Ron Paul to Run for President

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Alvin Walton

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.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by ArtMonkDrillz

Clinton

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

[SirClintonPortis]

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.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

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?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

[Dirtbag59]

I beleive Ron Paul can be president


By the way magnets, how do they work?

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I beleive Ron Paul can be president


By the way magnets, how do they work?

"I" before "e" except after "c".

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

"I" before "e" except after "c".

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

Sorry but look at Obama's flip flops after he got into office and got to see what was really going on behind closed doors. I'd say the same thing will probably happen with another new president no matter who they are. Gitmo is a good example.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Sorry but look at Obama's flip flops after he got into office and got to see what was really going on behind closed doors. I'd say the same thing will probably happen with another new president no matter who they are. Gitmo is a good example.

What did Obama flip flop on?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

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.

Not so sure those are his words..... although im not sure what interview you are reffering to?

Ron Paul says Fox News distorted his comments about bin Laden | Texas on the Potomac | a Chron.com blog

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul accused Fox News of distorting his comments about the U.S. military raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Lake Jackson congressman rebuked Chris Wallace when the Fox host claimed that Paul had told an Iowa radio station earlier in the week that it was “wrong” for the U.S. to kill the al Qaeda leader.
Rep. Ron Paul speaks during a news conference at his newly opened Iowa campaign office on Tuesday.
“You distorted that,” Paul argued, by using the word “wrong.”
During the broadcast this morning, Fox aired a clip from the interview in which Paul declared “it was not absolutely necessary” to kill bin Laden.
“That’s different than saying it was wrong,” Paul told Wallace. “I’m saying there was a different way of doing that.”

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

What did Obama flip flop on?

PolitiFact | The Obameter: Campaign Promises that are Promise Broken

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

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 don’t think his idea of dismantling the Fed would be a overnight thing, he just wants to return to the Gold Standard (which im against). I think your thoughts that there will be no oversight of banks and basic things like check clearing will go away are misguided. Paul and most other people don’t care about that they just don’t like that the Fed has the ability to manipulate our economy though various monetary tools.

The one thing I would be up for is to have the Fed audited, which I see as a why not type thing. I don’t think its going to reveal anything but I think transparency is one of the most important factors in government including a private bank which exercises monetary policy.