Ron Paul to Run for President

How is Japan and Germany taking over/controlling the entire world a European conflict?

I wasn't talking about Japan -- I was talking about the European theater of World War II. And just like World War I, it was a conflict between and among Europeans, and would have been taken care of by Europeans without our involvment.

I wasn't talking about Japan -- I was talking about the European theater of World War II. And just like World War I, it was a conflict between and among Europeans, and would have been taken care of by Europeans without our involvment.

Pffffttttt
The Russians could not have pulled off what they did if it were not American and British daylight bombing.
Its kind of hard to field a proper army and air force when your cites are burning and your factories are getting pounded by B-17s.
No daylight bombing equals Biergartens in Moscow.

And Germany was using its U-Boats to sink our own civilian ships within view of the New Jersey and North Carolina beaches, I'd say we were involved wether we like it or not.

And ignore Japan all you want, they were allied with Germany and shared weapons and technology.

Wow, man, where do I start?

Where did the idea get started that Ron Paul wouldn't defend America? He's not a pacifist, and neither am I. The philosophy of non-intervention certainly isn't based on the notion that evil doesn't exist. And interpreting the Constitution doesn't mean we lay down and do nothing if we're attacked. I really struggle to see how you've arrived that conclusion.

Where and when has our sovereignty EVER been under siege in the middle east? If anything, we have rammed "our sovereignty" up the ass of every Arab man, woman, and child for the past 60 years. They finally decide that they don't like it, and when they respond, Americans are mortified and cry that they just don't understand how anyone could strike at such a freedom, and peace-loving society like ours.

Marching all over the world, and acting like the police chief of the planet Earth isn't 'national defense'. It pisses people off, and we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us.

Clearly we have to convince both sides of the political spectrum this basic truth.

First let me say that I'm in no way questioning your love of country or Ron Paul's for that matter.

I don't know if Ron Paul is a pacifist, but I maintain I'm not sure if he would, under extreme circumstances, stand up and defend this nation. In a recent interview Mr. Paul said he wouldn't haven't killed bin Laden. He would have cooperated with the Pakistani government to try to bring bin Laden to justice and uphold the rule of law. These are his words. So I have a very difficult time reconciling his stance on matters of protecting our national interests with his interpretation of the Constitution and upholding the rule of law. I believe he's a good man, but following the Constitution to the letter can sometimes be a tricky proposition and doesn't guarantee that we will be at peace with the world.

Whether or not we can draw a straight line from our sometimes flawed foreign policy towards Arab nations over the past 60 years to the atrocities of 9/11 is somewhat of an open question, to be honest. Did the unprovoked invasion of Iraq fuel hatred towards the West, I believe so. (see my final comment below) But on the other hand, muslims are also guilty of murdering and oppressing muslims by the thousands through repressive regimes, without any U.S. involvement or military intervention. Interestingly enough, though, we're now seeing the Arab world reach out to the United States to get involved with the new wave of democracy spreading across the region. So no, it's not all about us shoving our way of living up their asses.

We both agree with your following statement: Marching all over the world, and acting like the police chief of the planet Earth isn't 'national defense'. It pisses people off, and we shouldn't be surprised when it comes back to bite us.

Clinton

Atleast Paul can claim he was actually giving an exam when he's probing with the cigar. ;)

The U.S's inflation rate has been quite tame ever since it Greenspan implemented a policy of transparency into the Fed.

Deflation MUST NOT occur if you actually want the economy to keep on chugging. When deflation occurs, people WILL NOT spend their money because they want to hold out until the can get even MORE bang for their buck. While people hold on to their "money", the companies still have to pay their expenses (operating and interest, etc). This can't last forever since the companies don't have unlimited sources of funds. Their source of funds are the consumers who are holding onto cash. Real GDP is just output, and if companies don't have income coming in, well, THEY AREN'T going to produce anything.

As for the Fed, I would rather have a lender of last resort and a moral hazard problem over banks becoming INSOLVENT(and yes, it has happened before, that's why the Fed even exists) and some [signifcant] group of people or organizations can't get their money.

The U.S's inflation rate has been quite tame ever since it Greenspan implemented a policy of transparency into the Fed.

Deflation MUST NOT occur if you actually want the economy to keep on chugging. When deflation occurs, people WILL NOT spend their money because they want to hold out until the can get even MORE bang for their buck. While people hold on to their "money", the companies still have to pay their expenses (operating and interest, etc). This can't last forever since the companies don't have unlimited sources of funds. Their source of funds are the consumers who are holding onto cash. Real GDP is just output, and if companies don't have income coming in, well, THEY AREN'T going to produce anything.

As for the Fed, I would rather have a lender of last resort and a moral hazard problem over banks becoming INSOLVENT(and yes, it has happened before, that's why the Fed even exists) and some [signifcant] group of people or organizations can't get their money.

How does Ron Paul's policy solve these problems? And do they create problems of their own?

How does Ron Paul's policy solve these problems? And do they create problems of their own?

My post was against a couple of Paul's principles. One, blaming inflation for for our woes. Now, I'm not too deep in knowledge about his platform, but he seems rather adamant about stopping it at all costs. If he's trying to "stop" inflation, that means it the inflation % must be brought down to 0% or less.

Two, he's trying to dismantle an institution that isn't that bad. His hardcore "must stop inflation" line would backfire on him and tossing the Fed sure wrecks the logistics of a lot of things, even little things like clearing checks. And, as I have already mentioned, if he doesn't want the Fed, then folks will have to live with the risks of bank runs and the risk of not getting any of their deposited money back.

I beleive Ron Paul can be president
_-agl0pOQfs

By the way magnets, how do they work?

I beleive Ron Paul can be president


By the way magnets, how do they work?

"I" before "e" except after "c". :laughing2 ;)

"I" before "e" except after "c". :laughing2 ;)

http://balljunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Kanye-Shrug.jpg