Ron Paul for president of USA 08? Your thoughts.

[The Telcontarion]

Congressman Ron Paul is the leading advocate for freedom in our nation’s capital and is seeking the 2008 Republican nomination for President of the United States. As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Paul tirelessly works for limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies. He is known among his congressional colleagues and his constituents for his consistent voting record. Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.

Short youtube videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BB3NrSpRGE

Most Recent debate Ron Paul highlights.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjnT1EyUfkQ

What do you think about the so called "Ron Paul revolution."

A significant video related to this issue - JFK speech, believed to have gotten him killed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru4TbL8aweE

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I think people should definitely vote for Ron Paul, because I have a standing bet on how long it wouuld take some right-wing nutcase to assassinate him. Also, I like gridlock in Washington. So, go wild.

My second choice would be Rudy Guiliani, because I like seeing third parties embarrass themselves, and the Green Party just has not been amusing, recently.

It is my opinion that Dr. Paul hasn't gotten the memo that the Republican party has completely abandoned all their principles except "Rich people are better than poor people" and "Religious plurality sux." and therefore he can't be elected by them, but it would be a better world if he could be.

[Ingwe]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I think people should definitely vote for Ron Paul, because I have a standing bet on how long it wouuld take some right-wing nutcase to assassinate him. Also, I like gridlock in Washington. So, go wild.

My second choice would be Rudy Guiliani, because I like seeing third parties embarrass themselves, and the Green Party just has not been amusing, recently.

It is my opinion that Dr. Paul hasn't gotten the memo that the Republican party has completely abandoned all their principles except "Rich people are better than poor people" and "Religious plurality sux." and therefore he can't be elected by them, but it would be a better world if he could be.

Amen, same here. Ron Paul and if not Ron Paul then Rudy! Agreed about the Rep party. At least we know there are some out there that reject what seems to be the standard principles of the Rep party. Those two, either of them, would most likely be great presidents, especially Ron though.

[brownjenkins]

He's has some decent views on spending, but he doesn't realize that near-zero government regulation leads to the exact opposite of free trade, the complete dominance of a select few people/corporations that control nearly all the capital and eventually stifle free trade, much like in the 20s.

[D.Sullivan]

At first I thought Ron Paul seemed great, too. I think someone who sees upholding the Constitution as a priority is a good thing. We could certainly use someone who cared more about our rights. But we need more then rights, and all he cares about is our rights. He's an extreme Libertarian. In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with. Anyone who's a hardcore anything I think is dangerous. Balance I think is what we need in a president, and as great as Ron Paul would be, I think there are things he would neglect.

That's how I feel, anyway. I'm eager to see how this whole election thing unfolds.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with.

I was having this conversation elsewhere, as regards the rights of children and homeschooling.

Anyone want to point me to a "good reasons for the government to get involved" thread?

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

At first I thought Ron Paul seemed great, too. I think someone who sees upholding the Constitution as a priority is a good thing. We could certainly use someone who cared more about our rights. But we need more then rights, and all here cares about is our rights. He's an extreme Libertarian. In a Libertarian's mind there's NO TIME for the government to step in, which I don't agree with. Anyone who's a hardcore anything I think is dangerous. Balance I think is what we need in a president, and as great as Ron Paul would be, I think there are things he would neglect.

That's how I feel, anyway. I'm eager to see how this whole election thing unfolds.

Just as in Numinore when the dunedain were estranged from the valar and not for the sake of the faithful or Tar - palantir's return to faithful rule, could numinore be saved, in that way too (in that way only) I feel Ron Paul could not save america; he is too late.

Maybe if he was president instead of the first bush or even Clinton, but now, no. You see I see this as a spiritual battle more so than a physical one. Just like Palantir, Ron Paul's policies are exactly what is needed, but the people (not just in america, this is a world desease) are degenerate, depraved, arrogant, pathetic, selfish, caluss, thus fearful: the wicked!!!

Though I believe the paradigm is shifting and the tide is turning, people are waking up to the machine, the lesson learned as a result of our folly cannot be fully appreciated/comprehended/understood before we face the consequences.

Alas!!!

"Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short." Matthew 24:22

"Those days," these days , unless they are cut short no life, no flesh, will remain; but for the sake of the elect/the chosen/ the faithful, those days will be cut short, meaning an intervention by god/the savior (according to the bible - none here may need swear by it, I do not force you to) will happen to save the faithful.

Ron Paul is a sign of the time (JFK come again) but it is to late; I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I know I am not; to my deepest horror and terror and regret and sadness.

I am afraid of what else, is to come. May god have mercy on us all.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Telcontarian.

You actually can't, in reason, consider Ron Paul the heir to JFK, much less the reincarnation. JFK established the Peace Corps. 'taint a Libertarian idea.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Telcontarian.

You actually can't, in reason, consider Ron Paul the heir to JFK, much less the reincarnation. JFK established the Peace Corps. 'taint a Libertarian idea.

Don't take me so literally but understand the message, of course he is not JFK. Actually he is far better: more informed, more independent of the power structure and has never been one of them (not as good looking though). They only relate in that, again it would seem that there is a possibility inwhich the american people have a chance to have a president for the people i.e. they have a chance for the first time in decades to be "As man was meant to be, free and independent." John F. Kennedy.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I was having this conversation elsewhere, as regards the rights of children and homeschooling.

Anyone want to point me to a "good reasons for the government to get involved" thread?

Well, I think one of the biggest for this coming election will be Health Care. America is far from one of the better countries to live in when it comes to health care and health insurance. It's about time we started learning from our fellow countries, which is what a good nation does when it wants to improve itself. It looks to it's peers, what they're doing and if it's working, and if so, emulates them.

But Ron Paul doesn't think so. He's so enamored with free capitalist America that he's not even willing to consider that we might need a nationally funded health care system, when many think it is a given that we need one, or at least that the system needs some serious reform.

By the way, I was homeschooled, and to me the right to school your own child is Holy. There are some things we definitely don't want the government putting there noses into, and in my opinion there are some things we do.

[brownjenkins]

In my mind, saying that the government can't do any good for humanity is basically saying that there is no community at all. We are all individuals out for ourselves, with not a care for our fellow human beings.

I don't buy it. Humans are a communal animal. We simply can't survive without trying to act together. It's what made us the dominant species on this planet, as opposed the all the other lifeforms that act singlely or in very small groups.

One can argue that a particular government doesn't do a very good job at expressing communal interests, but just giving up an basically saying that everyone is just better if they only concentrate on looking out for themselves is a copout in my mind.

Pure capitalism (which is not a free market) is fine for perpetuating success from generation to generation for those lucky enough to be born to a family with a successful member in its past. It's basically what the world was all about before the modern democratic era. But if you want to bring humanity, as a whole, forward, the lucky have to be willing to sacrifice a bit for those not born with the same advantages.

It's thinking about the whole of human society at the level that most consider themselves. A tough prospect, since humans are generally quite self-centered, but worth it.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

near-zero government regulation leads to the exact opposite of free trade.

Absolutely right. Why doesn't the Left make this point more clearly? It is so manifestly evident.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, saying that the government can't do any good for humanity is basically saying that there is no community at all. We are all individuals out for ourselves, with not a care for our fellow human beings.

No, it isn't. It's saying that we don't need the government to do what people naturally do for each other. Does the government make you care for your children? Does the government make you hold the door for an aged neighbor? Do you love your wife more because the government permitted you to marry her, or would you cease to love her if the government said you couldn't?

As a parent, did you decide not to educate your pre-school children because they don't have to attend school until 5? When they're in school, will you settle for any level and condition of their education because the government provides it? If your district doesn't provide telescopes, or trumpets, or a copy of any book by Tolkien, will you tell the child he/she doesn't need it? When the child turns 16, and the government says school is optional, will you just hand them the car keys and the credit car and stop taking an interest in their education?

If you need a package shipped, do you put a stamp on it, or drop it in a fed ex box? If you're looking for a house, do you take one from the government or pick your neighborhood? Have you served in the armed forces?

My point is, everyone agrees government should have limits. People differ on what those limits are, and what the source of them is. And almost NO ONE can decide who will pay for them.

You know what I think might be the problem? Incorporation and stock. The impersonality of answering to "the stockholders" protects business managers from having their individual conscience to answer to, and the fiction of a "corporate entity" protects them legally. More risk transferred back to decision makers might help companies be more circumspect. But it's a completely unprovable hypothesis, so... no science is possible.

[hectorberlioz]

I admire Ron Paul a lot. I think he's right about so many things...but his brand of foreign policy is dangerous. That is the only qualm I have with him. The Fed, the IRS...I agree with him. I wish Ron Paul the best of luck. In fact, I made my MySpace page into a Ron Paul advertisement just because I thought he deserved to be better known.

BUT like I said, I think his foreign policy is dangerous, and I think it'll be a pretty huge deal if we just transformed half our working system overnight by electing him. I'm still a Mitt Romney guy.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

You know what I think might be the problem? Incorporation and stock. The impersonality of answering to "the stockholders" protects business managers from having their individual conscience to answer to, and the fiction of a "corporate entity" protects them legally. More risk transferred back to decision makers might help companies be more circumspect. But it's a completely unprovable hypothesis, so... no science is possible.

I think that is indeed a major part of the problem. Company law exists the way it does because we created it that way, not because it was in the Old Testament or discovered by Isaac Newton.

(It certainly wasn't Intelligently Designed)

However, I think there is clear evidence that when you rely on charities or companies to perform important social functions such as welfare or health care, you get inefficient and partial (in both senses of the word) cover.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, it isn't. It's saying that we don't need the government to do what people naturally do for each other. Does the government make you care for your children? Does the government make you hold the door for an aged neighbor? Do you love your wife more because the government permitted you to marry her, or would you cease to love her if the government said you couldn't?

The problem with your argument is that you assume that all parents do care about their children, and have the time, money and ability to provide for them properly. Millions do not.

Many people don't need the government all that much to get along, but a vast majority do. And, while the government is not always the most efficient at providing essential services, it is vastly better than not getting those services at all, which is exactly how it was pre-Roosevelt.

It's saying, "I don't need the government thus, no one does."

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem with your argument is that you assume that all parents do care about their children, and have the time, money and ability to provide for them properly. Millions do not.

Many people don't need the government all that much to get along, but a vast majority do. And, while the government is not always the most efficient at providing essential services, it is vastly better than not getting those services at all, which is exactly how it was pre-Roosevelt.

It's saying, "I don't need the government thus, no one does."

Actually we need no government what so ever. Systems like that are always susceptable to corruption.

however that is not what Dr Paul is saying. He is saying that government needs to be small and that local state laws superceed federal laws; keeps big government powers at bay and power is less centralized. the more centralized power is the more likely an individual or a group with draconian policies could come into power and do as they will with everyone (checks and balancies is very important). Thats why world government is very bad, because a system could be put in place world wild that could be used for anything (666 system).

did you read all of my post, post #7, and watched the short video links. It would I think, illustrate this point for you perfectly: what's going on and the role most people play in perpetuating the problem. It also shows how bad world government is and why that is the goal for the so called elite.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

In my mind, saying that the government can't do any good for humanity is basically saying that there is no community at all. We are all individuals out for ourselves, with not a care for our fellow human beings.

I don't buy it. Humans are a communal animal. We simply can't survive without trying to act together. It's what made us the dominant species on this planet, as opposed the all the other lifeforms that act singlely or in very small groups.

One can argue that a particular government doesn't do a very good job at expressing communal interests, but just giving up an basically saying that everyone is just better if they only concentrate on looking out for themselves is a copout in my mind.

Pure capitalism (which is not a free market) is fine for perpetuating success from generation to generation for those lucky enough to be born to a family with a successful member in its past. It's basically what the world was all about before the modern democratic era. But if you want to bring humanity, as a whole, forward, the lucky have to be willing to sacrifice a bit for those not born with the same advantages.

It's thinking about the whole of human society at the level that most consider themselves. A tough prospect, since humans are generally quite self-centered, but worth it.

Exactly. Great post.

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

did you read all of my post, post #7, and watched the short video links. It would I think, illustrate this point for you perfectly: what's going on and the role most people play in perpetuating the problem. It also shows how bad world government is and why that is the goal for the so called elite.

Yes, I did watch your video, and it didn't make any point whatsoever, because there was no evidence whatsoever that any of it was true. Of course big money plays a big part in our government, but the idea that it's all part of a scheme to annihilate 80% of the population so the rich can have "The Fountain" to themselves...

I agree with Ron Paul on the idea that government should be smaller, and that more power should be given back to the states. But I still don't agree with some of his views, and think that some of his republican libertarian views are creating the problems we have today.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

He is saying that government needs to be small and that local state laws superceed federal laws; keeps big government powers at bay and power is less centralized.

Decentralization is actually a large part of the problem in the US. Public education is mostly decentralized, with a vast amount of the control lying in the hands of small local school boards. That's why you get great schools in some districts, and terrible schools in other districts.

By comparision, many European countries have much more centralized and socialized schooling than we do, even up to and through college, and a much better educated populace as a result. This does cost more, but the results are worth the investment.

If you want to get a feel for what smaller government would be like with less federal programs, do some reading about what life was like for the average person from 1900-1930. It wasn't pretty for all but the very few.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

The problem with your argument is that you assume that all parents do care about their children, and have the time, money and ability to provide for them properly. Millions do not.

Many people don't need the government all that much to get along, but a vast majority do. And, while the government is not always the most efficient at providing essential services, it is vastly better than not getting those services at all, which is exactly how it was pre-Roosevelt.

It's saying, "I don't need the government thus, no one does."

And the problem with this point of view is that it assumes that millions of GOVERNMENT employees care more. And there's no evidence for that.

I'm not against all government protections. I'm a rad fan of the Progressive Era. I even like WPA art, in moderation. And I'm a million mom marcher, so don't try the "2nd amendment means I can stockpile semi-automatics" business on me.

But you quite unfairly characterized "limiting government" as "abandoning community" and I called you on it, because that's not the case, at all.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

(It certainly wasn't Intelligently Designed)

I laughed out loud.

However, I think there is clear evidence that when you rely on charities or companies to perform important social functions such as welfare or health care, you get inefficient and partial (in both senses of the word) cover.

Maybe so. But that doesn't necessarily imply to me that the government is a good option for that.

Part of this may be that my ancestors are American for a long time. So we've spent almost 300 years being concerned about government extending its powers over individuals. The US Constitution is all about restricting government, not about finding more good for it to do.

Case in point, universal pre-school. For some people, this sounds like a swell opportunity to get "at risk" children into safe educational environments earlier. This also frees up their mothers to work. Who couldn't love that?

Well, for starters, people who don't want their kids in school. And researchers who worry about early academic pressure. And tax-payers who don't want higher bills to provide services that are mostly now privately funded. And child development experts who aren't sure about age segregating young children. And civil libertarians who resist having more years of our population under government supervision. Partial list, I could go longer.

There's much legitimate concern about the job the government does in any of the areas it takes on. But a more central issue is, what is the default setting? Is the default setting "private solutions, except in a dire emergency?" or is the default setting, "The government does it"?

That's a complicated philosophical issue, which the Founding Fathers took a position on. And their POV adds up to "We the people" and "The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, ".

People must be and are the ultimate holders of our inalienable rights, with which our Creator endowed us.