good interview (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016523.html)
As a hard core supporter, i have to say I can't ask for much more than this. If i were him I would avoid hardball and all those shows and just talk to the people like he is here.
apparently, johhny rotten and the sex pistols came on and mentioned dr paul in one of their songs!! hey we'll take all the support we can get. what the hell
I'm a big believer in free speech and supporting whoever you want, so kudos to you for sticking up for your candidate!!
That being said, I find Ron Paul incredibly naive and ignorant. His brand of isolationism would have allowed Hitler to take over the world because it was "none of our business." As long as we drive vehicles that run on oil, we have no choice but to be involved in the Middle East, and if he thinks our precipitous departure will bring peace and harmony to the world - or to our country - he could not be more wrong!
Of course, my opinion and a dollar will get you a soda from most vending machines!
If an incident like the holocaust were to take place now, we'd be relatively powerless to stop it as we are tied down in Iraq and afghanistan.
I don't see how us buying oil in the middle east necessitates our being there militarily. everyone in the world buys oil from the military and they aren't there.
basically, i feel all government is emporer new clothes/ a scam. It's 3 trillion a year and they just invent problems to try and justify it's continued existence.
It's sort of like AOL. theres no reason to have it!
I'd say your opinion is at least as valuable as mine . . . .
so let's go have a soda!
chicken noodle soup
chicken noodle soup
chicken noodle soup with a soda on the side
Karma for freely expressing your opinion. . . . . and not bashing me because mine is different!
Had chicken and dumplings for lunch, though, so I'm gonna pass on the soup. Sure could use a Dr. Pepper right now, though!
It's no secret I'm a Republican, but Ron Paul while he seems like a nice enough guy is not explaining how he is going to run the government without taxes? How is bring the military home going to solve all these alleged problems?
The USA is number 28 in the world of military spending (World Fact Book) against the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at only 4% of the GDP is spent on the military. And out of that 4% of the GDP that is spent on military funding only 7% of the overall 4% is spent on Iraq and Afghanistan. Which is a tiny fraction of the the GDP is spent on the war, so if we we're to tuck tail and run from Iraq and we see the huge (microscopic) saving of military outlay then where is the money to run the country going to come from if you have no viable source of revenue? Which Ron Paul proposes. I mean who will be there to give the idiots $2000 checks that can't get out of the way of a hurricane with 2 weeks notice? Who will build the roads, direct the planes, secure the boarders (not that they are now) I don't think the federal employees will do it for free.
Indiana I agree, Ron Paul is incredibly naive and ignorant.
Facts are our country is in trouble and you can't blame solely Bush, it's the partisan politics of both sides of the aisle, it is the failure of our elected representatives to work on a unified front. They spend day in and day out looking for people to blame the problems on instead of solutions to the solve the problems they created.
Believe me I'd love not to pay taxes, but it's just not realistic in today world.
we pay TONS of taxes. he wants to eliminate the income tax. We pay sales tax. taxes on gas. we're up to our eyeballs in state taxes, property taxes you name it. then we pay income taxes on top of that.
He's not ignorant. He's written a half dozen book mostly about monetary issues. Our debt has skyrocketed since we went off the gold standard in the 70's. It was the only thing that kept the governemtn from pludering our treasury and currency. look at the dollar now. it used to be worth a dollar!
QuoteThe USA is number 28 in the world of military spending (World Fact Book) against the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at only 4% of the GDP is spent on the military. And
but our GDP is way way bigger than those other countries. 4 percent of 13 trillion is a ton of money. and it gets us into a lot of trouble. ladling out the pork to jordan, pakistan, and saudi arabia has done nothign but by us more terrorism. which forces us to soend more on secret services and making deals with unsavory regimes like uzbekistan and egypt, who are the opposite of the democracy we are allegedly trying to spread.
oh, and two failed half won wars at a projected cost of 2.4 trillion. what'll we do when the nbext president of Iraq says he wants WMD and wants to wipe israel off the map?
"Who will build the roads, direct the planes, secure the boarders (not that they are now) I don't think the federal employees will do it for free. "
you answered your own question. they arne't doing these things now anyway. We could hire the minutemen and give them more authority to do what they do of their own volition for free every day.
besides, this is like asking an 800 pound man if he wants to be a model when he loses 650 pounds. right now I'd be satisfied to just be able to keep more of my paycheck and get us out of the middle east lock stock and barrel.
You've not answered the question, without revenue how to you pay for this grand plan? Do we put a jar on the counter at the local store with a sign taped on it "Highway Funding" or "Broader Security"?
Far has highways go they're building one a mile from my shop (Hwy 80) that runs 500 miles across and state. There also building I-69 and I-66, 69 from MI to TX and 66 from east coast to the west, which runs near here too. granted there not finished, but they are working on them.
When I say 'ignorant' I'm not saying he's an idiot, I'm saying his ideologies are not realistic in todays world.
I'm not saying we shouldn't HAVE roads or that unless we have a stateless society I won't be happy.
I'm saying that a very very small percentage of our tax dollars go to stuff we actually use. gas tax and tolls pay for the roads. the lions share of our budget goes to beurocracy, subsidizing junk we don't use and giving military aid to countries full of people who hate us.
our military expenditures make us LESS safe. If they were only exorbidantly expensive that would be one thing. We give billions to the israelis who then are all over al jezeera using american made weapons on the palestinians. how does this serve any strategic interst of ours?
How did the CIa installing the shah in 1953 do anything to help, say, my dad, who was in illanois ? Not a bit.
"the government isn't the solution, the government is the problem"-ronald reagan.
wiser words were never spoken.
"not realistic in todays world."
so why are we existing in a democratic form of governence, a style invented by greeks thousands of years ago? liberty is always realistic
Quoteour military expenditures make us LESS safe
I haven't been attacked lately, have you?
yes. on 9/11/01 despite a multi billion dollar military and intelligene appartus. and largely because of it!
Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 08, 2007, 03:43:23 PM
yes. on 9/11/01 despite a multi billion dollar military and intelligene appartus. and largely because of it!
The number of attacks on the US by foreign or domestic combatants, for a world power (key word there) pales to those on other nations. Barring places like Iceland or Liechtenstein the US ranks amongst the lowest, but then again Iceland or Liechtenstein really aren't word powers are they. Compared to the number of attacks in the Asia, Europe and South America we are for the most part safe here. People don't worry about car bombers or Jihadist in greater America. Do you worry when you go to the mall or the cafe that there might be a suicide bomber? Many countries they do, but not here, wonder why?
Explain why it is largely because of the military we were attacked on 9/11. If you are going to make blanket statements, back it up with facts.
Here are some facts, no one really know why we were attacked on 9/11 except for those that did it, the rest is speculation ranging from, as you present, the military to hatred of democracy to support of Israel to American middle eastern policy to the great Satan mentality and a host of others. Facts are we'll likely never know the REAL reason, but I do know they struck first and well need to finish it.
of course we know the reason. It was our presence in the middle east in the form of support for israel, sanctions on Iraq and presence on Saudi soil. Bin Laden said that explicitly. Which would be a big problem for us if we actually had any logical reason to be over there, but we don't. the cold war is over. communism iosn't going to take over the middle east. There's no reason to arm anyone or sanction anyone or play chess over there any more.
Our intersts in the region are cheap oil and less or hopefully no terrorism against us. Both of these goals are hindered, not helped, by our currrent big government foreign policy.
as far as i'm concenred the middle east is another planet. They are, as a region, one of the least productive areas on earth. their non oil GDP (of all 22 arab states) is about equal to Finlands. They suck. we rule. we should sit back and laugh at them, not bomb them.
Not that we should as things are now, but I see no problem with getting control of the oil over there. We had an opportunity. If this country had an entirely different outlook concerning the future we could have made Iraqi people citizens of the U.S. and make Iraqi the 51st state and Afganistan the 52nd state. You need to have a very strong arm in some aspects of goverment and ease up on other things to make it work.
Wouldn't want to say much more because to get this done you might have to take on a few other countries and friends of the U.S.. People aren't ready yet. We're still thinking about national interest which is good, but the approach is not forward looking. A lot of prep work is required before going in. Right now everything is in chaos, but it is still possibly manageable even now. There are things we can use to our advantage. People need to be up to speed. We would also have to change our living habits here to focus energy and resources appropriately. It's a massive effort. Making the world inclusive rather than excluding people and being friends to others only through commerce.
Much more than walking in there and giving the country back, so that Islamic clerics win the next election and revert back to clerical rule and the U.S. having to go back to Iraq to fight there again 10 years from now.
We keep giving away our technology for monetary profit. Over the years we have done a great deal of harm to ourselves by sharing these technologies with the world.
Land for access to the new world.
Iraq and afghanistan are soverign countries. those people have been there for thousands and thousands of years. Yuo want them to pay taxes to the united states?
We buy oil from the saudis, who are exactly the sort of wahabi muslims who hate us. if we can buy oil from them we can buy oil from anyone. We still have to buy oil from iraq.
We don't have to "protect the supply lines". China and germany and everyone else doesn't have armies in the middle east.
Quoteso that Islamic clerics win the next election and revert back to clerical rule and the U.S. having to go back to Iraq to fight there again 10 years from now
why would we go back in? it was a mistake to go in the first time. what would I care if islamic clerics ruled iraq?
Sovereign nations?
That's ok, sounds like a standard political response. It's good to have lots of company in your political views. Wish I could have the same feeling. :smile:
scott- by soveriegn i mean that there is no movement i am aware of to make afghanistan or iraq part of the united states. we certainly can't FORCE them to be part of the united states and i don't think most people in this country have a desire for such a massive change to what we know as our country.
Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible
Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
scott- by soveriegn i mean that there is no movement i am aware of to make afghanistan or iraq part of the united states. we certainly can't FORCE them to be part of the united states and i don't think most people in this country have a desire for such a massive change to what we know as our country.
Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible
I don't believe any nation is soveriegn. If people are fleeing a nation then that nation forfiets their "soveriegntry" and land to the other nation that is taking on the burden. The newly aquired lands are developed and made useful. Land in exchange for access to the new world.
Your right about people not having the desire to obtain foriegn lands. Manifest Destiny.
Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible
Tell that to Queen Lili'uokalani who was overthrown as Hawaii's sovereign in order to put them on the path to statehood. As recently as 1999 some Hawaiians have purpose that their admission to the union was illegal. The info is out there.
Alaska's road to statehood was not as opposed by the very minimal population, but if wasn't as simple as you might think. Again the info is out there.
No doubt about it and the Philippines were never given the opportunity to become a state between 1899 and 1945. Of course the people wanted and were promised independence.
I wonder if the people of the Philippines were offered statehood? And if they were offered at the time would they have taken it knowing they would become full citizens of the U.S.?
I know certain elements wanted independence in the Philippines at the time, but I don't think they were ever offered statehood. Besides it's usually the nationally politically active that decided on independence for a nation during those times like in Hawaii. When the average person may have welcomed statehood back then.
Look at Puerto Rico. They could have become a state, but they had no motivation to become a state because they have all the benefits of statehood while remaining independent.
If hawaii and alaska want to leave the US that is fine by me. i wasn't defending conquest, I was saying that those additions to our country were a hell of alot more feasible than adding a "state" of iraq or Afghanistan would be.
would having the philippenes as a state benefit us? I don't see how
Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 10:46:06 AM
would having the philippenes as a state benefit us? I don't see how
Sure they are rich in copper, seafood, longer growing seasons, a strategic choke point, and grand white sand beaches very much like in Hawaii. Like most countries they also have very intelligent people.
And you can get 2 'buy me drinkie' girls for a $1.00
(well in the mid 80's you could)
CheezeFlixz you've been around a bit. :buggedout: :lookingup:
Alexander The Great married his officers and soldiers to foreign women as they conquered the new lands. This helped to stabilize what they were doing and if Alexander didn't die so young and had someone to continue his practice it would have been more interesting.
At least I didn't say you can get a round of the game 'smiles' for a $1.00.
A game in which I will not describe here in open forum.
Quote from: CheezeFlixz on November 10, 2007, 11:58:05 AM
At least I didn't say you can get a round of the game 'smiles' for a $1.00.
A game in which I will not describe here in open forum.
I never played, but I know what it is . . . and I applaud your decision!!!!!!!!!
As far as Ron Paul goes, my opinion is as simple as this:
isolationism is not a valid strategy for the world's only deomcratic super power.
We did not ask to be the world's cop, but given a choice between that and living in a world without one . . . the choice is clear.
I disagree. we acn't afford to be the worlds cop for one. We are massively in debt as it is and we won't even go into the dollar crisis. Anyone here who has travelled abroad recently knows all about it.
two, it doesn't make us safer. We have never had more blood and treasure gonig in to the middle east than we do now. and by our own governments estimation, al queda is bigger and strnoger than ever, though thankfully being driven out of iraq, and terrorism is as big a threat as ever.
We've got 38 million people in this country ilvning below the poverty line. If we took the money our federal govenrment spends on subsidies and aid and put it back in the economy, all those people could be at least above that line.
and we have no right to be the worlds police. the world is a big scary place. the law of the jungle is the rule. we cant adminster an organization that doesn't exist. our policing is a net loss in most countries security as a result of this miscalculation and people resent us.
our ancestors came here for liberty and propserity. what's so bad about that?
also, on a tehnical note "isolationism" implies economic protectionism which Ron Paul is VERY MUCH against. He consistently gets #1 or 2 in th congressional index of economic freedom, near or behind some guy from arizona.
anti war, anti state, pro market
Isolationism? Policing? I'm against both of these.
Say "Yes" to One World Government. Using all U.S. resources and energy to create true equality amongst mankind. Land for access. Manifest Destiny. :wink:
Quote from: Scott on November 10, 2007, 02:48:02 PM
Isolationism? Policing? I'm against both of these.
Say "Yes" to One World Government. Using all U.S. resources and energy to create true equality amongst mankind. Land for access. Manifest Destiny. :wink:
You're against policing but for using US money and resources to run the world? Doesn't that count as policing? Also, why should we be the ones to lead a world government? I'm sure other countries would love to.
Just playing devil's advocate there.
My opinion is that all of you are wrong. Then again, I'm sure my ideas are probably wrong as well. :bouncegiggle:
The nation that is strong enough and able enough to accomplish the task would be the one to adopt the nations of the world. Trading their land and resources to the new world of future technology. If they don't surrender they will either be conquered or left in the dark ages. :wink:
Quote from: Scott on November 10, 2007, 02:56:22 PM
The nation that is strong enough and able enough to accomplish the task would be the one to adopt the nations of the world. Trading their land and resources to the new world of future technology. If they don't surrender they will either be conquered or left in the dark ages. :wink:
Scott,
That idea never fails to fascinate me. The idea of Manifest Destiny in this day and age is not one that you hear often. Karma for thinking very uniquely.
If there is resistance you could use non-lethal EMP weapons to put them in the dark for years until they as a nation they decide to join the one world government. Becoming citizens of the world. If the people of a nation seem willing the nation taking on the burden of a fleeing people can just go in and take out the government. In exchange for access to the new world they would give up their land. Ousting the corrupt officials and aleviating the suffering of a small nation that will never ever have the collective resources to ever get out of debt to Western nations. Instead of fleeing their homelands poverty and corruption they would become citizens of the new world and be free to travel to multiple designated lands where needed. Incentives of newly developing modern places. Their would be mandatory mass migrations of people to break up any old world continuity. By that time the laws of no racial incest would be in place. People would inter-marry and/or be relocated to new and interesting places while others from the burden baring nation would invest and occupy their former forfeited lands. A new world for the eventual new people. Eventually all people will be one people. All came from "Adam" and all will return.
Fortunately all people will eventually blend together. Whether by laws or God/Man/or Nature mankind will eventually become one flesh again. Why should the world prolong or deny it?
I caught an interview with Ron Paul today on Face The Nation. He seemed very down to earth, and I like a good bit of his ideas. I don't agree with his anti-abortion position, but that's a small complaint. He did pretty well in the interview but when asked if he was suggesting that we just put a wall around the US and huddle all of our troops here, he said that would be an ideal situation. I know he meant it figuratively but still.....
He suggested shutting down our overseas bases and such and bring every service person back here. I don't quite agree with that either. I'm all for partial isolationism but removing our presence in all countries would make for a fatal mistake.
Quote from: Skaboi on November 11, 2007, 11:57:05 AM
I'm all for partial isolationism but removing our presence in all countries would make for a fatal mistake.
I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree with you, but you know and I know that in today's global economy it would never work. It's far to complex to explain in a post, but I bet you already know.
I don't see how removing our troops from around the world would do anything but save us a s**tload of money and cause way less problems.
and again, isolationism refers to TRADE. if it referred to the military every country in the world would be isolationist. do you think Iceland has troops in Africa?
it's the eporer's new clothes. that's a trick the government has used since the dawn of time. everythign will be terrible if we get rid of this ridiculous beaorcracy or that one. all the rich people will take advantage of the poor people. the roads will fall apart. perverts will be free to pervert around. the fact is, that's the way it is NOW WITH a 3 trillion dollar federal budget.
I'd recommend checking out "the politically incorrect guide to the constitution" sometime. we have lost sight of what made us great.