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

[eflatminor]

I wasn't implying anything other than the world is more complicated than it was a thousand years ago.

I say the world is better than it was in the past. We have more wealth, we live longer, we have embraced that concept of a division of labor allowing technology to better our lives. How is the world therefore more complicated? I'd say life to today is far easier than having to hunt or gather food for your daily existence. More importantly, why should the Constitution not apply today exactly as it was intended two hundred years ago? Because we drive cars instead of horses? Because we watch television instead of theater? Exactly what in the modern world renders the Constitution less applicable?

 

[sgeppy118]

Okay, well that was a bit more backlash than I expected for expressing that I generally like someone but think he takes some issues to the Nth degree. Oh well. If you do not think our lives and our foreign affairs have not drastically changed in the last 300 years, well then I'm not sure how to address that. Communication: Horseback to Internet? Trade: month long wooden ships to overnight international air delivery? Anyway, that's just a moot point to even discuss. The world has changed drastically: for better or worse, it has changed. Now on to my issue with Paul's foreign policy. I feel (yes my opinion) that he has some isolationist tendencies. I do not agree or condone policing the world at ALL. The Iraq invasion was totally unjustified. But I do think, as a global community, everyone should decide the best course of action to combat the war tactics. If action is necessary and agreed upon then so be it. Secondly, Paul wants to stop funding DIPLOMATIC efforts, not just military efforts. This is the scariest notion in my mind. War HAS changed. Nuclear war IS a reality, we are exhibit A. Nations have the ability to wipe MASSIVE amounts of people off the face of the earth. And these weapons WILL fall into the wrong hand eventually. As the largest military super power, withdrawing ALL concern for the global community is irresponsible. We should shift our efforts to more diplomacy if anything. Less military. Lastly, stopping ALL humanitarian efforts outside the US is despicable as the wealthiest nation in the world. Look at our lifestyle and tell me we can't afford to help people out, or at the very least feed them. Again these are my opinions, so you don't need to FLAME. I am starting a discussion not a rebellion against Ron Paul.

 

[sgeppy118]

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.

Isolationist is someone who is not in favor of providing any foreign humanitarian aid as well as significantly decreasing funding for DIPLOMATIC efforts. NOT just military. The majority of people are sick of military occupations. Our military is attempting colonization efforts IMO. I say he has isolationist tendencies because of his broader foreign policies, which are almost non-existent if you listen to him on such topics. A candidate like Huntsman, has more attractive opinions in such areas, again IMO.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Do you borrow money to give to charity? That's what we are doing as a country now. Humanitarian aid should be given by private charities and not the federal goverment. How would you feel if a law were passed that required that you send a portion of your salary directly to israel or China? Well we already have that law but with the only difference is it goes through a middle man first. If people wanmt to give them that's fine but don't threaten me with jail for not giving.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I haven't heard him say he would stop diplomatic efforts can you direct me to that?

 

[sgeppy118]

I haven't heard him say he would stop diplomatic efforts can you direct me to that?

Ron Paul concerning the UN. Largest diplomatic organization in the world. Whether you think it is corrupt or not, withdrawing would spark MAJOR concern globally as it is one of the only truly global diplomatic forums, even China recognized that and joined. Here is a quote and a vid, but his views are consistently "non-interventionalist" if that's what you want to call it.

"Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration (Bush at that time) have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect."

20 years, as in I had no interest in ever being part of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=HDXHbgpoI80&feature=player_embedded#

Just one example, if you watch the last foreign policy debate, he talks about having no interest in Iran, Israel, Palestine, or African aids relief programs. Check it out on youtube, I think I watched it on his Youtube channel in fact.

 

[Rocko]

I wasn't implying anything other than the world is more complicated than it was a thousand years ago.

I say the world is better than it was in the past. We have more wealth, we live longer, we have embraced that concept of a division of labor allowing technology to better our lives. How is the world therefore more complicated? I'd say life to today is far easier than having to hunt or gather food for your daily existence. More importantly, why should the Constitution not apply today exactly as it was intended two hundred years ago? Because we drive cars instead of horses? Because we watch television instead of theater? Exactly what in the modern world renders the Constitution less applicable?

What did Benjamin Franklin say about nuclear proliferation???? That's right he had no concept of what nukes were, because they didn't exists.

 

[eflatminor]

I wasn't implying anything other than the world is more complicated than it was a thousand years ago.

I say the world is better than it was in the past. We have more wealth, we live longer, we have embraced that concept of a division of labor allowing technology to better our lives. How is the world therefore more complicated? I'd say life to today is far easier than having to hunt or gather food for your daily existence. More importantly, why should the Constitution not apply today exactly as it was intended two hundred years ago? Because we drive cars instead of horses? Because we watch television instead of theater? Exactly what in the modern world renders the Constitution less applicable?

What did Benjamin Franklin say about nuclear proliferation???? That's right he had no concept of what nukes were, because they didn't exists.

Nuclear power turns turbines, which generate electricity, no difference from the electricity generated by moving water. Nuclear bombs kill people, no differently than conventional bombs...we proved that in Dresden, Germany. Now tell me again how the use of nuclear power renders the Constitution irrelevant? Be specific now. Exactly which of the enumerated powers should be eliminated, which new powers should be granted and tell us why such changes cannot be accomplished through the amendment process. Then tell us how the technology of nuclear power makes life complicated. Again, be specific. Telling us Ben Franklin didn't contemplate nuclear energy is a red herring.

 

[imbalance]

Ron Paul was saying this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9K2ktRZ4T48&NR=1&feature=endscreen]Neal Boortz is AMAZED at Ron Paul's 2002 prediction of the housing bubble - YouTube[/ame]

... as Newt was taking $$ from Fannie to assure Republicans in Congress of the GSE's business model and the sustainability of the housing bubble.

But keep telling yourselves Ron Paul is crazy if that makes you sleep better at night.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I haven't heard him say he would stop diplomatic efforts can you direct me to that?

Ron Paul concerning the UN. Largest diplomatic organization in the world. Whether you think it is corrupt or not, withdrawing would spark MAJOR concern globally as it is one of the only truly global diplomatic forums, even China recognized that and joined. Here is a quote and a vid, but his views are consistently "non-interventionalist" if that's what you want to call it.

"Still, only the most ardent war hawks connected with the administration (Bush at that time) have begun to discuss complete withdrawal from the UN. I have advocated this for twenty years, and have introduced legislation to that effect."

20 years, as in I had no interest in ever being part of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=HDXHbgpoI80&feature=player_embedded#

Just one example, if you watch the last foreign policy debate, he talks about having no interest in Iran, Israel, Palestine, or African aids relief programs. Check it out on youtube, I think I watched it on his Youtube channel in fact.

I will check that out later when I get home since I can't watch it from work.

I think there is a definite separation of diplomacy and foreign aid. He doesn't want to start a war with Iran but has said that he would use diplomacy with them I believe. You didn't answer the question though. Do you borrow money to give to charity? That's what we are doing with foreign aid because our government has spent us into massive debt and I don't think we should be giving anyone any more money. Whether it be Israel or China or Africa. That bit about us being the wealthiest country in the world is crap too because we are financing our philanthropy with debt. If we stopped paying out all this money to other countries and we cut back then we can start to pay down the mountain of debt and maybe lower our taxes so we can spend more money which will benefit the economy even more.

We have been trying to buy friends and the problem with that is when your money runs out so do your friends. Let's face it our money ran out a long time ago and when we print more we devalue the money that's already out there, so we have to stop giving it away.

 

[Rocko]

I say the world is better than it was in the past. We have more wealth, we live longer, we have embraced that concept of a division of labor allowing technology to better our lives. How is the world therefore more complicated? I'd say life to today is far easier than having to hunt or gather food for your daily existence. More importantly, why should the Constitution not apply today exactly as it was intended two hundred years ago? Because we drive cars instead of horses? Because we watch television instead of theater? Exactly what in the modern world renders the Constitution less applicable?

What did Benjamin Franklin say about nuclear proliferation???? That's right he had no concept of what nukes were, because they didn't exists.

Nuclear power turns turbines, which generate electricity, no difference from the electricity generated by moving water. Nuclear bombs kill people, no differently than conventional bombs...we proved that in Dresden, Germany. Now tell me again how the use of nuclear power renders the Constitution irrelevant? Be specific now. Exactly which of the enumerated powers should be eliminated, which new powers should be granted and tell us why such changes cannot be accomplished through the amendment process. Then tell us how the technology of nuclear power makes life complicated. Again, be specific. Telling us Ben Franklin didn't contemplate nuclear energy is a red herring.

I said nuclear weapons specifically, as an example so cut meaningless nonsense out, please.

You're are making the assumption that I want to scrap the constitution, when I clearly stated before, that we need a more constitutional government, but clearly when to comes to issues like congress declaring War, being married to the constitution is out dated.

You seem to have a problem using words that you don't understand, like red-herring and ad-hominem. The moron before said sometime stupid. What he said was completely false and stupid, so I called him a moron, that's not ad-hominem . I gave a specific example that addressed your sophomoric rational of how the world is different. I didn't avoid shit, nor did I fluff things up, like you, with your nuclear energy crap.

 

[Rocko]

I say the world is better than it was in the past. We have more wealth, we live longer, we have embraced that concept of a division of labor allowing technology to better our lives. How is the world therefore more complicated? I'd say life to today is far easier than having to hunt or gather food for your daily existence. More importantly, why should the Constitution not apply today exactly as it was intended two hundred years ago? Because we drive cars instead of horses? Because we watch television instead of theater? Exactly what in the modern world renders the Constitution less applicable?

What did Benjamin Franklin say about nuclear proliferation???? That's right he had no concept of what nukes were, because they didn't exists.

Nuclear power turns turbines, which generate electricity, no difference from the electricity generated by moving water. Nuclear bombs kill people, no differently than conventional bombs...we proved that in Dresden, Germany. Now tell me again how the use of nuclear power renders the Constitution irrelevant? Be specific now. Exactly which of the enumerated powers should be eliminated, which new powers should be granted and tell us why such changes cannot be accomplished through the amendment process. Then tell us how the technology of nuclear power makes life complicated. Again, be specific. Telling us Ben Franklin didn't contemplate nuclear energy is a red herring.

Ron Paul shit-brained logic. Nuclear weaponry adds to the complexity of war ten-fold. Its only war, we live in a different world all together with cyber attacks, intellectual property, different modes of production, ect............

That fact that you don't acknowledge simple truth is tell-tell. You're just blindly following the leader.

 

[eflatminor]

What did Benjamin Franklin say about nuclear proliferation???? That's right he had no concept of what nukes were, because they didn't exists.

Nuclear power turns turbines, which generate electricity, no difference from the electricity generated by moving water. Nuclear bombs kill people, no differently than conventional bombs...we proved that in Dresden, Germany. Now tell me again how the use of nuclear power renders the Constitution irrelevant? Be specific now. Exactly which of the enumerated powers should be eliminated, which new powers should be granted and tell us why such changes cannot be accomplished through the amendment process. Then tell us how the technology of nuclear power makes life complicated. Again, be specific. Telling us Ben Franklin didn't contemplate nuclear energy is a red herring.

Ron Paul shit-brained logic. Nuclear weaponry adds to the complexity of war ten-fold. Its only war, we live in a different world all together with cyber attacks, intellectual property, different modes of production, ect............

That fact that you don't acknowledge simple truth is tell-tell. You're just blindly following the leader.

And still you can't answer the questions with any specificity, logic or reason...just the same old 'modern times' argument we've heard from Progressives for years. I suppose if you say it's so, it must be. Thank you for sharing you intellectual prowess...impressive.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Here are two quotes from an interesting essay Ron Paul wrote about diplomacy using trade versus using sanctions.


"The unintended consequences of our confrontational policies toward Iran may be to actually encourage them to seek nuclear weapons capabilities. We should be using diplomacy rather than threats and hostility."

and

"We must change our foreign policy to one of economic freedom and diplomacy. That is the only way to promote peace and prosperity. This race to war against Iran and Syria is both foolhardy and dangerous."

Both quotes are from this essay...


Ron Paul: Economic Freedom and Diplomacy Lead to Peace & Prosperity

 

[sgeppy118]

I like the discussion, there are some interesting opinions when you discuss someone so different from the norm like Ron Paul. I think has it been pretty well established that things have changed, so I don't see the need to dwell on that. Entertaining the notion that the way things are done now are even remotely close to how they were done 300 years ago is just illogical. Aspects of mentality or instinct may be similar, but the tools and 'rules' (if you will) have changed drastically. I won't insult anyone with more examples. I would like to comment on the foreign policy discussion from a bit earlier, namely the US burrowing money from other countries to pay for humanitarian efforts. It's definitely an interesting question.

So where do we stand? US is the wealthiest nation in the world should our gov't which represents its people, continue humanitarian efforts abroad and look for other areas of the budget to adjust? (Tax code, military spending, etc)

OR... Should we discontinue ALL foreign humanitarian aid, or at least until our economy reaches equilibrium. Do we have some moral obligation to help when we know we can?

 

[LibertyForAll]

Well my position is that we can't afford it and we aren't in a position to hand out money any more. Even if we were is it the governments place to forcibly take money from me to give it to foreign countries even if they need it? My family needs it too.

The money is taken forcibly too because I cannot opt out of income tax and once I pay it I have very little control of how it is spent. I can vote but that's about it.

There is no question that the world is different now than it was 300 years ago but there are some truths that never change. I believe the concept of liberty is one of them. Most of our religious texts were written thousands of years ago but they hold truths that many cling to even today. We should no more close our minds to the knowledge and ideas of our forefathers than we would new ideas and innovations. Sometimes the old ways ARE the best!!!

 

[sgeppy118]

But in reality, we are a representative democracy. Not a true democracy. So we give our representatives the power to allocate our funds. So I'm not sure how relevant the 'forcibly taking' can be established or remedied in a representative democracy. It's not a perfect system, but it's what it is. The gov't speaks on its peoples behalf. I see what you mean about handing out money and the dangers it poses. But should we suspend all programs. Say medicine in third world countries. Education. etc etc. Things that American has represented for hundreds of years. I think that should not be an option. We the people (and gov't) should behave morally and LEAD by example.

 

[Rocko]

Nuclear power turns turbines, which generate electricity, no difference from the electricity generated by moving water. Nuclear bombs kill people, no differently than conventional bombs...we proved that in Dresden, Germany. Now tell me again how the use of nuclear power renders the Constitution irrelevant? Be specific now. Exactly which of the enumerated powers should be eliminated, which new powers should be granted and tell us why such changes cannot be accomplished through the amendment process. Then tell us how the technology of nuclear power makes life complicated. Again, be specific. Telling us Ben Franklin didn't contemplate nuclear energy is a red herring.

Ron Paul shit-brained logic. Nuclear weaponry adds to the complexity of war ten-fold. Its only war, we live in a different world all together with cyber attacks, intellectual property, different modes of production, ect............

That fact that you don't acknowledge simple truth is tell-tell. You're just blindly following the leader.

And still you can't answer the questions with any specificity, logic or reason...just the same old 'modern times' argument we've heard from Progressives for years. I suppose if you say it's so, it must be. Thank you for sharing you intellectual prowess...impressive.

Try reading #31 till you get the point.

 

[LibertyForAll]

How can we give any money to other countries for any reason when we have children in our own country that are homeless, hungry and in need of healthcare, I would be in favor of helping them first. Not by giving them money because thats one of the reasons we are in this mess. You don't go paint your neighbors house when your own roof is caving in. Let's fix our problems at home and then when the country is more prosperous we can help others.

Charity should not be federally mandated anyway. There is nothing wrong with people who have extra, sending money to help kids in other countries who need medicine. There are a lot of good hearted people who will do that.

By the way, I wasn't railing against income tax, I was just saying that the law says if I don't pay taxes I go to jail. We allow the government to take this money partly out of fear of the repercussions and partly because it is our civic duty to pay taxes to fund the government. Our government, however, takes our money that is supposed be used to fund our government and gives it to other governments. To me that is slap in the face of the american people.

 

[WatertheTree]

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?

Just because you dont want to end up at the destination doesnt mean you should not be walking in that direction.