If you care about freedom and liberty at all, you should support Ron Paul's run

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
techs

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
While I disagree with Paul on a lot of issues and find him to be a dangerous radical, he is right about some things.
Here's one:
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=4607

What if It Was All a Big Mistake?

by Rep. Ron Paul
Watch Ron Paul deliver this speech to the House of Representatives on video.


America's policy of foreign intervention, while still debated in the early 20th century, is today accepted as conventional wisdom by both political parties. But what if the overall policy is a colossal mistake, a major error in judgment? Not just bad judgment regarding when and where to impose ourselves, but the entire premise that we have a moral right to meddle in the affairs of others? Think of the untold harm done by years of fighting ? hundreds of thousands of American casualties, hundreds of thousands of foreign civilian casualties, and unbelievable human and economic costs. What if it was all needlessly borne by the American people? If we do conclude that grave foreign policy errors have been made, a very serious question must be asked: What would it take to change our policy to one more compatible with a true republic's goal of peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations? Is it not possible that Washington's admonition to avoid entangling alliances is sound advice even today?


 
A

adrunkgerbil

Member
Nov 23, 2006
118
0
0
How is he a dangerous radical? Because he wants to bring the federal government back to what the Constitution delegates?
 
J

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: adrunkgerbil
How is he a dangerous radical? Because he wants to bring the federal government back to what the Constitution delegates?
Click to expand...

He's a dangerous radical because he would take away all the socialist programs and politicians would no longer have money to bribe the people with.

If he had a DeathStar and had a the balls to use it on anyone who was against peace and prosperity, I would vote for him.
 
R

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Boy, I really got to admire the principles of a "Libertarian" who keeps running as a Republican so he can actually win in Texas. :roll: Whether or not he's a RINO, his continued affiliation with that most UNlibertarian party for personal political gain suggests he bends in the wind just as much as any other politician.
 
R

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: adrunkgerbil
How is he a dangerous radical? Because he wants to bring the federal government back to what the Constitution delegates?
Click to expand...

He's a dangerous radical because he would take away all the socialist programs and politicians would no longer have money to bribe the people with.

If he had a DeathStar and had a the balls to use it on anyone who was against peace and prosperity, I would vote for him.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the idea of limited government, but the Libertarian party in this country takes the idea to such a ridiculous extreme it's a wonder they get any support at all. There are a LOT of instances when smaller government would be good, but it has a function to perform, and I think the history of this country has suggested that a pint-sized federal government is not the way to go.

I won't go into a big sermon here, but I think the Libertarian philosophy on foreign affairs has got to be one of the worst. The idea of minimalist foreign policy, the type that was widely supported back when this country was founded, sounds good until you realize that the founding fathers supported the idea when the fastest way to get from one country to another was a sailing ship that would take the better part of a year. When some knucklehead in Yemen can build a bomb and come blow it up here less than a day later, or when even dirtball countries like North Korea can build long range missiles with nuclear warheads, an isolationist foreign policy seems like a pretty bad idea. And lest we forget, just because we step aside doesn't mean everyone else will...as bad as it might be with the United States playing global police, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to turn that job over to China or Russia.

There are certainly foreign policy problems that need to be addressed, just as there are problems with many areas of government. But the Libertarians don't want to solve the problems, they just want to take their ball and go home...secure in the belief that everything just magically works out when government steps out of the picture. And while I'd welcome a smaller government in a lot of areas as a solution to some of the problems, it's not a global solution the way the Libertarians want to apply it. We can debate the merits of private retirement accounts, but I don't think there are a lot of good arguments for a free market fire department.
 
BoomerD

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,685
15,082
146
A repuke from Texas? ANOTHER ONE? No fvcking thanks...the current one has FUBARED things badly enough...
 
A

adrunkgerbil

Member
Nov 23, 2006
118
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: adrunkgerbil
How is he a dangerous radical? Because he wants to bring the federal government back to what the Constitution delegates?
Click to expand...

He's a dangerous radical because he would take away all the socialist programs and politicians would no longer have money to bribe the people with.

If he had a DeathStar and had a the balls to use it on anyone who was against peace and prosperity, I would vote for him.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the idea of limited government, but the Libertarian party in this country takes the idea to such a ridiculous extreme it's a wonder they get any support at all. There are a LOT of instances when smaller government would be good, but it has a function to perform, and I think the history of this country has suggested that a pint-sized federal government is not the way to go.

I won't go into a big sermon here, but I think the Libertarian philosophy on foreign affairs has got to be one of the worst. The idea of minimalist foreign policy, the type that was widely supported back when this country was founded, sounds good until you realize that the founding fathers supported the idea when the fastest way to get from one country to another was a sailing ship that would take the better part of a year. When some knucklehead in Yemen can build a bomb and come blow it up here less than a day later, or when even dirtball countries like North Korea can build long range missiles with nuclear warheads, an isolationist foreign policy seems like a pretty bad idea. And lest we forget, just because we step aside doesn't mean everyone else will...as bad as it might be with the United States playing global police, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to turn that job over to China or Russia.

There are certainly foreign policy problems that need to be addressed, just as there are problems with many areas of government. But the Libertarians don't want to solve the problems, they just want to take their ball and go home...secure in the belief that everything just magically works out when government steps out of the picture. And while I'd welcome a smaller government in a lot of areas as a solution to some of the problems, it's not a global solution the way the Libertarians want to apply it. We can debate the merits of private retirement accounts, but I don't think there are a lot of good arguments for a free market fire department.
Click to expand...

You may be right but it's not like his foreign policy would ever be implemented anyways. Our current policy has continuously ****** us over. Also he wouldn't be able to eliminate the government to the point where anyone would worry. There needs to someone with his radical libertarian views to get this country back on track.

 
BoomerD

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,685
15,082
146
Take your side-show somewhere else shill...How much are you getting paid to stump for this guy?
 
BoomerD

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,685
15,082
146
Maybe...amazing how anyone who doesn't fall into goose-step with your hero is automatically a socialist hippy...I think America has had just about enough of your kind...
 
A

adrunkgerbil

Member
Nov 23, 2006
118
0
0
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Maybe...amazing how anyone who doesn't fall into goose-step with your hero is automatically a socialist hippy...I think America has had just about enough of your kind...
Click to expand...

All I want is an intelligent list of reasons why this man would be a bad president. How is he not 10x better than any other candidate?

 
R

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: adrunkgerbil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: adrunkgerbil
How is he a dangerous radical? Because he wants to bring the federal government back to what the Constitution delegates?
Click to expand...

He's a dangerous radical because he would take away all the socialist programs and politicians would no longer have money to bribe the people with.

If he had a DeathStar and had a the balls to use it on anyone who was against peace and prosperity, I would vote for him.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with the idea of limited government, but the Libertarian party in this country takes the idea to such a ridiculous extreme it's a wonder they get any support at all. There are a LOT of instances when smaller government would be good, but it has a function to perform, and I think the history of this country has suggested that a pint-sized federal government is not the way to go.

I won't go into a big sermon here, but I think the Libertarian philosophy on foreign affairs has got to be one of the worst. The idea of minimalist foreign policy, the type that was widely supported back when this country was founded, sounds good until you realize that the founding fathers supported the idea when the fastest way to get from one country to another was a sailing ship that would take the better part of a year. When some knucklehead in Yemen can build a bomb and come blow it up here less than a day later, or when even dirtball countries like North Korea can build long range missiles with nuclear warheads, an isolationist foreign policy seems like a pretty bad idea. And lest we forget, just because we step aside doesn't mean everyone else will...as bad as it might be with the United States playing global police, I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to turn that job over to China or Russia.

There are certainly foreign policy problems that need to be addressed, just as there are problems with many areas of government. But the Libertarians don't want to solve the problems, they just want to take their ball and go home...secure in the belief that everything just magically works out when government steps out of the picture. And while I'd welcome a smaller government in a lot of areas as a solution to some of the problems, it's not a global solution the way the Libertarians want to apply it. We can debate the merits of private retirement accounts, but I don't think there are a lot of good arguments for a free market fire department.
Click to expand...

You may be right but it's not like his foreign policy would ever be implemented anyways. Our current policy has continuously ****** us over. Also he wouldn't be able to eliminate the government to the point where anyone would worry. There needs to someone with his radical libertarian views to get this country back on track.
Click to expand...

Hmm...I suppose that's one way to think about it. I certainly don't agree with how far he takes his views, but I suppose a President doesn't exist in a vacuum. He might get closer to ideal than anyone who's more "moderate".
 
BoomerD

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,685
15,082
146
He does have some good points, but not enough to over-ride the Republican affiliation, nor some of his previous voting record as listed here:
http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)

Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

Opposes the death penalty. (Jan 2007)

Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests. (Sep 1998)

Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)

Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)

Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. (Apr 2003)

Voted NO on deterring foreign arms transfers to China. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001)

Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions. (Feb 2002)

Voted NO on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)

Unlimited campaign contributions; with full disclosure. (Dec 2000)

Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006)

Voted NO on federalizing rules for driver licenses to hinder terrorists. (Feb 2005)

Voted YES on zero-funding OSHA's Ergonomics Rules instead of $4.5B. (Mar 2001)

Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)

Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)

Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Dec 2005)

Voted YES on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)

Voted YES on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)

Voted YES on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)

Voted YES on eliminating the Estate Tax ("death tax"). (Apr 2001)

Overhaul income tax; end capital gains & inheritance tax. (Dec 2000)

Phaseout the death tax. (Mar 2001)

Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)





 
ericlp

ericlp

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
6,139
236
106
But the real question is.... Does he have half a trillion dollars? No? Sorry, then you can't run for president.
 
A

adrunkgerbil

Member
Nov 23, 2006
118
0
0
Originally posted by: ericlp
But the real question is.... Does he have half a trillion dollars? No? Sorry, then you can't run for president.
Click to expand...

Yeah well just sitting back and not trying to change things will just make things worse.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom