Ron Paul, whether he wins or not, helped change/revitalize conservatis

[August1991]

It was never too good, just more of the political flotsam that goes with the process. The Ron Paul's of the world are neither rare or unusual. LaRouche, Wallace, LeMay, etc. are all in the tapestry of American politics. Can't say I blame any admirer on either side of the border....it's their right to do so.

Ron Paul is a multi-term member of the US House....i.e. lots of people voted for him.

Paul is closer to Larouche than he is to Henry Wallace or even the John Birchers.

I watched the SC Republican debates and came to the conclusion that he's a whackjob (with a patina of libertarian Although he occasional ideology). If he gets 1% of the vote (and since he'll run as an independent when he doesn't get the Republican nomination so 1% is a distinct possibility), then several million people will vote for him. So what. The United States has at least several million whackjobs.

To pick one example of Paul's form of nuttiness, his extreme version of isolationism is unrealistic in this world. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and extreme Islamists flew planes into the WTC. The US government simply cannot ignore the outside world. Paul is living in the 19th century, if not fantasyland.

[Brain Candy]

Paul is closer to Larouche than he is to Henry Wallace or even the John Birchers.

I watched the SC Republican debates and came to the conclusion that he's a whackjob (with a patina of libertarian Although he occasional ideology). If he gets 1% of the vote (and since he'll run as an independent when he doesn't get the Republican nomination so 1% is a distinct possibility), then several million people will vote for him. So what. The United States has at least several million whackjobs.

To pick one example of Paul's form of nuttiness, his extreme version of isolationism is unrealistic in this world. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour and extreme Islamists flew planes into the WTC. The US government simply cannot ignore the outside world. Paul is living in the 19th century, if not fantasyland.

Its not about ignoring the outside world, its about only being aggressive when its in the countries best interest, otherwise trade and discussion will do.

Japan was an imperialist first world nation, radical Islamics are uncentralised and easily blend in with over a billion people in the world. You need to be aggressive when it comes to strong nations with imperial aspirations but invading nations over terrorism just adds fuel to the fire. What we need to do is find its source, which is military intervention in the middle east, which is both easy to fix and leaves more troops to actually defend the US. Reducing military aid to Israel might be a good idea too.

[August1991]

Its not about ignoring the outside world, its about only being aggressive when its in the countries best interest, otherwise trade and discussion will do.

Japan was an imperialist first world nation, radical Islamics are uncentralised and easily blend in with over a billion people in the world. You need to be aggressive when it comes to strong nations with imperial aspirations but invading nations over terrorism just adds fuel to the fire. What we need to do is find its source, which is military intervention in the middle east, which is both easy to fix and leaves more troops to actually defend the US. Reducing military aid to Israel might be a good idea too.

Blah, blah, blah.

The lesson of World War II for the Americans is that if they don't engage the world, the world will come to America. Since World War II, the US government has engaged the world in a way that it did not before. There remains an (admirable) isolationist streak in the US (as there does all through the Americas, Quebec included) but most intelligent/thoughtful Americans realize that the US cannot pretend it has no active role to play abroad. Such a policy would only invite more catastrophes for the US.

And no, trade and diplomacy won't cut it. It sometimes requires active military involvement.

Paul is appealing to the isolationist streak in some Americans (a simple desire to avoid foreign entanglements) and he's also appealing to the (younger, non-partisan) anti-war crowd.

Paul becomes a certifiable whackjob when he starts talking about "Austrian" economics, money, abolishing the Federal Reserve and anything to do with WTC-7.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that all libertarian ideas are without merit. It depends how one understands them in the context of modern politics. I suggest you read Alan Greenspan's excellent Memoirs for an inkling of how libertarian ideas can be presented intelligently given a modern economy and a political framework that defies revolutionary change.

Ron Paul is no Alan Greenspan. Ron Paul is just a whackjob who happened to deliver alot of babies and get elected to Congress. It happens.

Edited January 12, 2008 by August1991

[Guest American Woman]

What I DO admire about Paul is his stance on Foriegn policy (non-interventionism), his desire to tackle the criminal Federal Reserve and his love of the US Constitution. He is an individualist - a true libertarian.

Now, as far as your pathetic attempts at character smear (typical of a certain ilk of folks - who FEAR any change to the status quo) how about listening to HIS actual words:

I'm asking again, Buffy:

What specifically, not generally, do you think he would accomplish that has you so excited? As an American, I think he would be a disaster for our country. Just for starters, at a time when our debt is sky high, our schools are underfunded, and we are in need of funding for a national healthcare program, he wants to eliminate the income tax. How could anyone possibly see that as a good thing?

I'll also add that he is a staunch supporter of pro-life legislation. Do you see that as a good thing for women?

In regards to your comment to Rue: "by cutting off foreign aid to Israel - AND the Arab states - it frees Israel up to do whatever she darn well pleases without having to beg to Daddy US$$$"

Do you see that as a good thing-- Israel, a nuclear state, doing whatever she darn well pleases? Furthermore, it wouldn't just be Israel and the Arab states being cut off from our foreign aid. Perhaps you should take a poll in some third world nations to see how they'd feel if we no longer gave anything to them; and then move on to the European nations that were so war-torn after WWII to see how they would have felt about the U.S. not giving/doing anything for them. You can't honestly think it would have been a good thing for us not to help?

[buffycat]

I'm asking again, Buffy:

What specifically, not generally, do you think he would accomplish that has you so excited? As an American, I think he would be a disaster for our country. Just for starters, at a time when our debt is sky high, our schools are underfunded, and we are in need of funding for a national healthcare program, he wants to eliminate the income tax. How could anyone possibly see that as a good thing?

Sorry AW, I must have missed your query the first time 'round !

Specifically, I think Dr. Paul could accomplish much that would improve America and bring her back to her prestigious and idealisitic roots. Let me say, I don't 'hate' Americans, I wish that Canada had a Constitution as beautiful and inspiring as yours. What attracts me to his message is just that - a return to the fundamentals laid out within the Constitution and Bill of Rights - both wonderful documents which over the last decades have seen more time in the shredder than in the halls of governance!

Dr. Paul is advocating the end to federal income taxes and decreases in the overspending rampant in the big government environment prevelant today in DC. Conservatism used to stand for Small Government, decentralized government and less intrusion into the lives of all individuals. Heavy taxes do nothing to help the economy - the beast upon which ALL else depends. Higher taxes in fact often lead to downfalls in both national and local economies and more often than not it is the small to medium business that pay dearly. This leads to a change in the market landscape - with only the big cats left, carpet-bagging the ailing and defunkt smaller (usually family owned) endeavours. This is NOT a good thing in the long run for any country. As an example, we have seen this with the loss of the family farms in both the US and Canada - did these farms stop producing food? Of course not - they get bought up by the huge Agri-business corporations who care nothing for quality assurance as they reap their monopoly over everyone's food and seed supply. Over taxing played a big role in this, in both countries, and shows very little evidence of stopping. While the farmers may remain on the land, still working it - they no longer own it - so tell me the difference between this and serfdom. (Hint: there is none - only the names have been changed). High taxes shackle people from their own free will and stifle community spirits - instead of people banding together wrt social issues - they look to the bloated government agencies - and expect - aye feel 'entitled'- to 'get their fair share, it becomes a battle of the lobbies and often more money is spent on that than the actual social issue which is being addressed!! Then of course, these trough fillers say they need to take MORE money out of our pockets!! (it's a viscious circle - and inevitably the services the gov. offers decline rapidly as our contribution to them rises). So, high income taxes = economic downfall (but never for the really rich - or big corporations - funny that!).

Here is Dr. Paul's campaign site page wrt taxes. On the right side near the bottom is a long list of his own writings wrt taxes and debt - better for you to read his words and not really mine - though I agree with much of what he says regarding the overstretched paws of government taking MY money, that I work for!

I'll also add that he is a staunch supporter of pro-life legislation. Do you see that as a good thing for women?

Well, I'll have to say I part company with Ron on this one, in so much as making illegal all kinds of abortion. While I staunchly support the right for a woman to choose, I do believe there needs to be some control over the timing of abortions. If I understand Ron correctly - it is the late term abortions made allowable by Roe vs. Wade that Dr. Paul is against. He also wants to leave it up to the individual state as to how to deal with this issue. It's a very emotionally charged issue, and to be frank, even if Dr. Paul became president it would be unlikely that the laws as it stands now would be overturned. I would never want to see a return of the back alley abortionists - but at the same time - ideally - I would not like to see the practice continue.

]In regards to your comment to Rue: "by cutting off foreign aid to Israel - AND the Arab states - it frees Israel up to do whatever she darn well pleases without having to beg to Daddy US$$$"

Do you see that as a good thing-- Israel, a nuclear state, doing whatever she darn well pleases? Furthermore, it wouldn't just be Israel and the Arab states being cut off from our foreign aid. Perhaps you should take a poll in some third world nations to see how they'd feel if we no longer gave anything to them; and then move on to the European nations that were so war-torn after WWII to see how they would have felt about the U.S. not giving/doing anything for them. You can't honestly think it would have been a good thing for us not to help?

Well, I don't think any government should be involved in 'aid'. It ends up simply being a political tool in so many ways. There are plenty of NGOs around who can and do do the same thing - and if truly aid - it needs to be done without any strings attached. Currently it's a farce of 'Hey we will give you x amount of 'aid' if you allow us to rape and pillage y amount of your lands!! So, no I don't think ANY government should be involved in this sort of thing.

WRT Israel, if she hadn't recieved the huge sums of money she has from the US, she may have learned to get on a little better with her neighbours. Perhaps she would have even given up on the Occupation and grudgingly allowed for the Palestinians to actually have a land. As it stands now, her dependence on Daddy Warbucks has put a choke hold on her, she has prostituted herself as the 'American' base in the ME and by doing that has given up her soveriegnty and engaged in behaviours which in no way benefit her and her people as a nation. At the same time, the US' close relationship with the right wing Likud faction in Israel, responsible for the increase of illegal settlements, increase in checkpoints and destruction of property has led to an even greater dislike of America's policies vis a vis the Palestinians. IOW America's support of clearly racist policies of certain Israeli Administrations has tarnished and pretty much destroyed what years ago was an ammicable relationship with the Arab world. Keep in mind that America did not have problems with the Arab states until the creation of Israel - and the American endorsement of what they saw as ethnic cleansing of the native inhabitants of then British Mandate Palestine. It is as you know, a long and complicated history. However, ensuring Israel's dependence on US $$ does nothing good for either the Israelis (in terms of soveriegnty) or the Americans (in terms of credibility). This mess has much to do the MIC greed and the desire to empire build by certain factions of both the US and Israeli elite (keep in mind that the elites NEVER have the best interests of their own people at heart).

Oddly this leads to the whole problem of interventionism and favouritism in US foriegn policy which has proved very bad for the US on the whole. Paul has been accussed of being a 'radical isolationist', I really don't think that is the case. There is a difference between Non-Intervention and Isolationism. On the one hand a non-interventionist will have no problems trading with, talking to and working with other nations for both diplomatic and economic reasons. The non-interventionist will not however, sponsor covert political and military actions against other soveriegn nations, they will not launch wars of aggression in order to ensure 'dominance' over a resource which does NOT belong to them. A non-interventionist will not prop up foriegn regimes and puppet governments to ensure monopolies over the resources. I think you get my drift. An Isolationist on the other hand - will simply close their borders and rot in their own xenophobic ways.

[Brain Candy]

The lesson of World War II for the Americans is that if they don't engage the world, the world will come to America. Since World War II, the US government has engaged the world in a way that it did not before. There remains an (admirable) isolationist streak in the US (as there does all through the Americas, Quebec included) but most intelligent/thoughtful Americans realize that the US cannot pretend it has no active role to play abroad. Such a policy would only invite more catastrophes for the US.

No it wouldn't, He never says the US has NO active role to play, but the days of strong arming countries with a military presence are numbered with the advent of modern day terrorism. Even if Iraq suceeds in the long run (with Iran and Turkey gunning for it all signs point to no) what we end up with is more embittered people for terrorists to recrut looking to carry out an attack later(probably funded by Iranians or Saudis). Best is to AVOID bad blood with these places and getting the hell out before you are drawn into such messes.

[Rue]

Rue - cut it out with your BS posts, which twist and smear whatever I have (or oftentimes - have NOT said).

My respect for Mr. Paul has zippo to do with Zionism Rue, so you can stuff that into your pipe and haul away.

What I DO admire about Paul is his stance on Foriegn policy (non-interventionism), his desire to tackle the criminal Federal Reserve and his love of the US Constitution. He is an individualist - a true libertarian.

Now, as far as your pathetic attempts at character smear (typical of a certain ilk of folks - who FEAR any change to the status quo) how about listening to HIS actual words:

http://www.nationalexpositor.com/News/898.html

Here he is Wolf Blitzer - countering the BS smears of racism which is purely a political attack. (Someone is afraid).

In the meantime - your darling Hitlerly is cosy with murderers and thugs, and drug dealers too!! Not to mention some of the really nasty business practices (tainted blood?!).

So, whatever to all you fearmongerers - either listen to what he actually says - or as usual take the msm talking heads' point of view and go back to your grazing.

(By the way Rue, by cutting off foreign aid to Israel - AND the Arab states - it frees Israel up to do whatever she darn well pleases without having to beg to Daddy US$$$.)

Sorry been away. Read your response. I loved the Hitlerly reference. hah. Good one.You have to admit you do like his views on Zionism. That's o.k. However I appreciate you are mostly leftist in your views that is why I challenged you on his record. You were honest in saying you agree with just some of his agenda. That's the problem. You can't pick and choose with these guys. They attract young idealistic people precisely because in my opinion they play manipulation, they tell you stuff that has a meaning to you but has a far different meaning for the Nazis that also support him. Those Nazis need you idealistic people like you as their cover.

Sorry if you thought I got personal. I am just talking the views and issues not you personally. I do not question your motives or suggest you are a Nazi. I am not smearing you. Your views on Zionism are in the open. So are his. If you say its coincidence, they are the same so be it. Lol. Also you are right I was a Hitlery supporter but that was before Bam Bam. Well at least I did not say Fred Thompson although he is funny.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Rue

[GostHacked]

American Woman

I'll also add that he is a staunch supporter of pro-life legislation. Do you see that as a good thing for women?

One can use some common sense and say because he is a long time pediatritian, and has delivered thousands of newbornes, it might be safe to say AS A DOCTOR he is pro life. I think by nature all doctors are pro life.

As a polititian you should think about being pro choice. And I am not sure if he has changed that stance. Even if he has not, at least he is consistant.

How many of the REP or DEM candidates are currently pro-life??? Why pick on just Paul? How about comparison notes to the other candidates to truely understand where each candidate stands. THAT has not been done yet as far as I can see in MLW. We should make a thread comparing all aspects of all candidates. I feel no one has done any research on how Guiliani voted in the past, or Clinton, or Obama, Edwards, McCain, Thompson, ect ect.

We even know what kind of a screw up GW Bush was before he ever entered politics. But yet he was voted in and made president. So it shows that people just simply do not do enough research on anything that will affect their lives.

All of us are guilty of this.

Hey Rue, you made many statements ... but no references or links... come on, I have seen you rag on people for not providing links to outlandish things, so back at ya.

When Paul talks about isolationism, it is about military isolationism. Not economic and diplomatic isolationism. He still wants to trade with others, still wants to talk to others,

American Woman

What specifically, not generally, do you think he would accomplish that has you so excited? As an American, I think he would be a disaster for our country. Just for starters, at a time when our debt is sky high, our schools are underfunded, and we are in need of funding for a national healthcare program, he wants to eliminate the income tax. How could anyone possibly see that as a good thing?

IN 4 years, the US national debt has reached the highest point ever. Do not take into account how much this war on terror is costing. Do not take into account that reducing the government will reduce needless wasted spending on redundant jobs within the government. Therefore reducing or eliminating a form of tax will help, because you don't have to pay for such a bloated governemt. (And I must say, Canada's government is hugely bloated and can be drasticly reduced.) People can have a more stable and continuous growth based on true prosperity.

The cost of the war on terror would be able to provide education and health care for every child in the US. Take that into account and perspective. Bush made tax cuts yes, but the government is still bloated, so eventually you are going to get farther into debt.

One thing we should all consider, is who are we in debt to?? Why is the US national debt up over a trillion dollars? Who are we in debt to????????

You pay taxes, but the country is at war, debt is higher, prices of items are higher. How much extra are all of you paying for fuel this year and the last compared to the previous ten years? Hell it still costs me about 100$ a month for public transportation.

[Guest American Woman]

American Woman

One can use some common sense and say because he is a long time pediatritian, and has delivered thousands of newbornes, it might be safe to say AS A DOCTOR he is pro life. I think by nature all doctors are pro life.

As a polititian you should think about being pro choice. And I am not sure if he has changed that stance. Even if he has not, at least he is consistant.

I was referring to his stance as a politician. He's staunchly pro-life. As such, in spite of his consistancy, I don't see his stance as being good for the U.S.; as being good for women. Buffy seems to think he would be marvelous for the U.S. and I see this as a big negative.

How many of the REP or DEM candidates are currently pro-life??? Why pick on just Paul?

All of the dems are pro-choice while probably all of the repubs are pro-life, but this thread is about Paul and I'm posting in reaction to Buffy's exuberance over him, so that's whose views I'm bringing up/discussing in this thread.

American Woman

IN 4 years, the US national debt has reached the highest point ever. Do not take into account how much this war on terror is costing. Do not take into account that reducing the government will reduce needless wasted spending on redundant jobs within the government. Therefore reducing or eliminating a form of tax will help, because you don't have to pay for such a bloated governemt. (And I must say, Canada's government is hugely bloated and can be drasticly reduced.) People can have a more stable and continuous growth based on true prosperity.

The cost of the war on terror would be able to provide education and health care for every child in the US. Take that into account and perspective. Bush made tax cuts yes, but the government is still bloated, so eventually you are going to get farther into debt.

One thing we should all consider, is who are we in debt to?? Why is the US national debt up over a trillion dollars? Who are we in debt to????????

All of the points you bring up, our national debt, funding education, etc., are reasons I don't support getting rid of the federal income tax. If you think paying back our debt is a problem now, how would it get better by cutting out trillions of dollars of revenue?? And how are we supposed to pay for a military? While I don't support starting wars, I certainly don't support not having a military. I believe in a strong military for defensive purposes.

You pay taxes, but the country is at war, debt is higher, prices of items are higher. How much extra are all of you paying for fuel this year and the last compared to the previous ten years? Hell it still costs me about 100$ a month for public transportation.

Your cost for public transportation may be the same, but someone is paying a higher price for it. The fuel to run public transportation has gone up just as it has for the rest of us. So is your government paying more to subsidize your public transportation? It has to be coming from somewhere if it's not coming from higher ticket prices for those using it. So I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Edited January 19, 2008 by American Woman

[Rue]

i know many doctors who are pro choice. I am not sure being a physician predisposes one to being pro-choice or pro-life. The point is a physician has a professional responsibility to keep his personal and/or religious views to himself or herself when treating a patient and if they can't do that-they have no business treating the patient and as far as I am concerned being in the profession.

Being a professional means precisely that you can have to dettach your personal opinions and feelings from your work.

On that note I am off to circumsize a Ron Paul supporter. Oops I slipped when I saw the swastika tatoo. No I am joking. Calm down.