Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2012, 01:19 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 01:23 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 01:08 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 12:53 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

[Image: pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.38&soc=-4.67]

I wasn't just randomly picking a spot for myself. And libertarianism doesn't suggest completely unregulated capitalism. A true libertarian would advoate only laws in the interest of public safety and protection of private property. So no seatbelt laws (for adults) but keep speed limit laws. Corporate regulatory laws could fall under public safety because public safety is not exclusive to protection from physical harm. It also includes how a company might take financial advantage of an individual or the system itself.
Libertarianism might not, but libertarians seem to have no problem suggesting, maybe not 'completely', but a lot farther to the right than you suggesting. To be in the center economically you'd basically have to be for a mixed, regulated economy. You can't stand up, scream, and put your foot down for the free market and then not consider yourself an extremist, on the idea that capitalism sound cool; it's still far right on the chart.

To be in the middle, you'd basically have to be for socialized programs like health care, education, welfare programs, as well as police, infrastructure/transportation, and R&D, as well as being for regulated capitalism in the rest of the economy.

You'd basically be Barack Obama.
I am in favor of socialized programs like health care, education, welfare, police, etc, etc. I'm not proposing anarchy. I'd even be okay with universal health care if it was put to a popular vote and agreed upon in bipartisan fashion. I'm just opposed to the federal governemnt mandating that a person purchase a product or service form a private company. That is unconstitutional. If the federal government is going to mandate something then they need to tax for the revenue and run it themselves. I wouldn't be happy with government run health care but if the people vote on it then I guess I support the people. Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

I see the benefit welfare programs provide to society and I also understand the conservative views on nanny/welfare states. You make libertarianism sound like social Darwanism. I do vary slightly from Ron Paul when it comes to the political spectrum. You are right, he would be a right leaning libertarian. But his ideas on monetary policy, foreign policy, health care reform, government size/spending, and taxes are spot on IMO and given the situation we find ourselves in economically I can't see opting for anyone else.

(04-05-2012 01:08 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 12:53 PM)germanyt Wrote:  Economic Left/Right: -0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67

[Image: pcgraphpng.php?ec=-0.38&soc=-4.67]

I wasn't just randomly picking a spot for myself. And libertarianism doesn't suggest completely unregulated capitalism. A true libertarian would advoate only laws in the interest of public safety and protection of private property. So no seatbelt laws (for adults) but keep speed limit laws. Corporate regulatory laws could fall under public safety because public safety is not exclusive to protection from physical harm. It also includes how a company might take financial advantage of an individual or the system itself.
Libertarianism might not, but libertarians seem to have no problem suggesting, maybe not 'completely', but a lot farther to the right than you suggesting. To be in the center economically you'd basically have to be for a mixed, regulated economy. You can't stand up, scream, and put your foot down for the free market and then not consider yourself an extremist, on the idea that capitalism sound cool; it's still far right on the chart.

To be in the middle, you'd basically have to be for socialized programs like health care, education, welfare programs, as well as police, firefighters, public officials, infrastructure/transportation, and R&D and all that good shit, as well as being for regulated capitalism in the rest of the economy.

You'd basically be Barack Obama.



(04-05-2012 01:00 PM)germanyt Wrote:  It might if not for his position on a dozen other issues that I find important and agree with him on. I can look past religious indocrination since he's not proposing social conservatism like a Rick Santorum would. Now I'm not saying Ron Paul wouldn't mind seeing creationism taught to people. Just that he would not enact laws like that on a federal level involving the school system. In this particular case he understands that there are private schools out there for parents to send their kids to if they choose and those that dont' want their kids to learn creationism should have that choice too. He's a firm believer in separation of church and state and he acknowledges that his faith plays a part in the kind of person he is but doesn't impact his policy.
So I'm assuming that you're not questioning his intellectual abilities? To me, I couldn't trust anyone that ignorant. There are tons of religious people who believe in evolution and science and still hold a faith in god.

Is it just because he is the only one running. It seems to me a guy like Penn Jillette would be your idol.
I'm not familiar with Jillette but to answer your question, if someone other than Ron Paul was running with the exact same view points except he was an atheist and an evolutionist, I can't say. It would depend on how genuine he seemed to be. Ron Paul is a genuine and good hearted man. If you ever have an opportunity to meet him or go see him speak I recommend it. I admire his sense of morality, ethics, and passion.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 02:44 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Quote: I am in favor of socialized
programs like health care, education, welfare, police, etc, etc. I'm not
proposing anarchy. I'd even be okay with universal health care if it
was put to a popular vote and agreed upon in bipartisan fashion. I'm
just opposed to the federal governemnt mandating that a person purchase a
product or service form a private company. That is unconstitutional. If
the federal government is going to mandate something then they need to
tax for the revenue and run it themselves. I wouldn't be happy with
government run health care but if the people vote on it then I guess I
support the people. Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

I see the benefit welfare programs provide to society and I also
understand the conservative views on nanny/welfare states. You make
libertarianism sound like social Darwanism. I do vary slightly from Ron
Paul when it comes to the political spectrum. You are right, he would be
a right leaning libertarian. But his ideas on monetary policy, foreign
policy, health care reform, government size/spending, and taxes are spot
on IMO and given the situation we find ourselves in economically I
can't see opting for anyone else.
That might make you more of a moderate. Libertarianism is more of a philosophical standpoint, but you do seem to be disagreeing with a lot of the libertarian, political ideals. A lot of those guys are against the government doing anything, and instead leaving rights in the hand of individuals to choose as they desire.

And to address the mandate, it is in fact constitutional; don't believe the hype. The people did vote for it when they voted Barack into office and a Democrats in Congress. The constitution doesn't in any way limit the power of the federal government. What it does is provide an outline of a perfect democracy, at least for what the founding fathers thought was the perfect democracy. One in which there is a great deal of power and rights granted to the people, to, in that way, limit the power of the government, by giving the people the necessary freedoms to ensure a stable government, free of corruption and tyranny. Basically, they wanted it so that the federal government was at the will of the people instead of the other way around. Meaning, if you didn't want a mandated form of heath care, you shouldn't have voted for a congress and president willing to pass the law. Also, if you don't like the health care law, as of right now, you could always vote for a president and a congress to overturn the law. If you fail, that's just democracy working. That's how the constitution is set to work. It doesn't limit the power of the government, because that could in turn limit the power of certain people. You have to make it your goal to vote for people to represent your beliefs, because the Constitution gives the people you elected the power to do what they think is the best for you. If you don't think they will have the peoples best interest in mind, then don't vote for them.

A lot of people try to point at the 10th Amendment like it somehow it takes away federal power and gives it to the States, and that is just not the case. The rest of the Constitution is just so broad, the federal government could do almost anything as long as they say it's in the best interest of the people and the people don't get outraged, take advantage of their constitutional rights, and ultimately, vote for necessary change.

Quote: I'm not familiar with Jillette
Penn Jillette. I'm pretty sure I got his named spelled correctly. He is part of Penn and Teller, the magic act. He is a pretty famous atheist, libertarian, and he was also on Celebrity Apprentice (he was kicked off just recently). He is not a politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2D2JE-Ae2g

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 02:58 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 02:44 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
Quote: I am in favor of socialized
programs like health care, education, welfare, police, etc, etc. I'm not
proposing anarchy. I'd even be okay with universal health care if it
was put to a popular vote and agreed upon in bipartisan fashion. I'm
just opposed to the federal governemnt mandating that a person purchase a
product or service form a private company. That is unconstitutional. If
the federal government is going to mandate something then they need to
tax for the revenue and run it themselves. I wouldn't be happy with
government run health care but if the people vote on it then I guess I
support the people. Not a bunch of partisan politicians.

I see the benefit welfare programs provide to society and I also
understand the conservative views on nanny/welfare states. You make
libertarianism sound like social Darwanism. I do vary slightly from Ron
Paul when it comes to the political spectrum. You are right, he would be
a right leaning libertarian. But his ideas on monetary policy, foreign
policy, health care reform, government size/spending, and taxes are spot
on IMO and given the situation we find ourselves in economically I
can't see opting for anyone else.
That might make you more of a moderate. Libertarianism is more of a philosophical standpoint, but you do seem to be disagreeing with a lot of the libertarian, political ideals. A lot of those guys are against the government doing anything, and instead leaving rights in the hand of individuals to choose as they desire.

And to address the mandate, it is in fact constitutional; don't believe the hype. The people did vote for it when they voted Barack into office and a Democrats in Congress. The constitution doesn't in any way limit the power of the federal government. What it does is provide an outline of a perfect democracy, at least for what the founding fathers thought was the perfect democracy. One in which there is a great deal of power and rights granted to the people, to, in that way, limit the power of the government, by giving the people the necessary freedoms to ensure a stable government, free of corruption and tyranny. Basically, they wanted it so that the federal government was at the will of the people instead of the other way around. Meaning, if you didn't want a mandated form of heath care, you shouldn't have voted for a congress and president willing to pass the law. Also, if you don't like the health care law, as of right now, you could always vote for a president and a congress to overturn the law. If you fail, that's just democracy working. That's how the constitution is set to work. It doesn't limit the power of the government, because that could in turn limit the power of certain people. You have to make it your goal to vote for people to represent your beliefs, because the Constitution gives the people you elected the power to do what they think is the best for you. If you don't think they will have the peoples best interest in mind, then don't vote for them.

A lot of people try to point at the 10th Amendment like it somehow it takes away federal power and gives it to the States, and that is just not the case. The rest of the Constitution is just so broad, the federal government could do almost anything as long as they say it's in the best interest of the people and the people don't get outraged, take advantage of their constitutional rights, and ultimately, vote for necessary change.

Quote: I'm not familiar with Jillette
Penn Jillette. I'm pretty sure I got his named spelled correctly. He is part of Penn and Teller, the magic act. He is a pretty famous atheist, libertarian, and he was also on Celebrity Apprentice (he was kicked off just recently). He is not a politician.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2D2JE-Ae2g
I didn't realize that was the Penn from Penn and Teller. I'm not familar with him but I know who he is.




And yes, the Constitution's single and only purpose is to outline the powers of the federal government. The 10th amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people", means exactly what it sounds like. The federal govenment cannot pass laws not specifically allowed by it and as long as it doesn't violate the constitution a state can pass any law not already granted authority to the federal government.


Not too mention it's tangled in the interstate commerce clause.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/31/busine...wanted=all

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 05:27 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Ohh, a NY Times article!!! Step over to the Dark-side. It's funny they tried to use a broccoli argument. Any respectable debater, lawyer, whatever, would have laughed at that argument when it first came up.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 05:38 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
They might also laugh at your knowledge of the Constitution.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 05:58 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 06:01 PM by TrulyX.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 05:38 PM)germanyt Wrote:  They might also laugh at your knowledge of the Constitution.
Wait, you post an article that agrees with my point of view, yet you're disagreeing with me?? Consider

Do you think it's constitutional or not??? And why??

I thought, after you posted that article, that we were in agreement.

And why would they laugh at my knowledge of the Constitution?

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 06:09 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2012 06:16 PM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 05:58 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(04-05-2012 05:38 PM)germanyt Wrote:  They might also laugh at your knowledge of the Constitution.
Wait, you post an article that agrees with my point of view, yet you're disagreeing with me?? Consider

Do you think it's constitutional or not??? And why??

I thought, after you posted that article, that we were in agreement.

And why would they laugh at my knowledge of the Constitution?
Now I'm confused. I only posted it as an example of the controversy surrounding the health care law. It is 100% unconstitutional. The power to levy taxes and provide social services to the public is granted by the Constitution. So in essence, universal government run health care could be constitutional. The federal government mandating that a private citizen purchase a product from a private company is unconstitutional and illegal. It's a lot like your employer telling you that you have to eat McDonalds every day for lunch or he'll penalize you on your pay. Only worse.

I'm not sure what you make of your post. It reeks of sarcasm.

I just want to add that even if the Supreme Court decides that this bill is constitutional it's still an overreach by an ever growing federal government. You can throw slippery slope argument at me all day but there is a point when government is too big and that time is now. Ever see V for Vendetta? It's outrageous that our government can spend 4 trillion dollars a year. And that's just federal spending. Ever see how much money that is?

[Image: trillion_.gif]

And that's in $100 bills.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 07:26 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
The article you posted was a NY Times writer basically saying that the broccoli argument was complete BS, in his opinion. At least from the article, it didn't seem as if the writer felt there was a real, legitimate controversy at all, and I agree with the writer.

Congress, under Article 1, Section 8; not only has the ability to "regulate Commerce", but also to "provide for the..... general Welfare of" and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". As long as Congress feels that it is "necessary and proper" and it will "provide for the general Welfare of", you can't make an argument that it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't conflict with regulating commerce either, especially the way it has been interpreted by constitutional lawyers, scholars and the Supreme Court in the past; that's was one of the main points in the article you posted. The broccoli argument basically gives one to the people who are arguing for the law. It's a slippery-slope argument, but that's not a legitimate argument against the law. If anything it helps your opponents, because you're basically admitting that you think the general idea is alright, and that you're only worried about the powers it gives the federal government. The easy quick response is: What do you have against broccoli? And why would it be necessary and proper to mandate buying it (i.e. it's not even close to health care in comparison, so why bring it up?) And why would you vote for someone who runs a campaign on fixing the broccoli market?

Quote: I just want to add that even if the Supreme Court decides that this bill
is constitutional it's still an overreach by an ever growing federal
government. You can throw slippery slope argument at me all day but
there is a point when government is too big and that time is now. Ever
see V for Vendetta? It's outrageous that our government can spend 4
trillion dollars a year. And that's just federal spending. Ever see
how much money that is?
Sorry, Fox News scare tactics don't work on me. You ever see how big our GDP is?

The government is too big argument is rubbish. 'Debt is the problem' was a Republican started mess used to confuse people like you, gain political points, win primary elections, and to make Obama look bad by purposefully rallying against his policies, so they never would be implemented fully, and to, as a result, kill the economy and credibility of the US then blame in on Obama's policies, most of which were all blocked by Republicans and were never implemented, so they could gain back the presidency and go back to protecting their self interest.

They know that our debt wasn't an issue. Well, they are pretty stupid, so maybe they actually do think that we need to cut spending, but I doubt they would have brought federal debt up as an issue if they were in office currently. They brought it up because it took out two birds with one stone. It allowed them to keep their horrible policies, that were sinking in popularity, afloat, and also to turn the economy backwards, because at least the smart ones knew, spending was needed (more than just what was in the stimulus at Federal AND State levels) to keep the economy on track.

We'd probably already be out of this mess we're in and have projected surpluses and be able to start paying down the debt in the near future, if it wasn't for Republicans. They basically have nothing left as a party and are fighting with their last breath to keep any hopes they have alive. If we could have done what tons of well respected economist were screaming for, further stimulating the economy, and if the states supported the president's actions for stimulus and would find ways to gain state and local revenues instead of cutting spending, all would be well. I can't call it common sense, because too many people seem not to get it, but if your economy is down the last thing you want to do is create uncertainty, cut spending, and raise taxes (or the burden) on the people hurt most (i.e. the Republican's plan). You have to address the economy at any and all cost first, then take austerity measures in the future when the economy is on track.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-05-2012, 08:22 PM
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
Just want to thank you guys for having well written debate. I'm a Canuck and not much interested in American politics other than my worry of your impending theocracy and it effects in my country. However I read every single post thus far in this thread. They have been for the most part well written and intriguing.
Thanks again. Keep it classy sirs.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2012, 08:23 AM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2012 11:53 AM by germanyt.)
RE: Why Ron Paul is not going anywhere.
(04-05-2012 07:26 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  The article you posted was a NY Times writer basically saying that the broccoli argument was complete BS, in his opinion. At least from the article, it didn't seem as if the writer felt there was a real, legitimate controversy at all, and I agree with the writer.

Congress, under Article 1, Section 8; not only has the ability to "regulate Commerce", but also to "provide for the..... general Welfare of" and to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers". As long as Congress feels that it is "necessary and proper" and it will "provide for the general Welfare of", you can't make an argument that it's unconstitutional.

It doesn't conflict with regulating commerce either, especially the way it has been interpreted by constitutional lawyers, scholars and the Supreme Court in the past; that's was one of the main points in the article you posted. The broccoli argument basically gives one to the people who are arguing for the law. It's a slippery-slope argument, but that's not a legitimate argument against the law. If anything it helps your opponents, because you're basically admitting that you think the general idea is alright, and that you're only worried about the powers it gives the federal government. The easy quick response is: What do you have against broccoli? And why would it be necessary and proper to mandate buying it (i.e. it's not even close to health care in comparison, so why bring it up?) And why would you vote for someone who runs a campaign on fixing the broccoli market?

Quote: I just want to add that even if the Supreme Court decides that this bill
is constitutional it's still an overreach by an ever growing federal
government. You can throw slippery slope argument at me all day but
there is a point when government is too big and that time is now. Ever
see V for Vendetta? It's outrageous that our government can spend 4
trillion dollars a year. And that's just federal spending. Ever see
how much money that is?
Sorry, Fox News scare tactics don't work on me. You ever see how big our GDP is?

The government is too big argument is rubbish. 'Debt is the problem' was a Republican started mess used to confuse people like you, gain political points, win primary elections, and to make Obama look bad by purposefully rallying against his policies, so they never would be implemented fully, and to, as a result, kill the economy and credibility of the US then blame in on Obama's policies, most of which were all blocked by Republicans and were never implemented, so they could gain back the presidency and go back to protecting their self interest.

They know that our debt wasn't an issue. Well, they are pretty stupid, so maybe they actually do think that we need to cut spending, but I doubt they would have brought federal debt up as an issue if they were in office currently. They brought it up because it took out two birds with one stone. It allowed them to keep their horrible policies, that were sinking in popularity, afloat, and also to turn the economy backwards, because at least the smart ones knew, spending was needed (more than just what was in the stimulus at Federal AND State levels) to keep the economy on track.

We'd probably already be out of this mess we're in and have projected surpluses and be able to start paying down the debt in the near future, if it wasn't for Republicans. They basically have nothing left as a party and are fighting with their last breath to keep any hopes they have alive. If we could have done what tons of well respected economist were screaming for, further stimulating the economy, and if the states supported the president's actions for stimulus and would find ways to gain state and local revenues instead of cutting spending, all would be well. I can't call it common sense, because too many people seem not to get it, but if your economy is down the last thing you want to do is create uncertainty, cut spending, and raise taxes (or the burden) on the people hurt most (i.e. the Republican's plan). You have to address the economy at any and all cost first, then take austerity measures in the future when the economy is on track.
You're wrong dude. You only dont' see the problem with a mandate becasue you view healthcare as a fundamental right. I agree that everyone should have access to quality health care but you can't mandate that people buy a private product from a private company. Let's use broccoli as an example. Let's say the federal government decides that broccoli is getting too expensive and not enough people can afford to buy it now. So they decide that from now on every person has to buy at least 1 stalk of broccoli a week in order to increase the pool of buyers out there and you must provide the receipts for each purchase with your tax return or you will be penalized and your tax return fined.


As for this particular law, it will cripple the economy by costing jobs, lowering the quality of health care, increasing insurance costs, and by costing hundreds of billions or even trillions more than it was supposed to. Think about it, how stupid is it that the federal government can order a insurance company to cover pre-existing conditions? What happens when the federal government decides life insurance is a right and everyone should have it? Do they allow policies to be taken out on dead people? Can you buy car insurance after an accident? Homeowners after a fire? No! Because it's ludacris to think that you can bring the cost of insurnace down and also insure people post accident. The price of policies is going to do nothing but go up. This might be a strategy byt the democratic party though. Convince just enough people that it's a good thing so you can pass it, allow it to destroy the insurance companies, then tell people this is why we should have had a single payer system all along. It's like a Socialists wet dream.

It sounds to me like you aren't bothered by debt of deficit though so I'm not sure it's even worth discussing this. No offense, I just can't take someone seriously when they view 14T in debt like it's no big deal or call legitimate concerns about the size and reach of the federal government 'Fox scare tactics" I hear a lot of liberals say to stop watching/reading Fox. Perhaps is those same people that should stop agreeing with things just because it disagrees with Fox or conservatism.

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect.”

-Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: