thread starter erect
- Start date
I split with RP on national defense. The world is a fucking dangerous place. To pretend otherwise is is a child's fairy tale. That is all.
SINCE the world is a dangerous place, I agree with Paul that we need our entire Force HERE PROTECTING US instead of out there shaking all those hornets nests.
Well, the public is now being forced to pay $40,000 or whatever a year to provide for his food and shelter. I wouldn't necessarily support the following either, but imagine if instead his assets were seized and the public was forced not to allow him into their homes or not to be able to give him cash. I'm sure he would choose prison over homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
Another thing to consider is that if there were no laws against ripping people off, then people would be much more careful with who they would trust.
Um Luke -- once they're here it's too late. Way too late. And I totally disagree with your battle philosophy. I want to shake those nests.
Now who is right and who is wrong? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
.
While Paul is right about our interventionism being over the top, he's completely wrong about substituting our hawkish ways with isolationism. Turning our back to the world will do us absolutely no good and will ultimately hurt our economy, our prosperity, and our future just as much as getting mired down in pointless wars in countries most people can't point to on a map.
We've built this country on a bedrock of relatively free markets both domestically and abroad. The free flow of goods around the world has been a keystone of our success and we cannot abandon that, as much as radicals might want to. The US Navy, even just with its presence and global strike capabilities help keep waterways clear for goods to flow into and out of this country.
The piracy we've seen in the Gulf of Aden and in the South China Sea a decade ago should both stand as reminds to what pulling back American ships could do. More importantly, though, our military presence helps keep countries like Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Venezuela, etc in check. Sure, they aren't global powers that are capable of hurting the US mainland, but they're certainly able to cause huge economic disruptions in global trade, something that will hurt this country tremendously.
As for the rest of our military, I believe that similar beneficial effects result from the stationing of our soldiers around the world. While I certainly believe that there are certain places we're no longer needed, in general I think that maintaining a global force is prudent. We are a global nation and are critically dependent on the rest of the world for goods and trade.
That being said, there is room for massive reform. We clearly don't need 500,000 uniformed soldiers in the Army, three of the top ten air forces in the world, 11 nuclear aircraft carriers, ~1,200 nuclear warheads, etc, etc. We probably also don't need over 700 installations worldwide. So let's trim those, not take everyone home and hope for the best.
Pretty much everywhere.
Ron Paul's America looks a lot like the America of the late 19th century.
While he preaches that he would "end the war on drugs," in reality he would end the federal war on drugs and allow all 50 states to do whatever they wanted regarding drug policy. That might sound all fine and dandy for the college kids that just want to smoke weed, but can we all step back and picture what 50 separate wars on drugs would mean and what kind of chaos that would bring to our law enforcement system? No thanks. I'd rather look to reform drug policy country-wide, not state by state.
He would eliminate the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments. For those of you not keeping track say goodbye to electing senators (17th), The Equal Protection Clause and any recourse you have against discrimination (16th), and income tax (14th). So... so long income tax, but also so long to voting for senators for yourself and if you hate black people, white people, brown people, or anyone else, you'll have a free hand to discriminate against them as you please.
Ron Paul preaches government non-interference, but why does that non-interference stop with reproductive rights?
Oh hey, let's not forget the "We The People Act." This little gem would prohibit federal courts (including the SC) from deciding whether state or local laws "the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction. . .or. . .the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws." Yeah, let's get federal courts out of enforcing federal laws. While he's out gutting the court system, he'd also like to see federal courts prohibited from any ruling that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states."
So, for a guy who is interested in "liberty," he's really just interested in trimming the Constitution, narrowing its enforcement scope, and eliminating many of the rights and liberties we take for granted today. I'll pass.
He also wants to return to the gold standard to replace our "valueless" paper currency, which is backed by economic confidence, with currency backed by gold. So, we'd be replacing the collective assumption of value with ... the collective assumption of value of something else. Granted, we've all agreed that gold is worth something for a lot longer than we've agreed that the economy as a whole is worth something, but an assumption is an assumption. Without even delving into the logistical nightmare that a gold standard currency would be, this proposal makes no sense. And, as much as he hates the Federal Reserve, it doesn't take much more than a few minutes of research to realize that the US economy went through booms and busts long before the Fed was around.
Oh, right. We haven't even mentioned the newsletters yet. Regardless of what you believe about who wrote them (though associates of his say he personally signed off on them), one of the following must be true:
1. He lacks the competency to control content published under his own name for over 10 years.
2. He doesn't really believe any of this racist BS, but he considers it an expedient way to motivate racist white people.
3. He doesn't believe it, but put it out there to profit from (these newsletters were raking in a lot of money).
4. He is a fucking racist.
Any one of these reasons make him completely and utterly unfit to be president.
Look at how the gun laws vary from state to state. New York City cops don't spend time worrying about people in Vermont walking around with guns. Vermont cops don't concern themselves with gun bans in NYC.
Virginia doesn't worry about prostitution in Nevada. North Dakota cops ignore California's marijuana laws.
Only about a dozen states don't have a ban on smoking in certain places. Certain counties don't allow alcohol sales. These things cause some people in some places to become annoyed, but they don't cause chaos.
1. I doubt it. We'd have lots more guns here.
2. Why would they WANT to come here if we didn't piss them off over there?
Here's where we need to dig deeper then.
The only possible philosophy that purports "shaking the nests" as a good thing is one that:
A. Focuses only on the job of nest shaking, totally ignoring the devious, underhanded shit that we do while over there which makes the "bad guys" mad at us... &
B. Believes we actually win those skirmishes. Sometimes, like with Nam, we don't. Other times the price is clearly too high. (Like pretty much every other minor war we've fought.)
Don't do that... There IS a right answer here, according to history, and it is summed up in this film:Now who is right and who is wrong? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6U_xJj-eyw]You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy - YouTube[/ame]
Anyone who doesn't believe so is falling for the Media and the government's propaganda, believing in an idea of 'Murica that just doesn't exist.
Dont' be a fool. He doesn't believe in Isolationism at all. That word was not his.
You have been fed lies. Unlearn what you have learned.
Good thing Paul is Campaigning AGAINST all that then.
Stop believing the Media's Lies and watch the film above.
In fact you personally need to watch this film too:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY]Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! - YouTube[/ame]
The CONSTITUTIONALIST (a.k.a. Libertarian) forefathers did so, not the country you live in today. There are many documentaries on the subject of how america's free markets have fallen mightily since the New Deal. Today they are simply a joke and China is the only Superpower left on this planet.
The Navy that you are currently Disrespecting with that post?
They're the one located in Column 1 below under "Ron Paul."
The boogieman can hurt you too. Watch out, he's in your closet!
How can some "terrorists" hurt the USA in their own homeland? Or even in the straight of Hormuz?
They can't attack troops if we don't place them there. They can't attack our oil supply if we don't buy from there. It's so simple that it's just silly to be talking about this.
Again, you have been fed lies about what we need.
Now more than ever. So too believes Paul.
Sadly it's not the world you were told it is anymore. China owns all our debts, is currently even paying for our infrastructure redevelopment that should be done by Americans instead, and in general is the the top dog in everything on this planet.
Worse yet, one day you will come to realize that the USA is not placing bases all over the planet in order to just keep ourselves safer or "maintain global trade." We have, for a long time now, been the "terrorists." We have additionally committed many War Crimes. Face it, the world Hates us and we deserve it. I know it's not something you'll hear about often in the western media though, so I won't call you any names for being ignorant of these facts.
Says who? Camp Romney or camp Obama?
Sounds great to me. Freedom is always a better thing than the alternative.
Ironically, your Avatar would seem that you appreciate freedom. How funny it is to hear you take that stance.
Because that's been working out so well for us to date...
Wow, at least three threads could be dedicated to those stances so I'm going to let someone else tackle this part. Needless to say he has reasons for all of this based on history and sound Economics. Don't let yourself fall for the arguments that the media feeds you here as well.
It does not, and he says it should not.
The fact that he is personally pro-life will never affect his smaller government and fewer-regulation stance.
Again with the fewer freedoms... I demand you change your avatar to something with chains or prison bars in it at once!
His stance as always is for less federal power. If one state wants to be homophobic then there are 49 perfectly good other states for the Gay community to move to while all the homophobes can flock together like they'd be comfortable with. Problem solved, man!
He's a very strict constitutionalist, which means he'd like to trim it back to the vision that the founding fathers had... Taking out all this absolute GARBAGE put in it since the early 1800s... All of which REMOVE liberty & rights.
I'm not even going to go here with you until you can report back about the history of the Petrodollar and what it has done to our monetary system. Until then you sound like a blind man being led around by thieves.
It's Obviously #1, except that you must put it in the past tense, as it happened decades ago and while he was running multiple businesses. So he got slopply decades ago, I'll admit it. Of course that offense is nowhere near as bad as offenses committed by any of the other presidential candidates this year, is it?
And just in case you are thinking he's got a racist bone in his body:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4]The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]
If the government or tribal leader says "go fight" they go fight. You'd have to agree this is true right? It's not like you have a choice if you're a citizen or a follower.
Not all governments give a fuck about the people that live in their country; look at N. Korea for instance. So Having more firepower is not a deterrent in many instances. One sub off of our shore firing one nuke into LA or NY and things are not to good here in the states my friend. I won't even post the ways we're vulnerable to the religious fucktards -- you have an imagination.
They are already pissed off. We have what they want. Or we have what they hate. Or we represent what they hate. We pray to Jesus - they like allah. We have Mcdonalds, they have rocks that you can't farm. We drive Audi's they ride fuckin Camels. Or we: wtf... the list is endless.
They Fuckin Hate Us, just because.
That picture is from Saudi Arabia, where most of the hijackers were from, along with multi-millionaire Osama Bin Laden, who's father was a billionaire.
LOL!
Why us specifically then? Why not someone much closer that they disagree with like the Indians or the Chinese?
Oh yeah... I can think of a reason: WE KEEP FUCKING THEM OVER.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcbPMdBTjwI]Islam: Do they Hate our Freedoms? - YouTube[/ame]
You know I think Islam is the most evil force on the planet, but c'mon! Look deeper into this man! Put yourself into their situation and ask yourself why o why is it the americans that need to perish? Why am I so jealous of Americans versus the Indians? Versus the french? Versus the Brits? The Swedes? The Thai? The Chinese? VERSUS ISRAEL?
There is a big world out there and we are one of the furthest countries from them.
They're going for REVENGE, plain and simple.
The correct response is to stop giving them things to be mad about. History shows that they'll stop trying to take revenge in time. (Example: All past enemies that we left alive.)
I can't believe that with all the information available people are still saying this.
Problem NOT solved. If Ron Paul got his way, civil rights in this country would be set back 100 years. Allowing states to decide that blacks can't attend the same schools as whites or that asians aren't allowed to drive cars is not progress. It's a step back to the day when racism was tolerated, even encouraged.
The rights Ron Paul would remove in the name of liberty, freedom, and the constitution are undeniable rights that every single American relies on. Sure, he wraps it in a sexy message -- less government regulation -- but that doesn't make his reality any more appealing.
No, he would wind back the clock to the days when there were fewer rights. This is the man who repeatedly voted against the Civil Rights Act. Please tell America how the Civil Rights Act removes any liberty, besides the liberty to be a complete fucking racist?
Ron Paul would vote to end Federal courts enforcement of the Constitution on the state level. Again, enlighten us as to how that will restore lost liberties besides restoring the right for states to do as they please when it comes to discrimination.
Ron Paul would remove our ability to elect senators, how is that increased liberty and freedom?
Ron Paul's agenda would undermine the Bill of Rights, restore bigotry, and end the days where people would have recourse against racist and discriminatory state policies. That isn't freedom, it's quite the opposite. The "good old days" weren't that good and, in terms of rights and freedoms, America is a much more free place today than it was 120 years ago.
If I sound like a blind being led by thieves, then the Ron Paulers are nothing more than fools being led on a fool's errand by a man who understands less about economics than he does about String Theory.
Ha, it's #1 for you because that's the only pill that you and other Ron Paulers can swallow. Given that there are now multiple people saying that Paul himself read over these letters, it's unlikely that he had no idea they were being published. It's far more likely that he saw it as an opportunity to make some money and to push his agenda on a receptive audience which makes him even more of a scumbag than Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
As for the fact it was decades ago, that (a) doesn't excuse the absolutely despicable shit he published and (b) there's evidence, such as the stuff Anonymous has picked up, that RP still has close ties to the racist bullshit he spouted 10 years ago. Anonymous might not be the best source, but they only seem to be confirming what is already coming out from more credible sources. Plus, let's not forget that most of Anon were big RP supporters in 2008. I don't see them slandering him unless they found real evidence that he's still the same old racist he was 15 years ago.
Lest we forget, we also have copies of RP's "Reports" from the 1970s which bear more than passing resemblance to the newsletters of the 1990s. If someone else did write those newsletters, they've sure been at it for a long, long time.
Even though you might be smitten by some of RP's ideas, choosing to support him now is an affirmation that this racist bullshit works. There's no doubt that Ron Paul has some good ideas and has some ideas that are decent but he takes way too far, but the reality is that casting your stone for him today means also saying that yes, you can be a fucking racist and still get support and that issues like rights don't matter when you're running for President.
And just in case people haven't had a chance to read these gems, RP (or whoever is writing for him) relentlessly slanders Martin Luther King, preaches about the coming "race war," decries homosexuality, and spouts of numerous conspiracies (AIDs caused by the government, etc).
Some choice quotes:
He skewers the media for suggesting:
On DC rioting:
His newsletters from the 1970s through 1998 are filled with this kind of bullshit.
Considering that his former staffers have spoken up and said that RP had a direct hand in his newsletters and considering that the content, tone, and even editorial style of the newsletters didn't change over nearly 30 years of publication, I'm going to say that actions speak way louder than any words and publishing racist, homophobic rantings for 30 years is a far bigger indicator of what a shitbag he is than a 2 minute PR stunt.
What I find deeply ironic about Ron Paul supporters is that they rage against everyone else for being "indoctrinated," yet are so far down the rabbit hole Ron Paul created that they can't see that they're doing nothing but calling the kettle black. Instead, they all dismiss the accusations against RP as "oh, that happened years ago" or "he couldn't have known" despite the fact that there is evidence he DID know. And, just because he stopped publicly calling blacks "animals" in 1998 doesn't mean that it's acceptable or excusable.
To go back to your original point, though, that RP must just be a poor manager of his brand and not a racist... how does this make him qualified to be President? He wants to eliminate 80% of the federal government and if he already had trouble keeping track of a small number of people who were working IN his offices, how the fuck is he going to manage to run an entire country?
My IQ just dropped two points from attempting to read that socialist piece of redneck rubbish, Mightier.
Here's a film that is more up to your speed:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI]America - Fuck Yeah! - YouTube[/ame]
You have not earned a proper response. At least watch the films I dropped above, they might help you in some way... But I doubt it with that attitude.
Here's a film that is more up to your speed:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWS-FoXbjVI]America - Fuck Yeah! - YouTube[/ame]
You have not earned a proper response. At least watch the films I dropped above, they might help you in some way... But I doubt it with that attitude.
Now who is right and who is wrong? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one
Yes, we should be allowed to disagree on such an important issue. Are we also in agreement that since I think aggression is immoral that I shouldn't have my money stolen to pay for something I'm fundamentally against?
There is a gun in the room that you're ignoring only because it's not currently not pointed at you. That can change.
I'd argue that redheads don't have any rights, but the person inside has infinite liberty and rights. All any law can do is remove these rights.
You've clearly read something somewhere from someone that you trust that gave you these opinions, dig just a little deeper please because you've not even scratched the surface. You're arguing that the master knows best for the slaves and as soon as you realize this, your blood will boil.
Interesting. I see what you're getting at but this is confusing for people because when the constitution was written, it was meant only for white men. And even if you say it wasn't and that the forefathers were just hypocrites (since most owned slaves) and that men are men no matter the color, it certainly doesn't say women. Then you have to really start stretching it there to say oh well men means women. And I would have to say really? cause if I'm in a group of women and you call us a group of men we'll be bewildered at best and offended at worst. (Or let's just call both groups women and be done with it?)
In otherwords, what your saying is nice, but it rarely says "person". Too bad too, because it sure would clear up alot of issues.
They didn't say "White" nor "With male genitalia" so they were obviously negligent in defining a "Man."
Since they were negligent in their definition of Man, you can choose to see it one of two different ways:
A. They left the definition open for future generations to decide according to their temporally-centered view.
B. They just forgot, and therefore we can define it however the hell we want.
Judging by their many wise decisions in the original constitution & bill of rights, I'm going with option A, yet it really doesn't matter. The fact is that we always get to define "Man" ourselves, even when AI-minded androids are running things around here.
That doesn't mean that the whole set of 18th century documentation is up for review; it just means that when something is Undefined, the courts need to define it in a way that makes sense today.