Stan187

Oh, I get it. If we withdrew all our troops from everywhere and just became hermits in our foreign policy, no one would hate us anymore. Yup, makes perfect sense.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

Parihaka

Except they apparently still want to have a vote on the security council

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Stan187

What? I thought we were supposed withdraw from the UN altogether?

Stan187

YouTube - Ron Paul and Bill O'Reilly Duke It Out (09/10/07)

If you watch the last minute of that, according to Ron Paul, we are doing the wrong thing in Afghanistan by participating in nation-building and fighting the Taliban. Since, you know, if we'd withdraw and let them come to power again, the would have learned their lesson and would vow to stop sponsoring terrorism and executing people and all that "good stuff".

Ironduke

At any rate, my last words on Ron Paul. In my opinion, upon reviewing many of his policy stands, they seem to be ideal. But are the possible? No, I don't think so, although many if not most of them would be quite ideal to a good chunk of the WAB membership, they're clearly not realistic as we don't live in an ideal world.

No federal income tax? I would at least like to see our senior citizens get taken care of, and have a decent defense budget. Where would the money come from, tariffs? How exactly would the federal gov't be able to hold up Article IV, Section 4 in this modern age:
Homeschooling? There are exceptions, but many of these kids turn out to be social retards in life.

Pro-life? I think there are better alternatives to abortion, and that the perceived need to have one could be mitigated by better practices... but in this day and age it's completely unrealistic to think it can be outlawed. And for a libertarian like Paul, that's a very anti-libertarian view.

Pro limited government? I think government pork, excess, and many bloated programs could be trimmed quite a bit, but Paul's limited government would be a less capable government... as in less capable of defending the US and dealing with threats when needed.

Gold and silver standards? They're just shiny, pretty metal. Why not palladium? How 'bout a diamond standard?

Since when is Paul the only candidate that upholds the Constitution? Are income taxes unconstitutional? Not according to 16th Amendment of the Constitution. Or do only the first ten count? Or how about we scrap all the amendments while we're at it, as none of them are part of the original Constitution.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

Ironduke

Fred Thompson... well I have to say I'll be damned. It skimmed through what looked like a couple hundred points regarding his policy here:

Fred Thompson on the Issues

And could only find maybe 5 I outright disagreed with. Maybe 10 I was neutral or couldn't decide on. I'm changing my vote to Fred Thompson (yes, I can change my vote).

Shamus

Could you change mine to him while you're at it,I had never read much about him either Ironduke.So far I really like what I see.Good site by the way.

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Ironduke

Wilco. I've just applied to work for his campaign -- I think I might have a pretty decent chance (of something more substantial than just being a volunteer). I have my work here, I'm a political science senior and (not trying to be immodest) multi-talented.

Ishapore41

I think by me calling it a flaw I said I made a mistake. The composition was flawed, but I corrected myself.

You are "through" with this discussion because obviously you can't discuss it until the talk heads get on and preach today's statist gospel. Now, if you feel I am wrong about the issues I expressed, then prove it. Otherwise feel free to not comment on a discussion I and others are engaged in.

Our foreign policy is a major reason why our military is strained right now. We don't need bases in Europe. We have 730 military installations around the world in over 130 countries. We are living in an empire folks. An empire and a republic cannot co-exist. Just a few weeks ago, the South Korean President begged Bush to hold a peace treaty to end the Korean war. He declined. We get in the way when we meddle, we hardly ever do any good when we intervene in internal affairs of other nations. Our foreign policy in the middle east has what the CIA calls blowback. You strap on a gun and go struttin around another man's country you better be ready for the consequences. People are touch about that sorta thing. I suggest doing some research on the subject before assuming everyone loves us.

YouTube - Ron Paul is right! It's the Foreign Policy Redux

His objection is to the Nation building aspect, not fighting the Taliban. Paul voted for the authorization to go after Bin Laden because he was a direct threat to the US. Instead we let him get away at Tora Bora and then turn around and invade Iraq. Because we didn't finish them off like we should have they have now resurged as a dominant and dangerous force in souther Afghanistan.


As it is, the federal income tax(FIT) only accounts for the 1/3 of the US budget. Before 1916 the US didn't have a FIT and we got along just fine without it. The problem is government is too big. Government needs to be reduced. Us Republicans used to talk like that but not since 2000. We'd say things like we want to eliminate whole departments. It still turns me on honestly.
By changing our foreign policy we'd save so much money. By reducing the size of government we'd save a lot of money and our government wouldn't need to steal money from American workers.

Not necessarily and in any case it should be up to the parent how they want their children educated, not the federal government.

He doesn't want to outlaw it, he wants to turn it back to a Constitutional position of states rights. The states have a right to decide the difficult issues. That is the magificence of our Republic. We solve difficult social issues at the local level. Education, marriage, gay rights, abortion etc. Not a once size fit all case for the whole country.
Just because Paul swings Libertarian doesn't mean he has to conform to that certain set of beliefs. Its called individuality. We should avoid less group-think in this country.

Paul calls for a strong national defense, in fact he supported SDI in the 80s. Less capable government? I applaud you. You have just made the argument for my side. More government is less capable because it is more bureaucratic. Just look at the efficiency of FEMA. Just look at Homeland Security and Airports..what a mess! Less government is the answer and that is what our Founding Fathers realized. This man can articulate it better than I can.
YouTube - 2008 ELECTION - FOUGHT IN 1964

A fair question, because most Americans don't even understand how their money is made and what is the backing to it. The answer is their is no backing to paper money. The government prints it out of thin air. Politicians like to spend money because it gets them elected. When they come up short they print more money depreciating the value of the dollar. This causes inflation. This hurts the middle class and the poor the most. The dollar is worth 4 cents compared to what it was worth in 1913. Our Federal Reserve system(which is no more Federal than Federal Express) is doing disastrous things to our monetary system. For more information, I suggest watching this documentary on our Federal Reserve system and how it works and where money comes from.
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution

The history of the 16th Amendment is rather shady and its ratification by the states is rather shady as well. In any case, I believe it is immoral for the federal government to take away the fruits of your labor, forcing you to lower your standard of living. It should be repealed and the IRS should be done away with. I don't think anyone here would say they LOVE the IRS. Also, its very important to point out that in the Communist Manifesto, one of the pillars of communism is a "progressive" income tax. Along with a few other things our government does these days...

ExNavyAmerican

Ron Paul believes in small government. He is against the IRS because it's an executive bureau exercising the tax collecting power of congress. He's against the Income Tax because, though it's constitutional by amendment, it's against the very substance of the constitution. You might as well make an amendment outlawing guns. He's against federally funded programs like Social Security and Welfare because they create a deficit, and demand higher taxes.

He is for full gun rights as described in the II Amendment -this includes the creation of a militia as a check of the people and states against the federal government. He's pro-life because he believes that unborn children are entitled to a right to life. But as such, he's also against the death penalty.

He's a typical old-fasioned republican on foreign policy: isolationist -unless a nation is directly threatening the US. Therefore, he's for the US pulling out of NAFTA, the UN, and other world organizations. He's against Iraq, quite naively I admit, but for Afghanistan except for the nation-building elements. He's a proponet of the Monroe doctrine. He's also for tightly controlled borders.


Basically, he's an old-fasioned republican. Libertarian, isolationist, fiscal conservative.

Personally, I find his beliefs quite appealing. I believe that the US' domestic situation demands as much if not more attention then the international scene. And he'll deal with those issues.

__________________
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
- Thomas Jefferson

ExNavyAmerican

But I'm still with Tancredo.

Ishapore41

Its not really an isolationist foreign policy. NAFTA is managed trade, not free trade. The trade laws were made to benefit companies and not employees. The UN, most conservatives, libertarians and Republicans can agree- is a corrupt organization. We have become the arm of force for the UN, doing its bidding and sacrificing our soldiers for its causes.
Isolationism would mean we wouldn't trade, talk or intervene in foreign affairs of other nations. Paul clearly advocates, as did the founding fathers, to talk to countries and trade with them. To be friendly and not boss others around. We don't need to impose our goodness on the world through use of force. We need to set a good example and become prosperous through the free market and others will want to emulate our free society and economic success. If our national security is threatened, we declare war(if against a nation, terrorism isn't a nation its a band of rogue individuals like pirates). When we go to war we use the Patton doctrine. Bring every ounce of our military might to crush our enemy kill as many of them as possible and get the war over with as soon as possible. We don't need to entrench ourselves in foreign obligations that have nothing to do with US national security. Imperialists called it isolationism to try and marginalize and single out those that opposed the military expansion this country was doing at the beginning of the 20th century; ie our war with Spain.

Tancredo makes good points, but God help him he can't clearly articulate a point across without looking nervous.

dalem

That speaks to your own lack of concern then, doesn't it?

"wasted" presumes the goal is not desirable or achievable.

So, by your logic I can't support the war unless I have lost something because of it, but the fact that others have lost something because of it means it's not worth supporting? Do you even see the contradiction there?

Concern away, I'm not claiming concern isn't valid and proper.

I'm pointing out flaws in your reasoning - that's certainly a way to address your "argument", whatever that is. You're not making any sense, kiddo - that's important to point out.

-dale

Julie

“A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.” — Proverbs 22:3

I understand it to mean the war has endured too many consequences (losses).

temujin77

I agree with you there Stan. I think we tried the isolationism thing a while back. It doesn't work

However, I'm impressed that Paul is being consistent with his philosophy. He claims that he believes in small government, therefore he campaigns for all things that would shrink the size of the government. I don't necessarily agree with all the methods personally, but at least he is consistent. Not all politicians can do that. Most cannot. After all, the funny thing about political jokes is that they get elected

__________________
Pete
World War II Database