|
|
GhettoDogAllStars 01-10-2008, 06:50 PM Besides platitudes (e.g., "the government is too big" and "I don't like the war") what does he stand for? Many of his ideas look interesting at first glance, but, upon closer examination, they are actually quite nuts.
He stands for the constitution.
I believe the federal government is in need of some serious overhauling -- maybe even a revolution. He's the only candidate in my eyes who's not afraid of drastic change -- the kind of change we need.
Sheriff Gonna Getcha 01-10-2008, 07:10 PM He stands for the constitution.
I believe the federal government is in need of some serious overhauling -- maybe even a revolution. He's the only candidate in my eyes who's not afraid of drastic change -- the kind of change we need.
What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.
He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.
Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.
12thMan 01-10-2008, 07:31 PM What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.
He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.
Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.
Damn, I don't think Tim Russert could have said it any better than you did!
saden1 01-10-2008, 07:32 PM GyPLFKUdhqY
12thMan 01-10-2008, 07:46 PM Damn, I take back what I said. Sorry Sherriff, after watching Tim Russert make a fool out of Ron Paul, I think he (Russert) should keep his job.
70Chip 01-11-2008, 02:18 PM It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.
Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP. (I'm not completely immune from the conspiracy temptation myself)
For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:
Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin)
John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society)
Also:
g5vnZec964c&feature=related
GhettoDogAllStars 01-11-2008, 02:34 PM What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.
He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.
Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.
"Standing for the Constitution" means that he respects it, and honors it. He believes in its importance. The Constitution is a measure to ensure the Federal government doesn't get out of control. Yet, the Federal government has abused, and outright ignored the Constitution. We seem to be headed down a slippery slope. That scares me.
I don't rely on the President to have all the answers. Just because he doesn't have a concrete plan doesn't bother me at all. He knows what he wants to do, and he'll figure the best way to do it once he's in office and has his cabinet to advise him.
In my eyes, the President is supposed to be a leader and a thinker -- not an oracle.
12thMan 01-11-2008, 02:37 PM It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.
Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP.
For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:
Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin)
John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society)
Also:
g5vnZec964c&feature=related
70, did you catch the debate last night? It's not so much that he has these extreme views, but he's so eager to be right about the war and how wrong it was. For instance, the Fox moderater asked him something about the scirmish the U.S. had with the small Iranian boats last week, amd Paul got all tangled up talking about Iraq and Bush and this and that. It was just uncomfortable watching it all.
dmek25 01-11-2008, 02:42 PM 12th, i saw it. and im still trying to figure out how Ron Paul isn't certifiably insane. the scary part is there are alot of people out there that would vote for him
mheisig 01-11-2008, 02:44 PM It's hard for people who are new to the political process to understand that Ron Paul comes from a long and distinguished tradition of extreme nutbaggery. These are the people who think that The Trilateral Comission, The Council on Foreign Relations, and Colonel Sanders are controlling the world. They won't invest in the stock market or put their money in banks because (they believe) the banks are run by Jews. They buy gold instead. He's basically Dale Gribble with a lot of appealing catch phrases.
Most of the press understands this but they find him amusing so they won't completely torpedo him. Either that or they're hoping he will be a more prominent factor in the process say at the Republican Convention and they can torpedo him then when it can do more damage to the GOP. (I'm not completely immune from the conspiracy temptation myself)
For some background on the paranoid conspiracy strain in American politics, check out:
Charles Coughlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Coughlin)
John Birch Society - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society)
Like I said before, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter and am currently undecided. End disclaimer.
It seems, though, that you are arguing that he shouldn't be listened to because he's an extremist. I'm all for denouncing ideas that won't work and aren't practical, but dismissing something because it's extreme is pretty poor reasoning.
$9 trillion in national debt is an extreme problem and a fact. That requires an extreme solution.
This country was founded on extremism. It wasn't really mainstream, conventional wisdom to take on the ruling government and pick a fight with a dog ten times your size. Pretty extreme if you ask me.
If the guy's ideas won't work then say why, dismissing them because they are extreme isn't really productive.
SGG put it very well. I personally like Paul's ideas and desire to fix the real problems with the government, I just fail to see how they can really be carried out.
I think a Flat Tax is a fantastic idea and ditching the IRS would get rid of one of the most inefficient, screwed up agencies in existence. Like SGG said, what happens to all the people employed there? Just kick them out on the street?
I think you'd have to privatize a lot of the government entities and essentially transfer the employees - create new jobs rather than just eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and hope people land on their feet.
|