Ron Paul: Love candor; Economy and Foreign policy, not so much.

[sgeppy118]

In regards to many of the Ron Paul opinions out there. First off, I like many things that Ron Paul says and stands for, and I believe on the whole that he has good intentions. BUT, I do think that he tends to oversimplify some very complex problems, namely concerning the economy and foreign policy. Hypothetically speaking, lets envision a world where this 'free market system' dominates. No oversight. Can you imagine Wall Street at a time like that? The corruption would be rampant. If there is one group of people I trust less than politicians, it's wall street and bankers. Self-regulation is a naive concept IMO.Our country is experiencing monopolization of several industries (commodity driven necessities mainly) like gas, cable tv, electricity, etc. Remove all oversight. Essentially give big businesses free reign to exacerbate an already growing problem and then just assume that they will take the moral high road and not abuse the system. Inside trading, price fixing, price gouging: I can't imagine the extent of the abuse. Transparency/accountability will not exist w/o oversight. And as for foreign policy, I agree with not "policing the world" but at the same time an isolationist view in modern times is simply irresponsible. We know of atrocities and have worked to thwart many. We know of threats and need to continue to manage them. The nuclear age needs be dealt with using diplomacy, not a cold shoulder approach.

All in all, looking to the constitution (100's of years old) for outright answers to modern problems is somewhat troubling to me. While everyone knows that our forefathers were revolutionary and visionary for their time, I am fairly certain that they didn't intend for it to be some 'list of rules' (insert favorite religious dogma) that should be blindly followed without considering social and cultural change.

Just my two cents... any thoughts?

 

[Avorysuds]

There is no difference between the world 1,000 years ago and today... It's a simple fact. Only a fool thinks it is.

If you think that the internet and nukes have changed the rules then take a step back in time and watch as every time something new comes along people claim it changes everything... Yet it all stays the same.

 

[paulitician]

In regards to many of the Ron Paul opinions out there. First off, I like many things that Ron Paul says and stands for, and I believe on the whole that he has good intentions. BUT, I do think that he tends to oversimplify some very complex problems, namely concerning the economy and foreign policy. Hypothetically speaking, lets envision a world where this 'free market system' dominates. No oversight. Can you imagine Wall Street at a time like that? The corruption would be rampant. If there is one group of people I trust less than politicians, it's wall street and bankers. Self-regulation is a naive concept IMO.Our country is experiencing monopolization of several industries (commodity driven necessities mainly) like gas, cable tv, electricity, etc. Remove all oversight. Essentially give big businesses free reign to exacerbate an already growing problem and then just assume that they will take the moral high road and not abuse the system. Inside trading, price fixing, price gouging: I can't imagine the extent of the abuse. Transparency/accountability will not exist w/o oversight. And as for foreign policy, I agree with not "policing the world" but at the same time an isolationist view in modern times is simply irresponsible. We know of atrocities and have worked to thwart many. We know of threats and need to continue to manage them. The nuclear age needs be dealt with using diplomacy, not a cold shoulder approach.

All in all, looking to the constitution (100's of years old) for outright answers to modern problems is somewhat troubling to me. While everyone knows that our forefathers were revolutionary and visionary for their time, I am fairly certain that they didn't intend for it to be some 'list of rules' (insert favorite religious dogma) that should be blindly followed without considering social and cultural change.

Just my two cents... any thoughts?

Some good points. I agree with some but disagree with others. Good articulate post though. Thanks.

 

[LibertyForAll]

He is not an isolationist so much as a non-interventionist.

 

[Rocko]

There is no difference between the world 1,000 years ago and today... It's a simple fact. Only a fool thinks it is .

you've just taken moron to a whole other level.

 

[Rocko]

In regards to many of the Ron Paul opinions out there. First off, I like many things that Ron Paul says and stands for, and I believe on the whole that he has good intentions. BUT, I do think that he tends to oversimplify some very complex problems, namely concerning the economy and foreign policy. Hypothetically speaking, lets envision a world where this 'free market system' dominates. No oversight. Can you imagine Wall Street at a time like that? The corruption would be rampant. If there is one group of people I trust less than politicians, it's wall street and bankers. Self-regulation is a naive concept IMO.Our country is experiencing monopolization of several industries (commodity driven necessities mainly) like gas, cable tv, electricity, etc. Remove all oversight. Essentially give big businesses free reign to exacerbate an already growing problem and then just assume that they will take the moral high road and not abuse the system. Inside trading, price fixing, price gouging: I can't imagine the extent of the abuse. Transparency/accountability will not exist w/o oversight. And as for foreign policy, I agree with not "policing the world" but at the same time an isolationist view in modern times is simply irresponsible. We know of atrocities and have worked to thwart many. We know of threats and need to continue to manage them. The nuclear age needs be dealt with using diplomacy, not a cold shoulder approach.

All in all, looking to the constitution (100's of years old) for outright answers to modern problems is somewhat troubling to me. While everyone knows that our forefathers were revolutionary and visionary for their time, I am fairly certain that they didn't intend for it to be some 'list of rules' (insert favorite religious dogma) that should be blindly followed without considering social and cultural change.

Just my two cents... any thoughts?

My thoughts are, you're making too much sense to have a conversation with Ron Paul people.

 

[eflatminor]

While everyone knows that our forefathers were revolutionary and visionary for their time, I am fairly certain that they didn't intend for it to be some 'list of rules' (insert favorite religious dogma) that should be blindly followed without considering social and cultural change.

But they did contemplate social and cultural changes. It's called the amendment process. But we don't have to bother with that silliness anymore now that we have Progressives in charge, with their obvious intellectual superiority.

Checking in on what the Progressives from both parties have given us...

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Hmmm...

 

[Danjb25]

Economy is just that easy, what makes economics complex is when Keynesian economics are followed, in that, the gage for an economies strength is it's ability to consume and not produce. The simple fact is if you do not produce you cannot consume unless the means of consumptions are easily printed or someone is providing you with the means, which in itself backs up the first point. If banks and corporations where not lead to believe that bailouts would come from doing overly risky business, ie. the housing and internet bubble, than they would be less apt to take those risks without compensation. An economy can only grow when the economy can produce, if their is not standard on which production can be based on, such as gold, then a monatery system such as that is doomed to the fallout of inflation. Free markets decide who the winners are and losers are not the government. We have seen this with solyndra and other alternative energy companies. Now, you if pay taxes, your taxes will go to paying back those extremely risky government loans. remember the top 66% pay all of the taxes in america and the bottom 34% pay none, it is from this lower income bracket we see all the demands for big government and careless spending on broken "entitlement" programs and misguided buiseness ventures.

 

[eflatminor]

There is no difference between the world 1,000 years ago and today... It's a simple fact. Only a fool thinks it is .

you've just taken moron to a whole other level.

So, you've proven you're capable of an ad hominem attack. Wonderful. Now, tell us why the Constitution shouldn't apply in these 'modern times'. That is what you're implying, yes?

 

[Rocko]

There is no difference between the world 1,000 years ago and today... It's a simple fact. Only a fool thinks it is .

you've just taken moron to a whole other level.

So, you've proven you're capable of an ad hominem attack. Wonderful. Now, tell us why the Constitution shouldn't apply in these 'modern times'. That is what you're implying, yes?

I wasn't implying anything other than the world is more complicated than it was a thousand years ago. Only a true moron would state otherwise.

Now to your question regarding the constitution, I do believe we need a more constitutional government today, but we can't go back to 1788.

 

[Valox]

A couple of points:

1. Wall St would not exist in a free market environment. Therefore, imagining how Wall St would behave under a free market environment is a futile exercise.

2. Ron Paul's foreign policy is not one of isolationism, but one of non-interventionism. I am surprised how many people confuse these two concept and believe that they are analogous. They are not.

Before you charge Paul with oversimplification of complex issues and naivety, perhaps you should take time to fully understand his positions.

 

[Mad Scientist]

All in all, looking to the constitution (100's of years old) for outright answers to modern problems is somewhat troubling to me. While everyone knows that our forefathers were revolutionary and visionary for their time, I am fairly certain that they didn't intend for it to be some 'list of rules' (insert favorite religious dogma) that should be blindly followed without considering social and cultural change. Just my two cents... any thoughts?

The Constitution wasn't meant to "solve all your modern problems", it was meant to "protect your rights and allow you to solve your problems yourself without the oppressive arm of Gov't running your life".

Also, Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He only appears that way because Americans are so used to being in multiple wars all over the world, at all times, they know nothing else. It seems normal to them.

Ron Paul is all for fighting wars that actually protect our freedoms here at home. Nothing more. He is not anti Military, he is not an isolationist.

Please tell us OP, which of the current wars that we're fighting is doing that?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see all the Paulbots are gathering in one thread. Too bad we can't nuke this thread with them in it. You know, cause having a nuke is a okay.

Nukes for all!

 

[Avorysuds]

There is no difference between the world 1,000 years ago and today... It's a simple fact. Only a fool thinks it is .

you've just taken moron to a whole other level.

Well we have done things your way, "fuck with everyone" and it seems like we are in the predictable situation... 1) we can't pay for it. 2) For spending so much it makes you wonder why the US lives in more fear than most third world countries of a terrorist attack....

Like I said, all these “changes” mean nothing. There has always been war and mass killings.

Oh no, if we don't go to war with Iran they might take over the world, like Hitler!

 

[Avorysuds]

I see all the Paulbots are gathering in one thread. Too bad we can't nuke this thread with them in it. You know, cause having a nuke is a okay.

Nukes for all!

And with people like Newt you will prolly see a WW3 in your lifetime.

I think your blind hate for Paul and pointless support for your new and improved messiah Newt is flat out funny. Must be fun supporting a guy that liked Obamacare, carbon taxes and stealing money from tax payers the "leagal way." Grapms why can't we all be big Government neocons like you... =-D

 

[Avorysuds]

you've just taken moron to a whole other level.

So, you've proven you're capable of an ad hominem attack. Wonderful. Now, tell us why the Constitution shouldn't apply in these 'modern times'. That is what you're implying, yes?

I wasn't implying anything other than the world is more complicated than it was a thousand years ago. Only a true moron would state otherwise.

Now to your question regarding the constitution, I do believe we need a more constitutional government today, but we can't go back to 1788.

Aww look, another liberal that believes we need to re write the constitution to mean the polar opposite of what it said when it was created...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I see all the Paulbots are gathering in one thread. Too bad we can't nuke this thread with them in it. You know, cause having a nuke is a okay.

Nukes for all!

And with people like Newt you will prolly see a WW3 in your lifetime.

I think your blind hate for Paul and pointless support for your new and improved messiah Newt is flat out funny. Must be fun supporting a guy that liked Obamacare, carbon taxes and stealing money from tax payers the "leagal way." Grapms why can't we all be big Government neocons like you... =-D

Let's be real here. I don't hate Paul. I just like fucking with you guys.

The man is far smarter than I will ever be, I just don't want him as potus.

 

[Avorysuds]

I see all the Paulbots are gathering in one thread. Too bad we can't nuke this thread with them in it. You know, cause having a nuke is a okay.

Nukes for all!

And with people like Newt you will prolly see a WW3 in your lifetime.

I think your blind hate for Paul and pointless support for your new and improved messiah Newt is flat out funny. Must be fun supporting a guy that liked Obamacare, carbon taxes and stealing money from tax payers the "leagal way." Grapms why can't we all be big Government neocons like you... =-D

Let's be real here. I don't hate Paul. I just like fucking with you guys.

The man is far smarter than I will ever be, I just don't want him as potus.

Other than the fucking with supporters part I'm fine with your position on Paul, in this post. I don't care if Paul does not appeal to you or someone else, I don't like when people lie as a way to make their position sound like it has some meaning... Paul does not wan Iran to get a nuke nor does he want terrorists to attack the US, as a few of the Paul haters love to say over and over with lack of any proof.

Now when I shit talk Newt it’s based on fact or reality, not made up talking points. That is why I have issue with Newt, because as you Gramps have stated, you have to forgive him on quite a bit of low life scum bag shit… That’s your choice to do that, I shouldn’t be expended to do that nor will I.

 

[dblack]

He is not an isolationist so much as a non-interventionist.

It's sort of mind-blowing that with a military budget equaling the rest of the world's combined, we consider anyone who suggests dialing it back a notch an 'isolationist'. Really fucking nuts when you think about it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

I see all the Paulbots are gathering in one thread. Too bad we can't nuke this thread with them in it. You know, cause having a nuke is a okay. Nukes for all!

We were all told that N. Korea would nuke everyone if they got a nuke but they have at least one now. Tells us Gramps, who has N. Korea nuked?

That's right, no one.