Dave wrote:GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:If you want to "Banish the IRS" you likely have little idea about what the Government actually does, or the fact that you wouldn't have clean water, police, roads, a military or 2/3 of all the fun stuff you take for granted... because no one would have been able to PAY for that.
Actually, it is you that have little idea about what the Government actually does.
Besides, the FEDERAL government DOES NOT provide clean water, police or roads... that is all provided by STATES and in some cases by PRIVATE or PUBLIC COMPANIES.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Ron Paul has some really good ideas, but he has some real stinkers too. Get rid of the federal reserve? Let open market forces completely dominate prices? What I can only call fanatical opposition to abortion and near abandonment of women's rights? He needs to get acquainted with Keynesian economics, and what happens to most unwanted children before I would cast a vote for him.
Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's what is so interesting about Ron Paul. You appear to have consistant principle integrity... uh the Americans don't usually go for that.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we faulter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
break in ideas wrote:
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Ron Paul has some really good ideas, but he has some real stinkers too. Get rid of the federal reserve? Let open market forces completely dominate prices? What I can only call fanatical opposition to abortion and near abandonment of women's rights? He needs to get acquainted with Keynesian economics, and what happens to most unwanted children before I would cast a vote for him.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants to get rid of excess bureaucracy and excess regulation.
Bad news... He wants to get rid of very necessary agencies and very necessary regulation as well.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants to cut moronic over spending on thing the government need not/should not spend on.
Bad news... He wants to cut spending on very necessary and/or good things the Government really should be spending on.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He wants us to have a non-hypocritical foreign policy that does not make us the world's hated "nanny-police force."
Bad news... He wants to take that a bit too far into an isolationist direction and pretty much cut our involvement in places that we should be involved.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He is a politician that ACTUALLY BELIEVES that we are obligated to actually follow the constitution. [/crazytalk]
Bad news... As far as I can tell he kinda doesn't believe in a "living constitution" where the government can change with the times.
Bastardking3000 wrote:Good news... He actually believes that we can be safe WITHOUT sacrificing our freedoms, and that at no time, for any reason, should we EVER sacrifice our freedoms...
Bad news... ...Unless those freedoms are something that he considers "evil" like women having rights to their own bodies (as GAM mentioned). This is the ONLY place I see him being inconsistent in his beliefs. The moment you limit someone's freedom - to what YOU BELIEVE is right - is the moment freedom dies.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Dave: I didn't know that's where his stance was, but lets be honest here: the Red states would never allow that kind of thing.
GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:The other thing: The CIA has been hamstrung since the mid-70's when Ford signed an edict forbidding acts against foreign power heads (basically an assassination ban, but it also prevents other actions) it's been pretty gun shy about operations with the notable exception of Afghanistan in the late 70's and 80's. BTW, the mid-east is equally messed up because of the Saudis, Americans, Brits, Russians, Chinese, Israelis... It's a furball, not all on the backs of the CIA.
The HSA is another matter... but at this point, it's a bureaucracy that is too enmeshed in the national security apparatus: it needs to be reformed less than 10 years after it was created.
Dave wrote:If thats the case, then why not give the states the right to chose? We live in a huge country, and popular opinion could be drastically different in one place then another.Why not leave it as the individuals' right to choose? Popular opinion means nothing when you're dealing with your own body, why not leave it up to the individual to decide what's right for them? One way or the other: women will have abortions if they so choose to, so why not allow them to do it in a medically controlled environment?
Dave wrote:Oh, no doubt the mid east is screwed up no matter what, my point is the CIA is just about completely unnecessary. But then consider how much overlap there is between local and state police, the FBI, the secret service, DHS and ATF. The whole system needs to be streamlined. DHS did not do that, it just added yet another level of complexity to the whole thing. Truth is, all these organizations do good stuff, but they can almost never do it efficiently. DHS won't help that. The police have trouble communicating with the FBI, instead of making it easier, they stick someone in between, making it even harder.The CIA has it's place, but the thing that I've seen with the US Government (especially the national security apparatus) is that the duplication and secrecy between agencies is endemic. No one wants to co-operate because everyone else is incompetant, ineffective or incapable. The overlap between agencies is good to a point, but there needs to be more definite rules about who does what and where, and who's responsible for what. Right now, the CIA is caught in that shear, and because of "peace dividends" they were scaled back and scaled back throughout GHW Bush, Clinton and GW Bush's presidencies.
Quote:True, but you'd have likely seen a Red Brigade group pop him off. The CIA has to use locals or unaffiliated contractors which is just as bad as doing it yourself, and leaves it open for greater possibility for things to go wrong.
About the CIA not being able to assassinate foreign powers: Pablo Escobar, don't think for a second if he had reached high government power that it would have changed the out come. It doesn't mean the CIA can't do anything, it just changes the way it gets done.
AGuSTiN wrote:I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm glad I'm still a registered Republican at this point so I can vote in the primary.I agree 100%. I'm still voting Obama though.
Why am I voting for Ron Paul? Because he's SURE to veto further expansion of the federal government, at the very least. He'll never get all that he wants, even in 8 years, and I'm actually counting on that.
But he can be a huge roadblock to further big government. Hopefully he can get some of his cuts. The fact is all these big government agencies all have their proponents and their reasons for existing. But we're too big, folks. SOMETHING has to be done, and all I ever hear is how we can't do it.
The democratic congress has already failed me. They're already spending tons on pork, caving into the president just like the previous congress... to hell with them.
A REAL Republican will do it. Ron Paul is that guy, in my eyes. Guys like him is why I signed up for the party in the first place. He wants to get the federal government out of lives. Let the states deal with things like they're supposed to. That way, we'll all have 50 versions of American to choose from if the state we live doesn't fit our liking.
CaliforniaDomestics wrote:For the first time in my voting life have I actually chose a party and registered as a Republican because of RON PAUL. I registered as a republican JUST so I could vote in the primaries because I believe so much that Ron Paul CAN make a difference
Bastardking3000 wrote:AGuSTiN wrote:I'm voting for Ron Paul. I'm glad I'm still a registered Republican at this point so I can vote in the primary.I agree 100%. I'm still voting Obama though.
Why am I voting for Ron Paul? Because he's SURE to veto further expansion of the federal government, at the very least. He'll never get all that he wants, even in 8 years, and I'm actually counting on that.
But he can be a huge roadblock to further big government. Hopefully he can get some of his cuts. The fact is all these big government agencies all have their proponents and their reasons for existing. But we're too big, folks. SOMETHING has to be done, and all I ever hear is how we can't do it.
The democratic congress has already failed me. They're already spending tons on pork, caving into the president just like the previous congress... to hell with them.
A REAL Republican will do it. Ron Paul is that guy, in my eyes. Guys like him is why I signed up for the party in the first place. He wants to get the federal government out of lives. Let the states deal with things like they're supposed to. That way, we'll all have 50 versions of American to choose from if the state we live doesn't fit our liking.
eskieadam wrote:So do you guys have to choose to register as either Republican or Democrat, but you can't be both?
eskieadam wrote:That sucks. Least in Canada you can be a member of any party and multiple parties. But we also don't vote directly for
our leader, so I guess that's the trade-off. If we couldn't be a member of multiple parties we couldn't vote for our leader.
mclonedogmcwad wrote:The most recent news
Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
CNN link
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html
The New Repulic Link
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
Selection of Newsletters.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Take it with a grain of salt. Information is out there and I still think he has no chance of winning.
Wade Jarvis wrote:I said I support Ron Pual but I am no longer sure. After hearing him say that we should stay out of it and let Pakistan who has nuclear wepons fight off Al-Quida themselves. That worries me alot.There is too much at stake to gamble on it. If Al-Quida takes over Pakistan THEY WILL USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO KILL US! We need a hands on approach to dealing with terrorists and radical muslims.