or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 6

post #201 of 376
When Thatcher was elected, the British standard of living was 66% of the US, after her they outgrew us until they passed us around 2000.

Most of that was union busting, but she made the mistake of deregulating the banks also. IMHO, if she had done everything except deregulate the banks it would have been ideal.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #202 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

jazzguru, It's really not worth it. You're wasting your time and energy.

Indeed. I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these dead-end conversations.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #203 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

He's right with regard to the military. 100% right. And to say it's political isolationism is a lie. We will still trade with other governments and promote freedom around the world, even if we don't go around spending billions on bombing the shit out of every Muslim who has oil (we don't bomb the actual terrorists in the Philippines, now, do we?)

He's not 100% right. His wants military isolationism. He thinks that the armed forces should not be used without a declaration of war. He thinks Iran developing a nuke is none of our business. It would be nice if the world worked like that, but it doesn't.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #204 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Honestly, yes. Obama's 'Hope and Change' was mostly hope and was unfortunately very little change at all. No change ('conserving' the status quo outright) would have been even worse.

Oh, boy. Now we're back to the literal definition of the word "conservative."

Quote:

And that premise was absolutely correct. We (Obama and Congress) did almost nothing to fix what is wrong. And things got worse.

It's apparent that what you view as "wrong" is different from much of the country.

Quote:

Honestly, I've studied this. And history says 'no'. The only times in history that things got better was when there was more government regulation combined with Democracy and (yes) capitalism. Name one time in history when less government has led to progress. Go ahead.

You're kidding, right?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #205 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

He doesn't accept the science of evolution. That automatically disqualifies him. He may have some good ideas (many of which I disagree with, but they are well thought at nonetheless), however, we need to stop electing people who flat out deny scientific reality.

In the case of scientific reality, c 95% of the Senate, Congress and the current (and previous) White House should also be disqualified.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #206 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He's not 100% right. His wants military isolationism.

Can you clarify what you mean by "military isolationism"?

Quote:
He thinks that the armed forces should not be used without a declaration of war.

Actually, he believes war should not be waged without a declaration of war. And according to our constitution, he is correct.

Quote:
He thinks Iran developing a nuke is none of our business.

It isn't.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #207 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Indeed. I don't know why I let myself get sucked into these dead-end conversations.

FYI there are other examples where reducing the size and scope of government in various ways (including opening trade, reducing taxes and regulation and privatizing government run services) have lead to greater prosperity and well-being. Three that come to mind are Chile, Mauritius and Estonia. This is also happening in China and much more slowly in India.

Additionally there is much evidence to support the claims that countries with less intrusive government (e.g., less and simpler regulation, lower taxes, less restricted trade, etc.) are generally more prosperous than those with more invasive governments.

Finally we even have as close as we can come to controlled "experiments" (same people, same geography and resources, etc.) of side-by-side (literally) comparisons between big, highly controlling and intrusive governments and relatively more free, less controlling and less intrusive governments in Germany (East: BIG controlling government, West: relatively SMALLER less controlling government) and Korean (North: BIG controlling government, South: relatively SMALLER less controlling government).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #208 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Can you clarify what you mean by "military isolationism"?

I'm wary of getting into this again, but I mean pretty much never using the military except in cases of obvious self-defense (after a direct attack, for example). I mean removing troops from all foreign countries. Neither of these is realistic, IMO.

Quote:

Actually, he believes war should not be waged without a declaration of war. And according to our constitution, he is correct.

That's not necessarily true. Congress has the power to "declare war," but the President is the Commander-in-Chief. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war. Additionally, there are many reasons that declaring war formally today is not always appropriate or desirable, from asymmetrical threats like terrorism to laws on the treatment of POW's.

Quote:

It isn't.

I'm sorry, I think that's incredibly naive and frankly, dangerous. It sounds wonderful to proclaim that we "won't tell anyone else what to do." But the world doesn't work like that. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US. Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #209 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US. Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.

Right. After all, look what's happened with the US in charge there.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #210 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I'm wary of getting into this again, but I mean pretty much never using the military except in cases of obvious self-defense (after a direct attack, for example). I mean removing troops from all foreign countries. Neither of these is realistic, IMO.

We have no legal or moral authority to invade and occupy sovereign nations, especially when they have not attacked us.

Quote:
That's not necessarily true. Congress has the power to "declare war," but the President is the Commander-in-Chief. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from using the military without a declaration of war. Additionally, there are many reasons that declaring war formally today is not always appropriate or desirable, from asymmetrical threats like terrorism to laws on the treatment of POW's.

The president was never meant to have the power to tie our troops up in perpetual, endless war.

Quote:
I'm sorry, I think that's incredibly naive and frankly, dangerous. It sounds wonderful to proclaim that we "won't tell anyone else what to do." But the world doesn't work like that. Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is a very serious problem...not just for us, but for the region. Their are very extreme elements within its government, from the Mullahs to President Ahmadinejad. They are exceptionally anti-Israel and anti-US.

Israel has 300 nukes. I think it can take care of itself.

From Iran's standpoint, they're the ones being pushed around by nuclear nations like Israel, the U.S., China, Russia, Pakistan.

Quote:
Them attaining a nuclear weapon could very easily push the entire region into war.

What's going on over there now? A friendly game of tag?

Perhaps Iran getting nukes - in combination with the U.S. getting out of their face and minding our own business - would actually serve to calm things down a bit. You know, the whole "peace through strength" thing.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #211 of 376
Are the media ignoring Ron Paul?

Yes. Yes they are.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #212 of 376
I heard the Ron Paul skit... very funny and depressing at the same time.

I think I've said before that RP has some good points, enough almost to make him better than a Dem alternative. But he's a mixed bag, and a bag of crap not just for the planet, but the future for people who need more than they already have.

If you take away the basics from those who have least you're destroying their lives and chances. Charity won't fill the void, homelessness, despair and poverty will.

If America carries on into the RP hell of inequality, GOD SAVE AMERICA.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #213 of 376
“I’ve offered to ride a bicycle for 20 miles in Houston when the temperature is 100 and the humidity is 100, and I’ll go 20 miles with them and we’ll decide who is the youngest.”

-- 75-year-old Ron Paul, when questioned about his age compared to other GOP candidates

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #214 of 376
A great candid interview with Dr. Paul. Highly recommended.

http://vimeo.com/27887298

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #215 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Right. After all, look what's happened with the US in charge there.

Right, because we've caused all the conflicts in the ME. It was much more peaceful before we invaded Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

We have no legal or moral authority to invade and occupy sovereign nations, especially when they have not attacked us.

1. There is no legal authority that prevents it.
2. All nations are sovereign.
3. Many military actions have been undertaken by many nations in the absence of direct attack.

Quote:



The president was never meant to have the power to tie our troops up in perpetual, endless war.

I agree, though your statement doesn't invalidate my point.

Quote:


Israel has 300 nukes. I think it can take care of itself.

From Iran's standpoint, they're the ones being pushed around by nuclear nations like Israel, the U.S., China, Russia, Pakistan.


1. You're equating Israel to Iran after talking about moral authority earlier?
2. Iran's perspective is fucked.

Quote:


What's going on over there now? A friendly game of tag?

Perhaps Iran getting nukes - in combination with the U.S. getting out of their face and minding our own business - would actually serve to calm things down a bit. You know, the whole "peace through strength" thing.

We simply disagree. Israel has shown it is willing to attack if significantly threatened. Imagine their response if Iran obtains a nuke. Suddenly those threatening statements look a lot more serious. Israel may just panic, and push the button.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #216 of 376

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #217 of 376
For those of you who think Ron Paul doesn't understand the Constitution when it comes to education:

Constitutional scholar refutes anti-Paul claims

Quote:
A good rule of thumb I’ve discovered is that critics who claim Rep. Ron Paul doesn’t understand the Constitution are themselves the ones whose knowledge is deficient.

For example, Scott McKeag, a teacher in the Iowa City School District, came down hard on the congressman in these pages for denying that the federal government has a role in education according to the Constitution. The congressman further believes that education is better managed by states, localities, and parents.

McKeag cites the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause to justify the federal Department of Education, which opened its doors in 1980.

Let’s tick off the problems with this howler.

First, Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 33 that the necessary and proper clause was inserted merely for clarification and did not augment federal power at all. He even said the Constitution would be exactly the same if that clause were “entirely obliterated.” Appealing to the clause to carry the burden of justifying federal involvement in education — which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution — is asking it to do much heavier lifting than even Hamilton, the broadest of constitutional constructionists, thought it could bear.

Second, George Nicholas, future attorney general of Kentucky, told the Virginia ratifying convention (and remember, according to James Madison, it is to the ratifying conventions that we turn for constitutional interpretation) that the clause “only enables it [Congress] to carry into execution the powers given to it, but gives it no additional power.” Many other statements to this effect can be found in the documentary records of the ratifying conventions.

In other words, citing this clause for authority to establish a Department of Education only begs the question, since McKeag has not first established education as one of “the powers given to it.”

Third, in numerous state ratifying conventions, the people were assured the federal government would have only the powers “expressly delegated” to it. Power over education is obviously not expressly delegated.

Fourth, Thomas Jefferson explained in 1791 that “necessary and proper” had to mean really necessary, as opposed to merely convenient, in carrying out the enumerated powers if the clause were not to swallow up the whole Constitution and defeat its very purpose. Because education is nowhere listed among the enumerated powers, it wouldn’t survive even the first stage of Jefferson’s test.

McKeag only makes things worse when he appeals to Jefferson: “President Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, championed this idea from his time in the Virginia Legislature.”

Ouch. Here’s what Jefferson actually said: “An amendment to our Constitution must here come in aid of the public education.”

Got that? An amendment to our Constitution. That means federal involvement in education is unconstitutional given the text of the document as it stands. In other words, Jefferson held precisely the view that Ron Paul holds today.

McKeag has no better luck when he tries to claim Madison. Madison warned people in 1792 that if they interpreted the general welfare clause too broadly, we’d wind up with the federal government taking “into its own hands the education of children,” an outcome he considered absurd. Ouch again, Mr. McKeag.

The rest of the article argues from the precedent, “Hey, lots of politicians have thought the people were too stupid to run their own schools and needed to be taxed for the privilege of being bossed around by their Washington betters.” Maybe so, but that doesn’t answer the question: Is it constitutional?

Before filling the heads of Iowan children with any more nonsense, Scott McKeag might consider leaving Ron Paul alone and spending a teensy bit more time reading.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #218 of 376
Huffington Post: The Top 10 Reasons Why Dr. Ron Paul Is the Only Rational Choice

Quote:
The top 10 reasons why Dr. Ron Paul is the only rational presidential choice for Americans, Democratic, Republican and Independent:

10. Dr. Paul works a real job, has run a small a business and served in the military. He has been a physician for 40 years, co-owned a coin store for 12 years and was a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. National Guard for five years. That was how our country was set up -- for public servants to work a real job that they returned to after their public service was done. He has real skills and is not a professional politician.

9. Dr. Paul has decades of experience running a business and in depth knowlegde of health care.

8. Dr. Paul understands money and is chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology.

7. Dr. Paul does the right thing referencing the U.S. Constitution and works for the country versus campaigning for his ego. He has been serving the public in politics for over 40 years.

6. Dr. Paul refuses to accept a federal pension for his public service, something other members get after a short period because they do not have real jobs. According to Dr. Paul, to receive a pension for public service would be "hypocritical and immoral."

5. Unlike most other candidates out there, Dr. Paul is not a good-looking, smooth-talking, snake charmer or charismatic zealot. He is a regular, plain-spoken person who says it the way it is.

4. Dr. Paul doesn't care if big groups like him (like unions and businesses). His donations come primarily from individuals, not from groups. He is willing to serve his country honorably without personal gain. Dr. Paul will do what is right for the U.S. based on the Constitution whether or not big money or big government likes it.

3. Dr. Paul has written a bill, called the Sun Light Rule that requires our politicians have at least 10 days to read bills before signing them.

2. Dr. Paul will bring practical wisdom, cut spending, balance the budget, stabilize the economy and probably be able to do away with the IRS and income tax, a tax that is not constitutional and was started to fund the civil war and supposed to stop after the civil war. He wants to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, giving the states and parents back control. He wants to do away with other large government agencies, restoring the rightful power to the states.

1. Dr. Paul's old-fashioned decency, integrity, honor and real-life experience are exactly what our country needs after hiring actors, puppets, oil and other group-connected slick sales men and marketers. He's been married to the same woman, Carol, for 54 years (married 1957).

Electing dishonorable, irresponsible, good-looking, smooth-talkers over the past several decades has eroded our country's stability.

Are Americans finally ready to elect an honest, decent man who will not listen to non-sense from regular Americans, politicians or corporations? A president who will be accountable and hold us all accountable? I hope so.

"Special interests have replaced the concern that the Founders had for general welfare. Vote trading is seen as good politics. The errand-boy mentality is ordinary, the defender of liberty is seen as bizarre. It's difficult for one who loves true liberty and utterly detests the power of the state to come to Washington for a period of time and not leave a true cynic." -- Dr. Paul

"He does not take money from corporate PACs. Lobbyists cannot sway him; to try is a waste of time. He never bargains with his own deeply held beliefs, nor does he cut backroom deals. Because his political views and his personal convictions are in complete harmony, he seldom faces a "tough" vote. And when the politicking for the week is over, he returns to his district to take up his lifelong occupation, which has nothing to do with politics." -- S. C. Gwynne

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #219 of 376
Huffington Post: I Voted for Obama, Now I'm Voting for Ron Paul

Quote:
I truly believe that I speak for so many young progressives that would be proponents for peace, clean food and water, and a government that actually helps and cares for its citizens.

After 8 years of GWB and the lies about WMDs, 9-11, Monsanto, Iraq...etc...anyone coming from the other party looked like a better choice. I was somehow still under the illusion that the Democratic Party would work for the people and not corporate/banking/defense industry interests.

I cried when Obama won. I really thought it was a new dawn for the US and the world as a whole. I was so ashamed of the Bush administration... all the violence and greed just made me ashamed to be from the US. Somehow though I still thought that there was a difference between the two parties.

I have to thank Mr. Obama for waking me up to this truth. When he showed support for Monsanto and big agribusiness, the continued (and escalated) warmongering, and even the continued selling-out of the American taxpayer to the Federal Reserve, the lightbulb went off in my head -- they are all simply employees.

On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate that is talking about the big pink elephant in the room. The money wasted on war, the fact that our nation has been sold to international banks, and that the federal government is becoming a monster overtaking state autonomy.

I never would have thought that the day would come where I would actually consider voting for someone else than a democrat. I want the world to be clean and healthy paradise planet for the next generations and for those that are living here now. I want the freedom to be able to buy clean food and drink unfluoridated water. I feel that its not asking too much, but the current administration continues to take away these rights.

Ron Paul seems to be the only option, and the furthered bashing of him by the mainstream media shows that they see him as a threat. I seriously hope that his time will come in 2012.

Peace and Prosperity to the US and EVERY person on the planet! Here is to sanity in 2012.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #220 of 376

Glad to hear, but what an idiot.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #221 of 376

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #222 of 376
Ron Paul owns O'Reilly's water boy Jesse Watters

The very end is the best part. Awesome.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #223 of 376
Thread Starter 
I just read the transcript of the Republican debate. this last part by Ron Paul was, I thought very good. It speaks to many of the questions asked on these boards. I don't think the transcript is correct in many of the words they wrote, but I think it gets the point across well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all
Quote:
WILLIAMS: Congressman Paul, a long time ago...

(APPLAUSE) A long time ago, a fellow Texan of yours, a young student teacher in Cotulla, Texas, was horrified to see young kids coming into the classroom hungry, some of them with distended bellies because of hunger. He made a vow that if he ever had anything to do about it, the government would provide meals, hot meals at best, in schools. The young student teacher, of course, was -- later went on to be President Lyndon Johnson. Do you think that is any more -- providing nutrition at schools for children -- a role of the federal government?

PAUL: Well, I'm sure, when he did that, he did it with local government, and there's no rules against that. That'd be fine. So that doesn't imply that you want to endorse the entire welfare state. You imply (ph) I'd endorse all welfare (ph). Any time I challenge it, you're going to challenge the whole welfare system.

No. It isn't authorized in the Constitution for us to run a welfare state. And it doesn't work. All it's filled up with is mandates. And the mandates are what we're objecting to. I want to repeal all the mandates.

But, yes, if there are poor people in Texas, we have a responsibility -- I'd like to see it voluntary as possible -- but under our Constitution, our states have that right -- if they feel the obligation, they have a perfect right to.

So don't always try to turn around and say that we who believe in liberty, we lack compassion, because we who believe in liberty and understand the market, we're the only ones that really understand how people are taken care of, how they are fed, and how people have jobs. It's the market. It's never the government that does it.

So this whole idea that there's something wrong with people who don't lavish out free stuff from the federal government somehow aren't compassionate enough. I resist those accusations.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #224 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I just read the transcript of the Republican debate. this last part by Ron Paul was, I thought very good. It speaks to many of the questions asked on these boards. I don't think the transcript is correct in many of the words they wrote, but I think it gets the point across well.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us...pagewanted=all

He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.
post #225 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.

Oh... and if voluntary doesn't cut it, then just ignore the rest of what I said...
post #226 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

He sounds a bit on the fence though in the quote you provided. Who exactly would take care of the poor? "As voluntary as possible" sounds vague.

The whole idea of Tea Partyists, laissez faire economists and anti-tax/anti-welfare Libertarians is that if we stop taking care of the poor, then the poor will be forced to take care of themselves. Which has never worked in history, of course, but don't let that stop them from dreaming of their Utopia.
post #227 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

The whole idea of Tea Partyists, laissez faire economists and anti-tax/anti-welfare Libertarians is that if we stop taking care of the poor, then the poor will be forced to take care of themselves. Which has never worked in history, of course, but don't let that stop them from dreaming of their Utopia.

Read it again and this time remove your Bias against what you think his agenda is. There were some words, "as voluntary as possible" for example that were a bit vague as was mentioned, but overall he seemed to be very clear where he drew the line. Read it a couple of times.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #228 of 376
tonton seems to have missed the part where Dr. Paul said that under our Constitution it is perfectly within the right of each state government to "take care of the poor" if that's how the people in that state want to address the issue.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #229 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

tonton seems to have missed the part where Dr. Paul said that under our Constitution it is perfectly within the right of each state government to "take care of the poor" if that's how the people in that state want to address the issue.

I wanted to hear it from him. Now you have tainted the reply.

NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #230 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I wanted to hear it from him. Now you have tainted the reply.


I doubt he would have admitted it. But I'll recant if he does.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #231 of 376
I found this particular paragraph interesting about Ron Paul's views (it's written by Paul)-

"Therefore, a transition away from the existing entitlement scheme is needed. This is why a constitutionalist president should propose devoting half of the savings from the cuts in wars and other foreign spending, corporate welfare, and unnecessary and unconstitutional bureaucracies to shoring up Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and providing enough money to finance governments obligations to those who are already stuck in the system and cannot make alternative provisions. This re-routing of spending would allow payroll taxes to be slashed. The eventual goal would be to move to a completely voluntary system where people only pay payroll taxes into Social Security and Medicare if they choose to participate in those programs. Americans who do not want to participate would be free not to do so, but they would forgo any claim to Social Security or Medicare benefits after retirement."
~ http://tulsachange.com/my-plan-for-a...ident-ron-paul

So it's constitutional at a federal level in Paul's view if people voluntarily choose the program. That means he must only consider it legal at a state level if people voluntarily choose it also, surely?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #232 of 376
Ron Paul has stated very clearly that under our Constitution states have the right to institute such government programs.

I would think, based on his own political philosophy, that he wants the state programs to be voluntary, as well. But he acknowledges that it is legal under the Constitution for states to put such programs in place.

Also note that he doesn't want to just stop all unconstitutional programs immediately, but grandfather them out over time in favor of opt-in programs.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #233 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Ron Paul has stated very clearly that under our Constitution states have the right to institute such government programs.

I would think, based on his own political philosophy, that he wants the state programs to be voluntary, as well. But he acknowledges that it is legal under the Constitution for states to put such programs in place.

Also note that he doesn't want to just stop all unconstitutional programs immediately, but grandfather them out over time in favor of opt-in programs.

I'm surprised there'd be a difference on that. Do you have a link showing where mandating entitlement programs is constitutional at a state level according to Paul?

Clearly Ron Paul doesn't want to flip the switch too quickly as say mj1970 appears to want, though he does talk about executing power as potus with executive orders as a quicker route to establishing new policy. I would wonder what the impacts of such orders would have on existing programs, many of which fall outside of the big three he mentions here.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #234 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm surprised there'd be a difference on that. Do you have a link showing where mandating entitlement programs is constitutional at a state level according to Paul?

Clearly Ron Paul doesn't want to flip the switch too quickly as say mj1970 appears to want, though he does talk about executing power as potus with executive orders as a quicker route to establishing new policy. I would wonder what the impacts of such orders would have on existing programs, many of which fall outside of the big three he mentions here.

Read this more then once.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=223
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #235 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Read this more then once.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=223

OK, I had read that. The SCOTUS though sees it as constitutional at a federal level also though, not just the state level. Why doesn't Paul think so too?
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #236 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

OK, I had read that. The SCOTUS though sees it as constitutional at a federal level also though, not just the state level. Why doesn't Paul think so too?

Because in his interpretation of the Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are specifically left to the states only. His particular problem is with Federal Mandates where there is not a choice. With State Mandates, it is constitutionally left to the state if they wish to do it. He does not seem to like Mandates at all, but there is no Constitutional problem with them from his perspective.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #237 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Because in his interpretation of the Constitution, any powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution are specifically left to the states only. His particular problem is with Federal Mandates where there is not a choice. With State Mandates, it is constitutionally left to the state if they wish to do it. He does not seem to like Mandates at all, but there is no Constitutional problem with them from his perspective.

Why on earth should I believe Ron Paul is more of a constitutional expert or legal authority than the SCOTUS, unless his conclusion is what I wanted to hear in the first place?
post #238 of 376
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Why on earth should I believe Ron Paul is more of a constitutional expert or legal authority than the SCOTUS, unless his conclusion is what I wanted to hear in the first place?

Why don't you show me where the SCOTUS and Ron Paul actually disagree and then I may be more willing to talk about it?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #239 of 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Why don't you show me where the SCOTUS and Ron Paul actually disagree and then I may be more willing to talk about it?

The Supreme Court sees the Commerce Clause and "Necessary and Proper" as a completely legal justification for the national government to provide services and tax its citizens.
post #240 of 376
Does the Constitution grant the government a monopoly on those services?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?)