After watching the Democrats debate last the other night I was EXTREMELY pleased to hear Ron-Paul-speak on the war finally. Hearing multiple candidates say "redeploy within the first month" and "leave not one soldier behind" was music to my ears. As election day approaches and Ron Paul, whom I believe to be the greatest person to run for President in generations, doesn't appear to be getting the neo-con nomination it made me happy to see all three major players on the Dem side talking some sense.
IllinoisBandit wrote:After watching the Democrats debate last the other night I was EXTREMELY pleased to hear Ron-Paul-speak on the war finally. Hearing multiple candidates say "redeploy within the first month" and "leave not one soldier behind" was music to my ears. As election day approaches and Ron Paul, whom I believe to be the greatest person to run for President in generations, doesn't appear to be getting the neo-con nomination it made me happy to see all three major players on the Dem side talking some sense.
The one thing I like about Ron Paul is he seems to genuinely speak about what he truly believes, and he's got strong opinions about what he believes in.
But how can you not consider this guy nuts? I'm not just saying that because he's a libertarian. He recently said the American Civil War was unnecessary... are you kidding me? He's also pro-life (NOT trying to start an abortion debate here, so please don't take it this way), which makes no sense considering his libertarian views. That would mean government has the right to intervene on a woman's right.... that does not align with his views whatsoever. He wants to abolish the Department of Education and wants to go back to the gold standard.
Sure, he's a cool guy to listen to and comes across well in debates and when he's speaking, but he's just not a viable candidate.
"Oh, that Lankford and McGee, the trio of 'em. They're a one-man wrecking crew."
A) He didn't say the Civil War was unnecessary. He said that EVERY other country in the world was able to rid itself of slavery without a civil war. Surely the US should have been capable of that as well.
B) He's an OB/GYN. Delivered 4,000+ babies and hasn't seen a case where abortion was necessary yet. I'd say he has the right to make up his own mind on the matter. Not to mention he's absolutely opposed to a federal ban on abortions.
C) Tell me something productive the Dept of Education does...really. Enlighten me. It needs to go. GW Bush ran on this the first time as well. It's not so crazy.
D) Gold standard - tied to assets. Call it what you will but the government shouldn't be allowed to print money out of thin air when it goes over budget. It's called an "inflation tax" and it's a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. No one else will even talk about it.
A) What Bandit said, except that I'm under the impression that he did feel it was unnecessary.
B) Being pro-life is not in opposition to libertarianism. Disagreements among libertarians on this issue can easily arise depending on one's definition of when life begins or when the unborn have rights. Despite Ron Paul's personal beliefs on abortion, he's firm in his belief that the Contitution does not address abortion and therefore should be left to the states. I happen to disagree with him on this, though his position is very defensible, and view abortion as Constitutionally protected via property rights, not the legal garbage that is Roe v Wade. He's not going to impose his personal preference b/c he doesn't think its legal to do so.
C) The DoEd really doesn't accomplish anything productive. Education is an issue best handled locally, or at most the state level. NCLB is a perfect example of why broad, top-down solutions to local problems don't work. Any money the DoEd gives out can easily be replaced at the state level by an increase in state/local taxes and a reduction in federal taxes. I know its not a seamless transition by any means, but the only way to start is by putting the responsibility where it belongs.
D) The gold standard would be Ron Paul's ideal situation, but his more important and lesser-known desire is for there at least to be allwed a competing currency backed by real assets and people can then decide to transact how they see fit. The Liberty Dollar was an attempt at this, but the feds crushed that a few months ago on very dubious, if not entirely arbitrary grounds from what I can gather so far. And the gold standard is not some arcane quirk from the Wayback Machine. It was a global staple until the early 70s when politicians decided they'd rather inflate their way out of trouble than face the music and take responsibility for their abundant waste. Inflation acts very much like a tax and it's an incredibly regressive one too.
IllinoisBandit wrote:A) He didn't say the Civil War was unnecessary. He said that EVERY other country in the world was able to rid itself of slavery without a civil war. Surely the US should have been capable of that as well.
I think that the Civil War may have been a necessary reconcilliation of the two strands of the American Mind set, as spelled out in The Cousins' Wars, which explains that the English Civil War, which took place right as the American Colonies were growing, created refugees on both sides, Roundheads largely ended up in New England and Cavaliers in the Southern, plantation states. It's a very interesting book that explores the issue in a very interesting long-term kind of view.
sportsaddict wrote:He's also pro-life (NOT trying to start an abortion debate here, so please don't take it this way), which makes no sense considering his libertarian views. That would mean government has the right to intervene on a woman's right.... that does not align with his views whatsoever.
I noticed that as well, but for me, that's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but not toeing the "company line" is big for me. Just because someone belongs to such-and-such party, they feel they have to represent that party's stance on a subject. Well, that's why there are so many people out there like me, who could care less about parties, because it's so much of a trade off. Get on the stage and tell us how YOU feel. NOT how such-and-such party feels. There could be a perfect candidate out there for me to vote for, but I'll never know it because they won't tell us how they really feel sometimes because it clashes with the "company line". So if Ron Paul is libertarian, but then acknowledges where his views are different from the typical libertarian views, that's a really good thing. Not sure he did such a thing as the argument since this post is pretty good, and he won't get my vote anyway, but having a representative actually tell us what his personal feelings and/or belifs are, is not a bad thing, and even better when it clashes with the party they are representing.
Yes doctor, I am sick. Sick of those who are spineless. Sick of those who feel self-entitled. Sick of those who are hypocrites. Yes doctor, an army is forming. Yes doctor, there will be a war. Yes doctor, there will be blood.....
Madison wrote:I noticed that as well, but for me, that's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but not toeing the "company line" is big for me. Just because someone belongs to such-and-such party, they feel they have to represent that party's stance on a subject. Well, that's why there are so many people out there like me, who could care less about parties, because it's so much of a trade off. Get on the stage and tell us how YOU feel. NOT how such-and-such party feels. There could be a perfect candidate out there for me to vote for, but I'll never know it because they won't tell us how they really feel sometimes because it clashes with the "company line". So if Ron Paul is libertarian, but then acknowledges where his views are different from the typical libertarian views, that's a really good thing. Not sure he did such a thing as the argument since this post is pretty good, and he won't get my vote anyway, but having a representative actually tell us what his personal feelings and/or belifs are, is not a bad thing, and even better when it clashes with the party they are representing. ;-D
sportsaddict wrote:He's also pro-life (NOT trying to start an abortion debate here, so please don't take it this way), which makes no sense considering his libertarian views. That would mean government has the right to intervene on a woman's right.... that does not align with his views whatsoever.
I noticed that as well, but for me, that's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but not toeing the "company line" is big for me. Just because someone belongs to such-and-such party, they feel they have to represent that party's stance on a subject. Well, that's why there are so many people out there like me, who could care less about parties, because it's so much of a trade off. Get on the stage and tell us how YOU feel. NOT how such-and-such party feels. There could be a perfect candidate out there for me to vote for, but I'll never know it because they won't tell us how they really feel sometimes because it clashes with the "company line". So if Ron Paul is libertarian, but then acknowledges where his views are different from the typical libertarian views, that's a really good thing. Not sure he did such a thing as the argument since this post is pretty good, and he won't get my vote anyway, but having a representative actually tell us what his personal feelings and/or belifs are, is not a bad thing, and even better when it clashes with the party they are representing.
This is what I do find appealing about Ron Paul. He believes what he wants to believe and doesn't care what anyone says about him. Just find some of his comments to be very ridiculous at times and his stances to be radical.
"Oh, that Lankford and McGee, the trio of 'em. They're a one-man wrecking crew."
Madison wrote:I noticed that as well, but for me, that's a good thing. I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but not toeing the "company line" is big for me. Just because someone belongs to such-and-such party, they feel they have to represent that party's stance on a subject. Well, that's why there are so many people out there like me, who could care less about parties, because it's so much of a trade off. Get on the stage and tell us how YOU feel. NOT how such-and-such party feels. There could be a perfect candidate out there for me to vote for, but I'll never know it because they won't tell us how they really feel sometimes because it clashes with the "company line". So if Ron Paul is libertarian, but then acknowledges where his views are different from the typical libertarian views, that's a really good thing. Not sure he did such a thing as the argument since this post is pretty good, and he won't get my vote anyway, but having a representative actually tell us what his personal feelings and/or belifs are, is not a bad thing, and even better when it clashes with the party they are representing. ;-D
Very nice, I agree with the bolded parts 100%.
I feel that if Ron Paul told us how he really felt, he wouldn't be running as a Republican but as a Libertarian and that he wouldn't bend to conservative social issues as he has in order to run in this election as a republican.
If you're a battery, you're either working or you're dead....
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by IllinoisBandit » Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:46 pm 
