Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: Abraxas
No, this guy is not like one of the founding fathers. Ron Paul does not talk about overthrowing unjust government. Everyone likes to compare themselves to the founding fathers, few recognize what that would actually mean. The founding fathers were revolutionaries, they raised arms against an unjust government in order that they might end it. Ron Paul is, at best, a reformist, someone who tries to pass laws to end something unjust. The founding fathers sought to end control of the greatest political influence of the time, the British Crown; Ron Paul seeks to give the greatest dominating power in Washington even more power, big money. The founding fathers risked certain execution should they fail, Ron Paul risks a little bit of time and money. Before we continue with our little comparison, let us cease in the delusion Ron Paul is the next George Washington or Thomas Jefferson; he isn't.
No he is not George Washington, nor Thomas Jefferson, but I believe he is following in their footsteps. He runs based on the premise of the Constitution of these United States. Every one of the presidents is sworn to uphold the Constitution yet many (including myself) can agree that it is not happening. Now if you don't see that he isn't following in the footsteps of our founding father please point out where/why.
Because being comparable to the founding fathers is not merely upholding the constitution. The founding fathers did not uphold the constitutional, they created it. They took their vision of a better society and they put it into writing and practice. They were men who threw out existing law and implemented an entirely new, untried, and untested government and risked their lives to do so. Simply returning to what others before him have written does not, in any way, show the same level of courage nor the kind of leadership displayed by those who founded the nation.
As for the video, first, inserting a bunch of random quotes from Thomas Paine and the Declaration of Independence does not impress me. Politicians have been running using those words for nearly the entire duration of the United States. Being able to pick a phrase out of the Constitution and assuring me it is important to you or your candidate tells me nothing.
Well if that doesn't show you anything, then look at his voting record. Look at his position
20 years ago and see its the same then as it is now. Obviously he shows consistent values which are lacking in todays politicians.
I will, but I was talking specifically about the video.
Second, the crowds of a few vocal supporters Ron Paul was able to get still do not impress me. Other candidates are filling stadiums; hell, even Michael Moore can fill 6000 seats. The fact Ron Paul was able to get a couple hundred people to stand around and wave signs for the camera puts him about on the same level as the SWP. Also, do not put supporters on camera claiming this is a revolution. They undermine your entire effort by demonstrating they have no idea what a revolution is; that, or you demonstrate they have no idea what your policies are as a candidate. Either way, not good.
Maybe you don't understand how he has gotten the support he does have. it's all grass roots. He doesn't have big oil companies or pharmaceuticals in his pocket. His supporters made those signs, they werent handed out. There is a video of that if you need to see it I'll post it. Michael Moore has made movies, some popular and some more controversial, this explains to me why he could fill up 6000 seats. If Ron Paul was given the same amount of exposier, the amount of people would be enormous.
Maybe so, but he hasn't been, so he isn't. Therefore, don't try to impress me with the size of his crowds, they aren't big enough for you to pull it off.
And yes, it is a "revolution" of sorts. Its reforming big government (the socialistic one its become) back to a more people driven society. The executive branch has lost its way and congress seems to not care.
First, you contradicted yourself. If it is reform it is by definition not revolution. Reform takes place within the system, revolution takes place outside it.
Second, the idea this government is socialist is completely laughable. If by socialist you mean what people refer to European states, then where are our government funded social services and government controls over industry? Compared to any of the European states, the level of either of those is pathetic in the US. If by socialism, you mean the Marxist conception, I can assure you the US is not a collection of local democratic governments only coordinating with one another to ensure each independent community has the resources they need. Stop trying to scare people with the word "socialism", that hasn't worked since McCarthy.
The US is far closer to totalitarianism than the European Socialism, the former characterized by a lack of social services and a great deal of government control over personal affairs, the latter characterized by a great deal of social service and government control over private sector activities. I'm not saying we are totalitarian, far from it (before someone attempts to crucify me), but strong authority by the state to implement law enforcement abilities was never a characteristic of socialism.
Third, online polling means nothing. Ron Paul supporters are far more vocal and numerous online than they are in the real world, as are pretty much every other ideology from communists, socialists, greens, anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-syndicalists, fascists, nazis, and pretty much every other contra-mainstream political set save anarcho-primitivism.
Online polling means nothing? I disagree. Those 40,000 (if not more) as you say are very vocal. Do you think that those 40,000 stay
only online? No. To the contrary, that many people online will speak to others, and grow by 2x. Then you have a snowball effect. I'm not saying everyone who hears his message will agree with it, but there is no doubt that his supporters have
not hit a ceiling. And this "ideology" you speak of, is what this country was based on, the Constitution. Thats what Ron Paul is running on, nothing more, nothing less.
No, this ideology I speak of is isolationism, pro-life, unregulated market, etc. that Ron Paul stands for.
As for staying only online, I'm going to say yes. If all those online supporters were that active, you might have a point. However, the fact it is difficult for him to get more than a couple hundred people to show up for him at any given place is going to make it extremely difficult for him to gain momentum. Further, he is running out of time. The primaries and caucuses are fast approaching, and are now only four months away. As vocal as Ron Paul supporters have been in the past several months already, do you really think they can shore up the difference in what time remains.
The fact Ron Paul has some very vocal internet support will do him about as much good as it did Howard Dean in the last one. Further, polls, like rallies, are an appeal to belief fallacy and tell us nothing anyway.
This is nothing more than opinion. You believe its a "fallacy", while others believe different.
No, it is logic. The fact he has some very vocal supporters does not mean I should support his platform. To claim that because 40,000 people agree with him, or whatever, I should is a logical fallacy. The only good reason to support something or someone is it is the best idea or the best position available, not how many people agree with it.
Now, cutting out all this stuff, what are we left with? You have the four mainstream candidates being incompetent, no argument there; however, that doesn't tell us what Ron Paul would do. You have sound bytes from Keith Olberman and others telling us what dire straights we are in; which, while true, still doesn't tell us what Ron Paul would do. Finally, for about 45 seconds of the entire video, you have what Ron Paul says.
Although I do like the video, I'll have to agree that it didn't go into detail about what he stands for. But hopefully after seeing that you will do your own investigation.
And I will conduct my own investigation, but this was a review of that link.
He says he will restore openness to government - great in theory, but every candidate says that. He tells us peace is good, something that of course none of the other candidates hold. We also aren't here to coddle the world and so on, which, again, nobody is claiming we are. So, considering nothing Ron Paul actually said in your video is any different from what everyone in the Democratic Party is saying as well as half the Republicans, what makes Ron special?
First, restoring openness to government is a good idea, but I fail to remember
any candidate in recent history to claim such a thing. Not saying its not true, I just haven't heard it. As for "coddling the world", you say no one is claiming that, you're right no one is claiming that but we are doing it through actions. And of course actions speak louder than words. There are so many things that Ron Paul differs on with democrats, you just have to look and see. Click the link in my signature and you will see his political stance.
Fail to remember any? Hillary says it, as do Obama, McCain, Biden, Richardson, and most of the others as well. All of them are saying the Bush administration is incredibly secretive and that if they are elected they will make the government more transparent. Few of them mean it, but they all say it.
Frankly, as far as coddling the world goes, I'm not even sure what that means. Not exactly the most precise of language.
From where I sit, the only thing that sets Ron Paul apart is his desire to remove what few restrictions corporations have left. End regulations for consumer safety, end regulations for worker safety, increase privatization even in such places where deregulation and privatization have damaged consumers before (such as health and utilities). He wants to create a "fair tax" which every detailed analysis has shown to be regressive, putting the tax burden further on the middle and lower classes (those above the poverty line) as those groups spend the greatest percentage of their income on goods. Forget about funding for social programs. That said, forget about government small enough to fit in your bedroom, Ron Paul wants government small enough to fit in your uterus. The one place he does want to interfere using government authority is to set back women's rights.
Ok here's where some of it gets out of my league but I'll try to debate you a bit on it. How does making a truly free market remove restrictions on corporations? As stated before (if you have done any research on his stance) he would make those governmental controlled (FDA) a state level institution and therefore more closely guarded by people instead of government. This tax you speak of I don't Ron Paul is the one supporting. I think that's Huckabee, but I could be mistaken. Here's what happens:
Uh, yeah, removing government control from a capitalist market is what differentiates free markets from mixed and controlled economies.
How would relinquishing control of those things to state level help anyone? Instead of one FDA testing all drugs, we would need 50 FDAs testing all drugs, which would be incredibly inefficient. If you leave it up to the states, if they do create their own regulatory agencies at all, they will almost certainly be useless. As it is, the budgets of states are already incredibly strained. Trying to add in new programs at a state level to make up for the complete lack of federal oversight when these same states are forced to cut after school programs because they can't find the extra two thousand dollars necessary to keep faculty around for an extra hour each day is going to demand massive increases in government at the state level, to such a great degree people will be paying even more than they are at present, or completely impotent regulatory agencies understaffed and overworked and incapable of doing more than rubber stamping everything that goes through their office.
All this would do is trade one mostly impotent regulatory agency for 50 completely impotent ones.
You take out big government agencies like FDA, Homeland security, social security and end unconstitutional occupations and war. Literally billions of dollars. Now take half of those billions to pay back the loans. That reduces the interest rates and much less taxes to pay considering these governmental institutions don't exist anymore.
At the federal level. However, as you noted, the states are going to have to recreate those agencies to keep their people safe. This is going to boost taxes right back up to where they were, or higher, with the only difference being that money goes to the states instead of the feds.
The states become more powerful and the federal government stops its big spending. If we allow it to continue its current path, we should just scrap the Constitution and become socialist society, because its obvious that what some advocate.
Nice in theory, but how does he make the bought and paid for congress draft and submit such a bill in such a way as to effectively stop any of it?
Also, again, stop with the socialism bogeyman. That hasn't been cool since the 80s.
In the final tally, Ron Paul is another "friend of big business" style crazy Republican who isn't going to be able to change a thing for the better. Why should I vote for that?
No he is not. Prove it. He is the
only one that advocates anything close to change. Having a state run society is more republic like, having a federal controlled government is more socialist like. Which do you choose?
[/quote] Change is not inherently good. It has to be the right kind of change and an unregulated market simply is not what we need. Nor do we need a president who tramples on women's rights. To me, states being in control or the feds being in control, mostly it is all the same. Why not have counties or cities in control? How about instead of state's rights we worry about individual rights and in doing so, I do not find Ron Paul to be a very good supporter of them.
Facebook
Twitter