How would Ron Paul achieve his program?

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by northpointaiki, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #21
    Please substantiate the bolded portion.

    Is the Constitution now an ideal, and not the rule of law?

    I find it laughable that someone would decry individual liberty as a form of tyranny.
     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  2. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #22
    Rabble, rabble, rabble. The irony of conducting a witchhunt, to battle "apparent" witchhunts is not lost on me. :rolleyes:

    Is the Constitution law? Because many of these agencies have no Constitutional mandate.

    The President could not be elected without a near 50% of support in the general election. This alone debunks the need to overcome a supermajority on a constant basis. It's also based upon what I believe to be a false premise, that the majority of Congress will hold views anathema to his, while disobeying the mandate of a large portion of their constituents.

    Mark Sanford faced these same issues when he became the Governor of South Carolina. He overcame them by taking the initiative on legislation (which Paul has a record of doing, being a prolific lawmaker), using the bully pulpit, and displaying unwavering consistency.

    I am sure you will reserve that response for later, when it is most opportune. :rolleyes:

    It's worked pretty good so far, hasn't it?

    You haven't taken in Paul's positions, or you wouldn't even had made this thread based on a false premise. So there may be a lot that you don't see. It certainly opens up that can of worms.

    Again, there are a lot of holes in your theorem, and misattributed positions. I understand why you are on the prowl, but it isn't going to serve your purpose. Very few people behind Paul will support a "change" candidate who doesn't have the record to back it up. You want compromise and more empty rhetoric, essentially the status quo, that's your right. But there are a LOT of people tired of the status quo, and real change is coming, either in this election or the next. It's going to take a brilliant President to survive the next 4 years of economic turbulence, and I don't see that brilliance in the man you support.

    A Ron Paul supporter in these forums is constantly on defense. I'll see you in the Obama thread I will post this weekend, where we can address the substance of his platform and ideas, which is what the real debate should be about.
     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  3. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #23
    And for the record, Paul is for state's rights, following the Constitution.

    There is no federal mandate in the Constitution for Education. There is no Federal mandate for income tax in the Constitution. There is no Federal mandate for Energy in the Constitution.

    They could be added, but they have not. And without a federal Department of Education, people would get educated just as they did before 1978. With Education and any necessary bureaucracy provided by the states.

    The implied notion that if these departments are closed, suddenly we will lose all of these services (the concept that only the federal government can provide for us), is strictly fear mongering.
     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  4. Hon Daddy Dad

    Hon Daddy Dad Peon

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    I think when the economic reality of America comes to light over the next couple of years radical action will be called for. This is why I think a long shot like Ron Paul can get in and get his policies actioned.

    No one else is calling for radical action.

    The 0.75 Fed Cut and the Tax Checks are like throwing a single bucket of water on a house fire yet these are seen as dramatic action.

    The Fed is in an impossible situation right now. Raise interests rates, spending stops, and the economy tanks. Lower interest rates and the dollar tanks, you get hyper inflation and the economy still tanks.

    73% of American GDP is from consumer spending funded by the Asians, the Arabs, and printing money. You already have maxed out your debt.

    It's a recipe for complete disaster. It's like the perfect financial storm.

    That's why I think Ron Paul if he were to get in, could implement his policies. Radical action with monetary policy will be called for.
     
    Hon Daddy Dad, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  5. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #25
    HDD, you make the most important point. People will demand real change, not rhetoric, when the proverbial crap hits the fan, and they are really hurting.

    Without the gold reserves, and industrial economy we had to come out of the depression, another Keynesian stimulus package won't grow wings, let alone get off the ground.

    Don't want to see anyone hurt, but the ones who know, know this is coming, and it's unavoidable. How we navigate it and pick up the pieces will define whether or not America can stand tall, or if it will become a Banana Republic.

    Hopefully I'm wrong, and 3 years from now, everyone is saying that I cried wolf. But I wouldn't bet on it.
     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  6. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #26
    Guerilla, I will not engage you. We don't speak the same language. What I call "debate," you call a "witch hunt," or "on the prowl." What you call "John Birch Society - beacons of liberty" I call "paranoid witchhunting conspiracy theorists"; what I call "constraint" and "control" over the free exchange of ideas, you call "Liberty," "Freedom," and all the other words constituting your battle cry here. And so, from your own words:

    [​IMG]

    It just gets old. We did well to avoid each other last week, and would do well to continue the nascent tradition now.

    More generally, the plethora of responses calling any question of RP a "smear campaign" gets old as well. Grim and Hon Daddy Dad, I say this in respect, and regret as well, since I know you to be sincere and honorable in your posts on this: thanks for posing some food for thought. I think it comes down to a fundamental, and ultimately, very personal philosophy: on the one hand, whether government can be a force for good, whether it can responsibly aid a community of people living under a geographically defined boundary, whether it can be managed and curbed of its excesses, whether it can me made healthy if sick. Or, on the other hand, whether it cannot be part of a healthy polity, and is inherently, inexorably evil, in any form, in whatever scope or extent. I think much the same obtains with any economic organizing principle. Unbridled capitalism, for instance, is an evil I'm not willing to live with. Without good governance, curbing the death of children, the spoliation of the common air and water we all need and use, and much, much more, capitalism, unfettered, is ruinous to our common need. Much more, actually. This is my philosophy, and so I could never support RP or his policies.

    With respect to your efforts, I think much of what he has achieved already is a testament to the digital age, and little else. To be perfectly honest, most of the supporters I have seen, outside of this forum, seem to be supporting him knowing nothing about him. I work for Whole Foods, said lovingly, with "damn hippies," leftists in shallow pronouncement, who are among the most charged, the most vociferous, and the most dumbass supporters of RP that I have seen. When I go into what I know of the man and his policies, I get a big "really?," and I am not exaggerating. I am not disparaging RP or his views by the character or knowledge (or lack thereof) of his supporters. I merely think when push comes to shove, and should he receive a full, open airing beyond Youtube and the internet, much of the phenomenon, such as it is, will simply evaporate. And I, personally, will be glad for it.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 25, 2008 IP
    GTech likes this.
  7. guerilla

    guerilla Notable Member

    Messages:
    9,066
    Likes Received:
    262
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #27
    I figured once we got down to brass tacks, you would not.

    Actually, I avoided you. You seem hell bent on leather to discuss a candidate you don't support, instead of a candidate you do.

    Again, a lack of understanding. Unbridled capitalism isn't the absence of law. Bridled capitalism always redistributes cost or regulation, and not necessarily in a fair manner.

    But capitalism itself isn't the issue here. It's everything about Paul that you seem to hold in low regard. Even the liberty and society thread you posted, didn't see any action from you. Debating philosophy is tough stuff when one side is ready to compromise on principle for the illusion of progress.

    The future is the digital age. And unfortunately 78 million retiring baby boomers with a self-interest in the entitlement system unfortunately.

    Great. Your understanding of his positions are probably a big hit with supporters when you misrepresent him, as you have done in this thread.

    Right... The JBS thread wasn't about that....

    I think people said the same thing when Barry Goldwater got smoked in the General Election by Lyndon Johnson. And we know how that turned out.
     
    guerilla, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  8. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #28
    Is this not like the third time in recent days that NPT has tried to engage Guerilla in a debate, only to back down halfway through? NPT, I have a lot of respect for you, but what's the deal man? Guerilla gets a bit heated when he's in a debate, but I can't recall seeing him say anything that was completely uncalled for, and he certainly affords you a lot of respect, much more than the majority of people here give to people with opposing viewpoints. You've been fishing for Paul supporters with the JBS thread and a few other threads for days now, and when Guerilla bites, you back off.
     
    omgitsfletch, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  9. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #29
    I don't blame you for your conclusions, fletch. I'm sure it reads that way.

    I've never lied in this forum, and I've been forthcoming - about my history, my beliefs, and my shortcomings, which are considerable. The truth of it is that I have been spending an inordinate amount of time on this forum, and need to go away. My son needs his dad, my wife needs her husband, and I - I say this honestly, and humbly - I have an addiction to this, it is real, and destructive, and I need to stop.

    Regarding my newly acquired contentions with Guerilla, one would have to go all the way back to the Reagan Thread, to perhaps see where my changed view of Guerilla and the nature of his character on this forum began. If you are interested, see posts 147, 149, to get a better picture of my view. There, in part, I said to Guerilla:

    I do need to apologize to Guerilla for not more directly and forcefully indicating my growing contention with him in this regard. He is bright, and skilled. But he engages in a subtle kind of dissemblance, in my opinion - in fact, so subtle, that quite honestly, I don't know if most people see it; or, I'm just delusional. This thread is a decent example - his choice of words - "witch hunt," "on the prowl," etc. - subtly seek to undermine substance of the debate at hand. One can review the "wiki doesn't respect religion" debate, the "John Birch Society" discussion in the Obama/Muslim discussion, your own thread, fletch, my thread on JBS, here, wherever, to draw whatever conclusions one would like. I hold no rancor for whatever conclusions people may draw.

    I do owe an apology to Guerilla, for allowing my frustration over what I feel is his dishonesty to spill out in inappropriate ways, the last couple of days. Childish. And I have been foolish to allow the likes of Briant, Ping, etc., acting like religious zealots in calling my newly arrived at concerns regarding RP as a "smear campaign," etc., to get the better of me. Add in my protracted discussion with Simplyg over the rights of raped women, or the Westboro Baptists, and I'm just burned out.

    Guerilla's rep to me - shown above - was given when he was tired of discussing the issue of freedom of speech, and wiki's depictions of the Prophet of Islam. He was "fatigued." So am I. If my points regarding my opinion of the untenability of RP's presidency aren't clear, I'll have to leave the field to others.

    Best. Peace.
     
    northpointaiki, Jan 25, 2008 IP
    Smyrl likes this.
  10. omgitsfletch

    omgitsfletch Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    44
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    145
    #30
    Without trying to speak fully for others, I think ping and others lash out at you because they are so frustrated with the actions of some on this board, that they instantly label any legitimate concern with Dr. Paul as a smear, because quite frankly, some posters here have made smearing Dr. Paul their #1 agenda. To a lesser extent, I think the calmer posters like Guerilla and myself also feel this frustration, but we tend to let it creep into our everyday conversation in a way, as you said, that's much more subtle. Fatigued is a good word to describe my feelings as well.

    I've put a few members here on ignore, and it's partly because of their inane posts, as much as it's for my sanity. I think if we all took the time to put the people who frustrate the most on ignore and make a concerted effort to keep those members there (even I know the tempting call of "View Post" on individual posts), it would lead to a lot more rationality overall. Some people here simply can't get along with others, and it's leading to a lot of drama.
     
    omgitsfletch, Jan 25, 2008 IP
  11. Hon Daddy Dad

    Hon Daddy Dad Peon

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    49
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #31
    The quality in candidates this year is extremely poor on both sides which is disappointing. The system is a farce.

    At the time the constitution was adopted there were little more than a few million people in America and now there are 300 million. Imagine saying to one of those founding fathers - "Yes in the future we will create a bureaucracy to govern 300 million people. We will fund it with taxes at a level of over 30% of GDP. But this will not be enough money to fund our bureaucracy so we will aquire massive debt and print huge amounts of money to make up the short fall. And we will still claim that we a governed by your constitution"

    What you have in America now is socialism on a massive scale mainly funded by debt.

    NorthPointAiki I think that any form of government that aims to manage a population of over 20 million or so is almost bound to be hugely inefficient.

    I think the key to a successful government is not whether it promotes socialist or laissez-faire capitalism, but that it is generally restricted to a governance of less than 10 million people and preferably less than 1 million.

    If you look at the highest per capita GDP for countries and territories according to the CIA Factbook, only two of the top 20 countries and territories have more than 10 million population.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita#_ref-3
     
    Hon Daddy Dad, Jan 25, 2008 IP