Presidential Candidate Thread: Is Ron Paul good for the country?

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<p>A McCain nomination gives me serious concerns about the future of this nation and I, too, would lean towards Obama as someone who has the potential to unite the country enough to foster change and move forward. If we lose our superpower status in the next quarter to half century, historians may point to the life and times we are living now when our nation voted to deadlock Congress, spread ourselves too thin, and continued loss of international support by folling up two terms of Little Bush with McCain.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/World_captivated_by_US_presidential_02012008.html">http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/World_captivated_by_US_presidential_02012008.html</a></p>
 
Wow. Most people won't openly voice their hatred for the men and women protecting our country in such a crude manner. Would you care to explain why you think that firing missiles at members of the US armed forces is of no concern to us?





On to paragraph 2.





Palestine isn't a country. The government of Lebanon isn't a problem, (Iranian backed) Hamas is the problem. I do support doing whatever is necessary to take care of the problems with Syria and Iran.





>Libya was largely contained by the international community through the use of economic sanctions and condemnation.





You don't follow the news very closely, do you? Libya came disarmed itself when it exposed an unknown nuclear and chemical program in late 2003. They were able to do this despite the "containment by the international community" that you think was effective. They came clean because Khadaffi saw what happened to Saddam Hussein and didn't want to be next.





>North Korea, Iran, and Cuba remain largely contained as a result of similar actions.





See my previous comment about the news.





North Korea has an active nuclear program. So does Iran. To the best of my knowledge, Cuba does not.





Also, the only country of note with any economic sanctions against Iran is the United States.
 
<p>Winex,</p>

<p>1) I did not say that Iraq firing on our military is not a concern, I said it is not a general threat to our nation and certainly not one that necessitated us to invade a country (at least not a legitimate basis.) We were flying planes over Iraq to impose a no-fly zone, that is a lot different that Osama sending his minions over to attack the WTC. We certainly did not invade Somalia or Yugoslavia when they attacked and killed our military forces.</p>

<p>2) I guess we will have agree to disagree about invading other countries to promote our own agendas. </p>

<p>3) Libya disarmed itself and joined the rest of world for the same reason China gave into capitalism: Money. Libya has been largely irrelevant for the past 20 years and finally realized that fighting the entire world was getting old. Libya was not afraid of being invaded when Reagan launched missiles and bombs into Tripoli? Libya is too irrelevant now for the U.S. to invade.</p>

<p>4) Like I said, containment does not equate complete control. Your point about Libya backs up my argument perfectly. Libya allegedly had "nuclear" power but did not use it. Why? Because it made more sense for them to work with the world than against it. China has the bomb and the military might to crush Taiwan but has not done so because it is not is its interest (especially now) to do so. Conservative tend to think that if we are big and bad enough, everyone will listen to us. They forget that most people hate bullies and resent them for their arrogance, no matter what country one is from. </p>
 
Khadaffi just jumped out at the best moment - not out of fear but at the level of acceptance and cooperation he would find. Just look at how he is being celebrated rather than villyfied - and he is probably making millions in the process.





The republican administration loves to equate causation with correlation - but that is mostly a fallacy. Yet when people reason through emotions and gut feelings it tends to work. Any reasonable person would take a critical look at any of these statements.
 
<p>IrvineCommuter,</p>

<p>Please read this:</p>

<p><em>"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?</em></p>

<p><em>But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.</em></p>

<p><em>So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency."</em></p>

<p>If you took the time to read it, it should be obvious that the numbers are a bit old. That speech was given on national TV in 1964 by Ronald Reagan in support of Barry Goldwater's bid for the Presidency. 44 years have passed and, when added to the 30 Reagan refers to in the first paragraph, liberals have been making the same claims and proposing the same solutions for almost 75 years. The solution to every problem is always more government, more money, more laws... and yet the problem never seems to go away. These problems never get solved or even reduced in size or scope even when the programs and expenditures on them get increased in size and scope, sometimes exponentially. The same issues Johnson and Kennedy and Roosevelt were elected to "fix" in the name of humanity and "treating the causes of that problem". Even if we stipulate the cause (I don't, by the way) it should be painfully obvious that liberal solutions haven't EVER worked nor made a dent.</p>

<p>As for foreign policy... caring about what the would thinks about us is what got us into the mess in the first place and both parties are guilty. Clinton had ample time, evidence, and ability tovaporize bin Laden and the entirety of his forces but it would have required action being taken on a unilateral basis regardless of international outrage. Bush 41 could have removed Saddam in '91, Reagan could have never helped the mujahideen in Afghanistan or the Contras in Nicaragua, Kennedy could have told Diem to go screw, etc..</p>
 
<p>Nude,</p>

<p>I am not quite sure about your point. Is your take that we should just give up and let the poor people go because nothing can be done? I hope not because I am not so secure in my wealth to be able to ignore a large segment of the population that is less fortunate than me. Society is not just about one person's pursuit of his or her own happiness. . . it is also about helping society in general achieve higher and greater levels. I prefer the concept of a "social contract" over the idea of "social darwinism." Maybe naive but I would like to think that we can achieve a greater good than just lining my own pockets. </p>

<p>Second, without "liberal" solutions, we would still have corporate monopoly, child labor, deadly working conditions, widespread poverty, racial, gender, and economic segregations, and severe pollution. Just look at the United States between 1890 and 1910 when the government was small and lassiez faire the rule of the land. It is because of "liberal" policies like the New Deal, the 19th Amendment, that kooky Civil Rights Act of 1968 that has allowed individuals other than white males to actually achieve the American dream, rather than to talk about it. </p>

<p>I also do not see your connection between caring about our image in the world with the examples you listed.</p>

<p>1) It is debatable as to what Clinton did or did not know about Bin Laden. Even assuming he did know, it was pressure within the United States (most notably the Republican) that stopped him from pursuing a more aggressive foreign policy (see Somlia and Kosovo). Btw, I do not think of Clinto as the great "liberal" president. . .he was largely an opportunist and a moderate.</p>

<p>2) Bush 41 never intended to remove Saddam in 1991. He just wanted Saddan out of Kuwait so that the oil supply kept flowing and to block Iraq's intention to expand. Bush 41 then allowed the UN inspectors to go in and dissemble Iraq's chemical, biological, and nuclear programs, which they did a great job at. In fact, Saddam never reinitiated his weapons programs after they were taken apart by the UN inspectors. </p>

<p>3) Reagan's foreign policy is a continuation of the containment policy first started by Truman to containt the "threat of communism". It is basically an application of the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." We supported anyone who was against the Soviet Union. Vietnam and Korea were all manifestations of that policy. I am also not quite sure how this point applies to your argument since the world during the Cold War was divided into basically two halves. I do not recall widespread international condemnation of the war in korea or vietnam. </p>

<p>Furthermore, why is Afganistan or Nicaragua good examples of your point? Our support of the Mujhadden eventually led to the creation of people like Bin Laden and Central America is completely screwed up because of the U.S.'s repeated efforts to disstablize the region (which by the way is a direct cause of illegal immigration into this country). Also, it was our support of the corrupt government of South Vietnam that led to a resentment in the South Vietnamese population and our support of the Shah that allowed for the fanatics to take over in Iran. Definitely not following you. .</p>
 
The issue I take up with liberalism is its frequent departure from reality. Liberals seem to want to live in a utopian world where everyone is free, rich, and hugs each other. I'm all for equality and helping people in need. I think this is where non-gov't sponsored entities, primarily churches, need to step up.





There will always be poor people,, and blanket statements made by sunglass-wearing rock stars are not going to change that. If someone is receiving money, another is losing it. We need to encourage charity between people, which is why charitable donations are tax deductible. We don't need higher taxes to fund massive entitlement programs that cost just as much money to run as they dole out.





Let's take the simple concept of amnesty. Yes, it sucks that there are millions of illegals in this country. They are here because they want to better their lives, I understand that. But the entire world cannot live in America. This is why McCain scares the hell out of me because of his belief that a strong military should be used abroad instead of protecting our borders. And he wants amnesty for illegals which will just entice more illegals to come over. I can't figure out what the heck this guy wants.
 
<p>LM, </p>

<p>Liberalism, like any other ideology, covers a wide spectrum. It is unfair to characterize that ideology based upon the extremes, just like it would be unfair for me to characterize conservatives as greedy carpetbaggers/opportunists who care only about themselves. With pretty much anything, a balance needs to be found. I certainly do not believe that we will resolve poverty or end world hunger but I do believe in trying. For me, just because every kid is not going to be the next Einstein or Thomas Jefferson does not mean that we should not provide every child with the opportunity to go to school and get a good education. </p>

<p>As for your reliance upon non-government sponsored entities, there are limits on what they can do. They cannot enact laws to protect the oppressed or dictate that conditions be improved. Yes, people should contribute more to charities but charities would not have resolved segregation, child labor, or protect the environment. Government needs to step in to move those that do not want to be moved. I do believe that entitlement programs are necessary to act as a social safety net but the current systems are completely screwed up. </p>

<p>Finally, with respect to amnesty, you left out a big part of the the puzzle: The companies/employers that hire the illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants would not come here if companies did not hire them out of their concerns for the bottom line. In fact, American history has tolerated "illegal immigration" to provide its factories with cheap and readily available labor. The concept is no different now just because we have created laws against it. If the government really wanted to "crack" down on illegal immigrants, it would strictly enforce labor laws and punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants. That is not happening because large corporation would have a seizure if they have to suddenly pay people good wages and pay taxes on those employees. </p>
 
" Liberals seem to want to live in a utopian world where everyone is free, rich, and hugs each other. "





Your basic understanding of liberalism is so inadequate you should probably stay out this discussion.
 
ha ha, i didn't say "liberalism" I said 'liberals." People can take anything to an extreme.





IC, I totally agree that people, businesses, and corporations that hire illegals should be fined, punished and even prosecuted.





Personally I would consider myself a realist, who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Liberalism is a belief in personal freedoms and not a bureaucratic style of government.
 
<p>LM,</p>

<p>You actually wrote both "liberalism" and "liberals". . . but no biggie.</p>

<p>I am somewhat of a realist as well but still believe that we need to try. It depresses me to think that people are nothing more than self-serving beings that care only about their immediate needs. It is the classic Locke v. Hobbes. . . I am on the side of Locke. I believe that government should play an active role in promoting the welfare of its citizens and provide for their security. If possible, that government should also try and influence the world for the better and set an example to go forward rather than sitting on its laurels. Many great societies have fallen because they became too proud of their own accomplishments and began to ignore the plight of those less fortunate (See China and Rome.) </p>

<p>What would you consider to be a "perfect" government?</p>
 
Do you then mean liberals or "libruls" ? - as in the AM talk show slur for anybody who dares to be on the left of a bible thumping neo-con ... How can you say that being liberal puts me on an extreme???
 
At the risk of having the IHB crowd breaking into the chorus of Kumbaya, let me just say, I think that the central tenet of liberalism is that we are in this together. In a way, what hurts one of us hurts all of us in some way. There was a time when resources were scarce and you had to go kill it, gather it, or grow it for you and your family to eat. We've come a long ways since, and we've made incredible gains in productivity and we can afford to allow some slack in the system. I'm okay with putting up with some "welfare queen" so that people in true need will get their help. I know many people who have truly benefited from government assistance. They were not gaming the system or getting a free ride. The small assistance made a huge difference in the quality of their lives. If nothing else, it is in everyone's self interest to have a reasonable safety net. Its possible you or one of your children or great grand children may need it down the road.
 
Again, I didn't say you were extreme. I said liberalism can lead to flights of fancy. Just like Islam can lead to suicide bombing and Christianity can lead to picketing outside abortion clinics.





I just told you I was fiscally conservative an socially liberal. This would mean I am not a bible-thumper. There isn't anything inherently wrong with liberal thinking in a person and social context. I just do not want my government to be a massive entitlement granting hand-out machine.





Both parties have problems and conflicting views. Republicans seem to be more faith-based, at least many religious people identify with that party. This seems confusing to me that these people would be so inclined to believe in a God, yet they are NOT the party that is linked with human rights, civil rights, and ending poverty. This is why I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I am not a card carrying member of any party.



 
For religious republicans It's just about abortion - not about other religious tenets.





As for fiscally conservative, you are out of luck. The republican party is everything but that these days.
 
<em> As for fiscally conservative, you are out of luck. The republican party is everything but that these days.





</em>I know, that's why it was refreshing to hear Ron Paul in the debates, I just wish he was a little more eloquent to say the least. His valid points get lost by his eccentric speaking habits.





I just believe you can stand for personal freedoms without being a spending machine. I do not think personal freedoms are absolute though. If you wantonly destroy someone's rights, say like you are a terrorist hell-bent on killing innocent people, then I think you just threw your rights out the window. I don't want the ACLU defending your slimy ass, I want Jack Bauer staring at you with a gun to your head.
 
What about people who are incorrectly identified as terrorists? What do you do after you shoot them? How many mistakes are acceptable? What if your name ends on the list? Come on! Reality is not a TV show and I know that what Jack Bauer is doing to terrorists is every neo-cons wet dream. It just doesn't work like that. If you torture someone what guarantee do you have that they are telling you the truth anyways?
 
They say if you are not a liberal before the age of 30, you don't have a heart. But if you are not a conservative after the age of 30, you don't have a brain. I suppose that means I lack a brain. Many people have suspected that for a long time.



I will say, I considered myself firmly in the centrist camp before Bush. I found myself taking a sharp left turn, in large part, as a reaction to Bush and his policies.
 
In order to be incorrectly identified as a terrorist you need to be at least affiliated with a known terrorist. We aren't pulling Americans that look middle-eastern into interrogation rooms or throwing them into Abu Graib prison. The people who are there are known to have associations with terrorists.





Secondly, these people are not going to respond to normal reasoning. They are brainwashed socio and psychopaths. If you are not involved in something that you shouldn't be involved in, their is no chance in going to Abu Graib.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top