Ron Paul On The Record

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
481

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
It’s unfortunate that whenever all else criticism fails against a given individual, regardless of whoever he or she is, the race card is invariably supplied for the purposes which are probably unnecessary to explicate.[/quote]

I disagree. I think his own words are very important. Perhaps he had nothing to do with the shit that was in his newsletter but his comments about the TSA employees are vert telling. He did not seem to be criticizing them based on their competence, rather he was taking potshots based on race. A foolish stance for a public figure.

As I have said I like a number of his positions but I think he is a bit too dogmatic, extreme and nutty to be president.

He is an entertaining and useful congressman. I hope his presence can push the Republicans back towards smaller government (or at least slower growth) but I think he would be a disaster as president.

482

While Ron Paul’s ideas are good, this system is too well entrenched. No one, including Mr. Paul, can turn back the clock. Too many people feed off the system.

Every empire that rose to world power bankrupted itself. Its competitors don’t have the burden of being the world-police and have a competitive advantage. Our competitors today don’t have all the social welfare burdens that we do (no Social Security in China, for ex).

The only solution is to establish a world empire that HAS no competitors.

483

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The only solution is to establish a world empire that HAS no competitors.
[/quote]

Considering the extraordinary debt of the federal government such an idea is, aside from the immorality it presents, is an impractical solution. Worse, without any competition a global tyranny would inevitably develop, perhaps with astonishing swiftness.

484

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
As I have said I like a number of his positions but I think he is a bit too dogmatic, extreme and nutty to be president.

He is an entertaining and useful congressman. I hope his presence can push the Republicans back towards smaller government (or at least slower growth) but I think he would be a disaster as president.[/quote]

What do you mean “extreme and nutty”? Compared to who!?

You say Ron Paul would be “a disaster as president” but you’d probably vote for Bush a third time if you could.

We need a “radical” to break from the establishment now more than ever. One of the greatest things about Paul is that he transcends party lines. He could actually restore some unity to this country. I know as many Democrats who dig this guy as I do Republicans.

485

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The only solution is to establish a world empire that HAS no competitors.
[/quote]

Perhaps another solution would be to ensure that your reach does not exceed your grasp.

486

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The only solution is to establish a world empire that HAS no competitors.

Considering the extraordinary debt of the federal government such an idea is, aside from the immorality it presents, is an impractical solution. Worse, without any competition a global tyranny would inevitably develop, perhaps with astonishing swiftness.[/quote]

I wasn’t considering morality at all, just the reality of the situation. The people running this monstrosity are far smarter and well-versed than any of us. They know that they can’t debase a currency forever. What do you think things like the World Bank and the IMF were created for? By enmeshing all of these countries, by tying everyone together through all of these organisations, you get one neck ready for one leash.

I suspect that when the crisis comes, it’ll be a choice between a world that dissolves into robber gangs fighting each other, or a worldwide tyranny under these international organisations. They will try to do the latter.

487

[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The only solution is to establish a world empire that HAS no competitors.

Perhaps another solution would be to ensure that your reach does not exceed your grasp.
[/quote]

Ummm…they’ve got a monopoly on military power and lots of weapons I’m sure none of us has ever heard of. How do you propose to stop that?

The United States is currently a liberal democracy. How will places like Iran be dealt with, when that’s no longer the case?

488

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
…

What do you mean “extreme and nutty”? Compared to who!?

…[/quote]

Everyone looks sane compared to you.

489

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
Nominal Prospect wrote:
Will they grimace after Ron Paul makes a strong second-or-first place showing in the Straw Poll on Saturday?

I look forward to it.

While my support for the Republican nomination is indeed Ron Paul it isn’t necessarily wise to be too overly boastful of any predictions at the coming Iowa straw poll. Keep in mind however that even a somewhat weak showing will not necessarily be indicative of the future. Dr. Paul’s campaign is apparently growing on daily basis.

If, however, on the outside chance that Dr. Paul display a strong showing emerge at the coming Iowa Straw Poll however so much the better.[/quote]

It’s not exactly boasting. Do some searching on the net. Read the articles linked on this thread. Lots of commentators are predicting that he could take second.

The only candidate who has campaigned more actively than Paul in Iowa is Romney. So let’s play it safe and assume he wins. Who’s going to beat out Paul for second? Not Rudy or McCain - they chose not to enter. Not Fred - he hasn’t declared.

Who, then? Someone from the second-tier?

Paul is undeniably at the forefront of “second tier” candidates (in terms of funds on hand, he surpasses all of them) and will soon be part of the top tier.

No boasting. Just the predictions of a well-informed observer. Watch and see.

490

[quote]JeffR wrote:
However, the real world doesn’t operate like that. There are consequences to that action that would reach our borders. [/quote]

Wasn’t that the same argument war-mongers presented for staying in Vietnam?

491

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

“To maintain our current account deficit we borrow almost $3 billion a day,” he tells me. “It’s unsustainable. It will end. And it’s going to end in a worse fashion than it did in 1979 and 1980, when interest rates went to 21 percent.”

I must not have reacted as he expected, because he presses on. “Nobody seems to care,” he says. “It will slip back into a government run by tyrants, where you can’t go from one state to another – you have to show your papers. It already exists on the airlines.”

I can agree that defict spending will eventually catch up and cause some problems. His second statement about not being allowed to go from state to state makes him sound like a lunatic.[/quote]

There is an extensive library of his writing and speeches available. You don’t have to guess how the man expresses himself - you can go and read for yourself.

Those comments do not sound like something he would say or write. And what do you know? He claims he wasn’t the one who said them.

I believe him, and I don’t see what reason you could come up with for not doing the same.

PC bullshit aside, his remark about airport security screeners was not inaccurate. You have to realize that staunch libertarians don’t have a whole lot of respect for government workers. If there was any inherent bias in his statement, it was geared to his libertarian/constitutionalist roots, not any racist beliefs. As someone who is very familiar with how libertarians think and express themselves, I can clearly read between the lines on this one.

On his predictions for the future of this country, he sounds less like a conspiracy nut than a historian. No astute observer of history fails to acknowledge the link between a country’s economic climate and it’s socio-political one.

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
It’s unfortunate that whenever all else criticism fails against a given individual, regardless of whoever he or she is, the race card is invariably supplied for the purposes which are probably unnecessary to explicate.[/quote]

They did it to Buchanan in '96, effectively sabotaging his campaign, and you can be sure they will try it with Paul to the maximum extent that they can get away with it. However, Paul has basically a perfect record and will be harder to go after.

492

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
cloakmanor wrote:
It’s unfortunate that whenever all else criticism fails against a given individual, regardless of whoever he or she is, the race card is invariably supplied for the purposes which are probably unnecessary to explicate.

They did it to Buchanan in '96, effectively sabotaging his campaign, and you can be sure they will try it with Paul to the maximum extent that they can get away with it. However, Paul has basically a perfect record and will be harder to go after.
[/quote]

Indeed. Through out his political career Dr. Paul’s voting record has, with quite astonishing accuracy, reflected his verbal proclamations. This particular fact beyond any other consideration will likely make any false accusations leveled against him exceedingly difficult.

In fact, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, many individuals appear to be voting for Dr. Paul due almost exclusively to his consistency. This appears to hold true despite moderate to even major disagreements with some and even many of his proposed policies and ideas.

Regardless of the outcome of his campaign the results have already been rather surprising.

494

[quote]cloakmanor wrote:
In fact, from what I’ve been able to ascertain, many individuals appear to be voting for Dr. Paul due almost exclusively to his consistency. This appears to hold true despite moderate to even major disagreements with some and even many of his proposed policies and ideas.
[/quote]

Quite right. Every single one of my very liberal friends and colleagues who I have been able to talk to about Paul have agreed that even though they might disagree with his beliefs about abortion, guns, health care, or immigration they like his overall message and the fact that he seems honest and principled. Fortunately for them they don’t have to register as a Rep in the state of MN to vote in the primary.

I was able to convince them by explaining to them the difference between a statist and a non-statist and show how non-statism could still be consistent with both the social liberal and conservative principles as long as the federal government follows the Constitution.

I also told them that if indeed Paul got elected and it sucked it would only last 4 years and that they would be sacrificing nothing with a vote for him. In other words, compared to the current administration we have nothing to lose.

495

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You’re going to have to tell me what exactly is so surprising about a guy who never gets over 2% to 3% in any legitimate poll?
[/quote]

Sure, as soon as you explain what a legitimate poll is.

496

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
I think he would have to actually be a viable candidate before anyone bothered to level any sort of false accusations against him. So…no worries on that point.
[/quote]

Explain to me why he isn’t a viable candidate.

497

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
I think he would have to actually be a viable candidate before anyone bothered to level any sort of false accusations against him. So…no worries on that point.

Explain to me why he isn’t a viable candidate.[/quote]

40,000 nationally? On an internet poll? Were there any safeguards to stop people from voting twice?

Get serious.

JeffR

498

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Explain to me why he isn’t a viable candidate.[/quote]

Because polls like this require voluntary participation and Uncle Ron’s internet legions converge on polls like this in order to produce the numbers you see?

Note in the bottom corner of your poll how it says [u]Not a Scientific Survey[/u]?

This poll is about as serious as ESPN’s “Who’s More NOW?” - hate to spoil your fantasy.

Don’t forget everyone - Lifticus is an “intellectual” and an “academic” who can’t even recognize what a call-in poll looks like.

This same thing occurred during the Howard Dean phenomenon, if you were paying attention.

499

[quote]JeffR wrote:
40,000 nationally? On an internet poll? Were there any safeguards to stop people from voting twice?
[/quote]
I don’t know if this ABC Poll is in anyway accurate. I was not able to vote twice even after clearing my cache and cookie register. I was able to vote again from a different computer which means they might be tracking IP addresses. That is circumventable but not to most average users like myself.

I do not think the internet is a viable way to gather statistics especially when confronted with motivated computer geeks but I have to wonder is the amount of support for Paul that disproportionate in this area…the MSM seems to think so. It must be true.

500

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t forget everyone - Lifticus is an “intellectual” and an “academic” who can’t even recognize what a call-in poll looks like.
[/quote]
I never once stated I think these polls are scientific–no poll in the history of news media has ever been scientific–would you even know if you saw one? I highly doubt it.

Scientific data collection requires a controlled environment and the ability to recognize uncertainty–news media is never uncertain. They always report facts.

Self-selecting polls are only good at gathering information about how motivated people are…so my question stands: why aren’t other supporters as motivated as Paul supporters?