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

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
"After Bush, I desperately want someone in the Oval Office with basic decision making skills. "



Um- how does this justify *opposing* Obama?



McCain? The guy who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years?



Hillary? Has she even *made* a policy decision since she blew healthcare reform fourteen years ago?



Obama's decisionmaking credentials are at least as good. That's not saying much, but there it is.
 
<em>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.</em>



LM, you have a lot of trust in the government in sorting the terrorists from the non-terrorists. I do not have the same trust.
 
Not only that LM seems to fully support a police state as well.





<em>If you are not involved in something that you shouldn't be involved in, their is no chance in going to Abu Graib.


<em>


</em></em>That's like saying if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind the government watching over you. It amazes me how easy are people willing to give up there personal freedoms. Not only that, it also shows complete trust in government.
 
Abu Graib was filled with sweeps from the streets of Baghdad. More than 90% of detainees were released for lack of evidence. Even among the tiny minority where there was *some* reason to suspect terrorism, the evidence was usually extremely flimsy. This government can *not* distinguish terrorists from the innocent, or at least won't.



Habeas corpus exists for VERY good reasons. Even in the best government (and how often do we have that?) there will be many eager to use the vast power of the government for nefarious ends. And even the best intentioned make mistakes. In the Civil War, when there really *were* hundreds of thousands of traitors in the Union, the Supremes were wise enough to force Lincoln to submit to habeas corpus. To surrender habeas corpus is to get down on your knees and beg for tyranny.
 
<p>I don't understand how a conservative can put so much faith in the government? I thought conservatives generally did not trust the government? </p>

<p>How many of those that were brought to our little Area 51 in Cuba had a connection to terror? Do you know that people in Iraq were turning in people they just didn't like because they could get a monetary reward for turning in a suspected terrorist? How would you feel if your neighbor turned you in as such just because you broke too many CCRs in Irvine and you got shipped off to another country for a year or two with no communication with your family?</p>

<p><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-terror-suspect-tortured-in-syria-after-rendition-by-us-416726.html">http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canadian-terror-suspect-tortured-in-syria-after-rendition-by-us-416726.html</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>My wife is half Lebonese. God help her and me if some second-cousin she has never met is involved in Hamas or something. That sounds like enough of a link for LM to want me hauled away and scrotally tortured. </p>

<p> </p>
 
<em>"After Bush, I desperately want someone in the Oval Office with basic decision making skills. "





Um- how does this justify *opposing* Obama? </em>





It is neither a justification or a reason. Bush's lack of decision making skills is its own problem. The natural reaction to this problem is to want someone that has sound reasoning and experience making decisions. The decisions of Clinton and McCain may not be to your liking (or mine for that matter,) but it comes from experience, the ability to analyze a problem and formulate a solution. It is not the "answer," it is the process. Bush's process was to pray, flip a coin, ask his dog, who knows what, but the process of making, evaluating and implementing a solution to a problem was not his strength. Obama may have these skills. He probably does. He has not demonstrated that to my satisfaction to date, and unless he can, I don't think I can vote for him. Clinton and McCain have these skills, in my opinion, and if the election were held today, these are the only 2 of the 3 potential candidates I could vote for. There is a long time between now and the election, and perhaps I will change my mind about Obama, but that is the challenge he faces if he wants to get elected in the cycle after Bush II.





I suspect many Democrats would like to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. After 8 years under Hillary, Obama will have enough experience as a member of the administration to handle the job himself.
 
<p>IC, sorry for the delay in responding to your post, but I just got my hands on a Wii and all else has ceased to exist.</p>

<p><em>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. </em></p>

<p>No, my point is that the proposed solutions have been the spouted by the left since the 30's and have to yet to make a dent in the problem. Insanity is defined as repeatedly performing the same action and expecting different results. Teach a man to fish, don't sign him up for government cheese and then be puzzled when he brings back three buddies and all four want more cheese. What you prefer doesn't mean jack squat if reality proves it to be a fallacy.</p>

<p><em>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.</em> </p>

<p>No offense, but to hear some people tell it, we still have all those things in this country. Your insinuation that somehow calling bullshit on 70-years of failed policies means that I'm a racist, pro-child labor, and looking to de-unionize the country would be insulting if it wasn't so laughable. Cherry picking a 20-year span might make you feel all warm and fuzzy, but it is completely irrelevant to what you originally stated as your problems with conservatives, where you said "<em>To me, most "conservatives" are reactionary in nature. They treat the symptoms of a problem (more jails, death penalty, bigger military, school testing, more police, closing the border) rather then identify and treating the causes of that problem (single parent homes, poverty, run down/mismanaged schools, afterschool programs, universal health care)." </em>When the same problems exist that were supposed to be fixed by the programs that have been created and fully funded with trillions of tax dollars over the last 40+ years, you would have to be a complete idiot not to question the ability of those programs to actually resolve problem that inspired their creation. I wouldn't call that being reactionary, just observant. It might feel good to think that throwing money at a problem will resolve it, that hiring people with good intentions and a degree relieves you of your personal responsibility, both of which allow you to go through life feeling good about "helping society" but the evidence shows that those problems have not been solved, those people have not been helped, and those programs are nothing more than public therapy for those who feel guilty about their own lack of strife. As one of those people who were homeless, drug-addicted, too poor for college, and the child of a single-parent, I can assure you that the only public program that was of any actual use to me was the public library. And I heartily support overfunding of that kind of program.</p>

<p>And yes, you must of completely missed my point regarding world opinion, else you would not have wasted your time trying to refute it while proving it. The only consistency in American foreign policy is that it is going to piss someone off; caring about who leads Presidents to make shortsighted compromises. Every President has to make judgement calls, and every one of them has come back to haunt us. If you think that the world only loves us when Democrats are in office, you really need to quit drinking the kool-aid down at the local party office.</p>

<p>And now, I am going back to play my Wii with the wife. I don't want to rehash the last 40 years of American politics with you; unless you have some new solutions that HAVEN'T been tried, then you are just regurgitating the party line and I can get that on the Daily Kos. But take a good hard look at the problems you think we have in this country and then look at what Democrats have done to solve those problems and ask yourself if there has been any progress....ever.</p>
 
<p>Paul isn't going to win. I voted for him in the primary as a protest. </p>

<p>Therefore it will be McCain vs Hilary or Obama. I think McCain is too old, frankly.</p>

<p>Anybody will be better than Bush. My cat Fred would be better than Bush. One of those fortune telling 8 balls would be better than Bush.</p>

<p>At least Hilary and Obama are articulate and I don't have to be embarrassed by the fact they can't pronounce "nuclear". </p>

<p>My expectations are very low for any politician. </p>

<p>I think these things swing back and forth, and we are in for a bout of regulation and welfare, and I don't think that is a particularly bad thing at least for a while. Then that will get entrenched and need to be corrected.</p>

<p>Remember Clinton I balanced the budget. I loathed the man, but he balanced the budget. Maybe Clinton II will too.</p>

<p>Also, when Hilary was messing around with the health care system back in the 90s, I disapproved. But back then, I didn't have much contact with the "health" care system (really a sickness care system). Now that I have been required to use it, I am massively unimpressed. I think socialized medicine will be better, not because it is so great, but because the health care non-system is so awful. We spend 'way more than anybody else and don't have as good a result in mortality and morbidity. Socialized medicine would actually be cheaper.</p>
 
<strong>Check this one out -- Hopefully the next President will tackle this IMO #1 problem.





US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy</strong>





<embed width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" id="VideoPlayback" quality="high" pluginspage="http://macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" wmode="transparent" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OS2fI2p9iVs"></embed>
 
Why didn't the Republican President and the Republican Congress even make an attempt at a balance budget? That disappointment will be with me for a while.
 
IR, I am a die-hard Republican, and I share your disappointment. Things like the prescription drug program should have never been implemented. Obviously there was a need to rebuild our military even before September 11th, but the lack of fiscal discipline was that we saw was very disappointing.





I can only hope that the lessons of 2006 were learned by the party. Because you can be certain that "Universal Health Care" plans of the Democrats are not the path to future balanced budgets.
 
<p>The budget was balanced because you had a dem President and a Republican congress. Remember, they came to impasse and the govt shut down (partly) for a while.</p>

<p>Having both prez and congress being the same party is an invitation to a spending fest. The Republicans only mean it when they are talking about someone else's pork. Cut in my district? Never! Pork log rolling--certainly; I'll vote for your pork and you vote for mine.</p>

<p>Universal Health Care will cost the govt more, but the total cost out of everybody's pocket will be less. The administrative costs are obscenely higher on the private side.</p>

<p>The prescription drug program would have been a lot less expensive if the govt agencies had been allowed to negotiate or buy where they pleased. But lots of campaign contributers (aka bribers) would have been disappointed.</p>
 
>The budget was balanced because you had a dem President and a Republican congress.





And a bubble in the stock market that inflated tax receipts.
 
IrvineCommuter, I am sorry for the slow response, but have been considering for the past couple of days whether or not I would even respond to such an ignorant post. While I doubt that anything anyone says can enlighten you, your statements necessitate a response. That having been said, here goes:





>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.)





You certainly take a cavalier attitude towards missiles being fired at other people. Perhaps your attitude would be different if missiles were fired at you or your family. But outside of any attempt to personify this, the fact is that an attack against a member of the United States military who is acting in capacity as a member of the military is an attack against the United States. The fact is that prior to March 2003, Iraq was not a sovereign nation. As part of the cease fire agreement that halted hostilities in the Gulf War, Iraq agreed to certain conditions. Had they lived up to those agreements, they could have regained sovereignty a long time ago.





I find your characterization of the war as not being legitimate to be laughable. Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer? If so, you must have missed the news. Congress authorized the President as Commander in Chief to use armed forces against Iraq if they didn't immediately start following the terms of the cease fire agreement negotiated in 1991. Wars don't get any more legitimate than that.





>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.





Please clarify this statement. Are you implying that it was alright for Iraq to repeatedly fire at US and British planes?





>We certainly did not invade Somalia or Yugoslavia when they attacked and killed our military forces.





Interesting analogy.





Obviously you aren't aware that Osama bin Laden sited us pulling out of Somalia in his 1996 fatwa when al Qaeda declared war on the United States. Here is a quote on that subject:





Fromhttp://www.pbs.org/newshour/terrorism/international/fatwa_1996.html


<em>


But your most disgraceful case was in Somalia; where- after vigorous propaganda about the power of the USA and its post cold war leadership of the new world order- you moved tens of thousands of international force, including twenty eight thousands American solders into Somalia. However, when tens of your solders were killed in minor battles and one American Pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadishu you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge , but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of your impotence and weaknesses became very clear. It was a pleasure for the "heart" of every Muslim and a remedy to the "chests" of believing nations to see you defeated in the three Islamic cities of Beirut , Aden and Mogadishu.</em>





Your example of "Yugoslavia" is interesting for multiple reasons. Obviously you haven't read much about Bosnia and Herzegovina, but we did go to war there. And we did so despite the fact that the UN "didn't authorize us to go to war". ( And the UN did authorize the United States to act as it did 17 times over a course of 12 years with Iraq) Of course, your "argument" about "legitimate" war is tired. The UN does not control the United States.





<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.





You either need to start paying attention to the news, or stop making comments about things you know nothing about. Libya had a nuclear program that was much more advanced than any intelligence agency had realized (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/19/libya.nuclear/index.html) They also had an active chemical program, but that was well known. These programs were active up until Libya came clean in December 2003. They didn't stop because "fighting the entire world was getting old". They stopped because the price of being a dictator who financed international terrorism went up dramatically in March 2003.





>Your point about Libya backs up my argument perfectly. Libya allegedly had "nuclear" power but did not use it. Why?





You really need to read up on things before commenting on them. Libya wasn't a nuclear power. They were actively trying to change that.
 
<p>WASHINGTON (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080211/pl_nm/usa_politics_predictions_dc">Reuters)</a> - Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency. </p>

<p>Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats' presidential candidate in the November election.</p>

<p>Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.</p>

<p>Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit exchange run by researchers at the University of Iowa, had similar expectations, giving Obama a 70 percent chance of winning the nomination and Clinton about a 27 percent chance.</p>
 
Do I want a police state? No, Not really, but I don't have anything to worry about. What is the government going to spy on me and see that I actually watch American Idol. WTF do I care?



You act (comment) as if I shouldn't have any faith in the government and that you have no faith. Yes you will be hauled away because your wife is have lebonese(lebanese) T!m. Give me a break.



It looks like Clinton is going to lose out to Obama.
 
>What is the government going to spy on me and see that I actually watch American Idol.





I'd keep quiet about that if I were you...
 
The VA administration lost a laptop containing a database with personal data for millions of beneficiaries. In the wrong hands that is a LOT of identity theft cases. It all depends on what information lands in whose hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top