Welcome to Mountain Buzz, the ultimate paddlers community. You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to most of our features. By joining our community (it's FREE) you will have access to post topics, send Private Messages (PM), respond to polls, upload content, connect with other paddlers and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
Did you go to the caucus? How was Ron Paul perceived? I personally would have liked to see Paul and Kucinich in the final battle. Looks unlikely that that will be even half right.
I don't see it going well for the R side though. Primary turnout has been 25 million for D and only 12.5 million for R. The right is just not excited about any of the candidates. I think their biggest problem is going to be- in order to secure the Republican nomination, they have to pander to the hard right and go pro-war. Then, whoever gets the nod will have to do a 180 in order to win the general election. That just won't fly.
-d
__________________
"I think I handled my alcohol pretty well considering how drunk I was." -Cousin Dan
Ok guys, I guess I have to plead some ignorance regarding Ron Paul. I heard a little bit about him and dismissed him as an extremist Libertarian type. What is it about him that you guys like? From the little I've heard, a few things sound nice, but a lot more scares me.
I'm in agreement with his stance on Iraq - that basically it's an unjust war. He rails against corrupt government subsides in areas like oil, logging, and health care industries - can't argue with that - good luck. But, at least as far as I know, his general philosophy is the solution to all our problems involve tax exemptions and elimination of government organizations (Dept. of Education??).
I've never been able to get behind the Libertarian philosophy. It's important to keep government in check and continue to try to target wastefulness, but I feel government provides a critical role in keeping our society healthy. So I'm curious about the attraction to RP. Is it that you agree with the Libertarian philosophy, or is there something else to this guy?
He's the only one that is being realistic about the financial state of the US. The PRIVATELY OWNED bank, called the Fed Reserve, prints money (illegal), loans it to the US government, then the gov pays them back with interest. Wish I could print money too and earn interest without any capital. The quantity of US dollars in circulation has risen by unprecented levels. Since it isn't pegged to gold, there's no limit on what can be printed. Wouldn't that be a bummer if a company did that, just kept selling stock over and over again? Same sort of thing. The gov't is going broke, and it is benefiting the few and the elite.
He is also the only one that says anything meaningful, even if I don't agree with it all.
RP's education thing is taken way out of context. He is a strict constitutionalist and points out where the federal gov't is in violation of the constitution. He says if we want the fed gov't doing education, put it in the constitution, make the change necessary to have it done legitimately.
this can sound pretty extreme, but when you read/learn enough about what he has to say it is amazing how far off track we are.
I too don't agree with the strict libertarian argument, many of them are off the deep end. But I never agree fully with any politician.
Everyone else is just part of the establishment. Dems/Repubs, just two different mafia families.
I don't pretend to understand his whole message because I've been trained like the rest of America to listen to platitudes from politicians for so long. But every time I listen to a debate or read his policies, I am enlightened. (Ronpaul2008.com is the best place to go to understand his policies). We have gotten so far off track, we don’t even see it. I was for going into Iraq. Hell, I even voted for Bush. Now I see the light. I was under the false assumption that, if the UN isn’t going to step up and enforce it’s own sanctions, then it was just up to Team America World Police to do it. That was before I became educated on exactly what the purpose of our military and foreign aid is (and it isn’t humanitarian). Suggested reading: Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
The two biggest issues in voters minds right now are the economy and Iraq and Paul is the only one who has an answer that makes any bit of sense on both issues. I listen to the other candidates and want to vomit. (At least Huckaby has a bit of a clue on the economy and is somewhat straight about the trouble we’re in). Romney agrees that giving tax rebate checks to spur consumer spending is the answer. Let’s see now, we have a $8.2 trillion national debt so that money is borrowed from China. We have a staggering trade deficit so what we are buying is produced in China. As Ron Paul says, “Exactly whose economy are we stimulating?” The other touted solution to the economy is to lower interest rates to stimulate borrowing and purchasing. Ihowment already explained how this deflates the value of our currency and basically transfers money out or your and my bank accounts into the pockets of the government and the wealthy elite in addition to creating messes like we now have with the housing market.
Of course the democrats believe giving tax cuts to people that do nothing to create jobs will somehow stimulate the economy. Whatever. I wish they would just admit they are buying votes.
Paul is straight when asked the question, what will you do to stimulate the economy… It’s not the government’s job to stimulate the economy. The producers of this nation stimulate the economy. Someone getting a negative amortization loan to buy a house they can’t afford or buying a Plasma TV on credit doesn’t stimulate the economy (at least not in a way that’s sustainable). Taxing the rich to give to the poor doesn’t stimulate the economy. The Government’s job is to keep taxes low, provide a stable currency, and to not punish those who have the initiative to produce and provide jobs.
His basic message, which I wholeheartedly agree with, is that the people are the ones that drive this country, that stimulate the economy, that educate our children, that care for the poor. The government's role is purposefully limited to do such things as protect each person's inherent rights, to prevent an elite few from controlling the masses (the oligarchy we have now) and to protect the sovereignty of the country. Everything else they are going to fuck up. If you need proof, open your eyes.
I also believe he has the only realistic way of dealing with Iraq. He has a non-interventionist foreign policy (not isolationist) that would stop us from being Team America - World Police. I don’t think the Republicans are realistic in thinking we can bring democracy to that part of the world at least not without going broke and loosing thousands of more soldiers and having a permanent police presence there. I don’t think the Democrats have thought about the implications of pulling out while we still have military bases over there. Terrorists will think they can push us around and terrorist will flood into the country to continue the battle against the evil West. But now consider Paul getting elected and announcing to the world the United States’ new non-interventionist foreign policy. In accordance with our Constitution, The United States will immediately start pulling their troops out of all 130 foreign countries that we have bases in. You have to ask yourself why are there terrorists? What would we think about China having military bases on our soil, trying to bring their form of government to us no matter how well intentioned? Yes there will be internal wars and killing, but isn’t that what the UN is suppose to deal with? When did it become our responsibility along with the economic burden and the loss of our soldier’s lives? Our job is to protect our country against aggression. If a threat is posed, like Osama Bin Laden, then we have the military strength to deal with it after getting a declaration of war from Congress.
I also like his message on all the other issues that seem to divide voters like gay marriage, and abortion. It a message that both democrats and republicans can get behind. It’s not the federal government’s responsibility to decide social issues. Ron Paul put it best: “The notion that an all-powerful, centralized state should provide monolithic solutions to the ethical dilemmas of our times is not only misguided, but also contrary to our Constitution. Remember, federalism was established to allow decentralized, local decision- making by states. Today, however, we seek a federal solution for every perceived societal ill, ignoring constitutional limits on federal power. The result is a federal state that increasingly makes all-or-nothing decisions that alienate large segments of the population.” “Why are we so afraid to follow the Constitution and let state legislatures decide social policy? Surely people on both sides of the abortion debate realize that it's far easier to influence government at the state and local level. The federalization of social issues, originally championed by the left but now embraced by conservatives, simply has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens. Once we accepted the federalization of abortion law under Roe, we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues.” Darren, no I couldn’t go to the caucuses because I’m unaffiliated. I wish I could have and certainly would have if I was a registered republican. It’s kind of a weird system. I think Ron Paul would be doing better if it wasn’t just registered republicans that were allowed to vote for him. I think there are a lot of independents and democrats that would be voting for him if allowed. I just hope he runs as an independent after he doesn’t get the Republican nomination.
On that note. I just recieved an email that Ron Paul is not going to run as a third party candidate bacause of his commitment to his republican constituency in his home state. He will continue on in the Republican presidential race with the hopes of simply getting the message out. Too bad but I understand his conviction.
I've never been able to get behind the Libertarian philosophy. It's important to keep government in check and continue to try to target wastefulness, but I feel government provides a critical role in keeping our society healthy. So I'm curious about the attraction to RP. Is it that you agree with the Libertarian philosophy, or is there something else to this guy?
To answer that question I would have to know how you think our government is keeping society healthy.
You mention the Department of Education for one. Ron Pauls response is:
"After more than 40 years of massive federal education spending, the inescapable conclusion is that federal control is failing. By any objective standards, our public schools are worse than ever. Policies regarding curricula and discipline, once set by local teachers and principals working closely with parents, are now established in Washington. I believe that parents and teachers know what is best for their schools at the local level. The key to reforming public education in America is returning local control back to our public schools."
I don't hear the libertarians talking of giving more control to grassroots locals ,if that were the case it would be more palatable,I hear them advocating giving free riegn to business,maybe i' m wrong..tO ME THEY ARE MERELY TAKING POWER FROM GOVERNMENT AND HANDING IT OVER TO BUSINESS. I trust business even less than government. The arguement goes that business is more efficient than government,but what difference does it make to you and I IF THE DIFFERENTIAL IN PRODUCTIVITY Primarily goes to the wealthy anyway.Marginally better for us ,a boon to them and a shitty culture and raped environment.Business a- holes only want one thing,more money ,usually try to get more with less and less contribution
I don't hear the libertarians talking of giving more control to grassroots locals ,
Actually that is exactly what Libertarians are for. Do you think the two party system we have now favors the "grassroots local"? Where are Clinton and McCain getting their millions from? Not from "grassroots locals" but businesses with something at stake. Paul's whole campaign is based on grassroots local support. Do you think any big businesses support his message? Hardley. A vast amount of small businesses support him though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cayo 2
I hear them advocating giving free riegn to business,maybe i' m wrong..tO ME THEY ARE MERELY TAKING POWER FROM GOVERNMENT AND HANDING IT OVER TO BUSINESS. I trust business even less than government. The arguement goes that business is more efficient than government,but what difference does it make to you and I IF THE DIFFERENTIAL IN PRODUCTIVITY Primarily goes to the wealthy anyway.Marginally better for us ,a boon to them and a shitty culture and raped environment.Business a- holes only want one thing,more money ,usually try to get more with less and less contribution
You need to see the distinction between business and corporatocracy. Business is necessary if we are going to have an economy. Doesn't a business provide your salary? And business has the motive (profit) to be efficient and profitable where government does not. Trust me I've worked public and private sector and my jobs with the governement have been a joke - the epitomy of waste.
The problem you're talking about comes when the government becomes beholden to corporations like it is now. Then you have a corporatocracy where the corporations control the governement. That is exaclty what Libertarians are against (and the current crop of Democrats and Republicans evidently are for). The reason Washinton is so corrupt is because we've given it so much power. Of course the corporations are going to flock to it throwing dollars left and right. If you scale back the government like the Libertarians espouse, the corporations wouldn't have any reason to flock to Washington to try to buy it off.
I'm not defending Libertarians, I don't know their whole Platform. Ron Paul is a Republican with Libertairan philosophies.
__________________ I hope in the future Americans are thought of as a warlike, vicious people, because I bet a lot of high schools would pick "Americans" as their mascot. -Jack Handy
Linear Mode
