Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 6:42 pm    Post subject: Ron Paul @ Google Reply with quote


Link


A really good in-depth look at some libertarian ideas for the US.

I'm onside with most of it except for a couple of things like the isolationism.
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for posting that. He's has some well-defined positions and articulates them well. I continue to find the vast majority of his foreign and defense policy to be naieve and ill advised, however.
truth4freedom





Joined: 14 Jan 2007
Posts: 255
Reputation: 23.7Reputation: 23.7
votes: 3
Location: Bible Belt USA!

PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In what manner do you find Ron Paul's defense and foreign policy ill advised? I think fighting like mad on foreign soil while leaving your own borders wide open and not enforcing your immigration laws to be far more damaging than withdrawing from the Middle East and agencies like the WTO and UN. And that is exactly what every other candidate will do is ignore our own security at home while policing the world and getting fat and rich off of it. Not that they would tell you that during their campaign, just vote that way once you think they are not looking.
JaneBella
Guest








PostPosted: Sun Dec 23, 2007 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


let the man explain for himself.


Thankyou truth4freedom

I shall now educate myself as to who Ron Paul is thanks to your supplied link on another thread
PostPosted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 6:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The guy is an absolute nutcase and his ideas suck, with all due respect!
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Winston2004 wrote:
The guy is an absolute nutcase and his ideas suck, with all due respect!


would you care to elaborate on your point by discussing where you disagree and why?

I'm guessing here, but I think you disagree with his position on foreign policy.

What about the other stuff? Less government... eliminating wasteful and unnecessary federal departments?
PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stephen wrote:
Winston2004 wrote:
The guy is an absolute nutcase and his ideas suck, with all due respect!


would you care to elaborate on your point by discussing where you disagree and why?

I'm guessing here, but I think you disagree with his position on foreign policy.

What about the other stuff? Less government... eliminating wasteful and unnecessary federal departments?


Once he opens his mouth, he forgets about all that wonderful less government, less taxes and start linking those things to foreign policy. I can't understand why any sane person would listen to such a moron?! Every time this moron opens his mouth he just reaffirms that he is the most ignorant and naive member of the US Congress. How anyone can take him seriously as a Presidential candidate is a mystery to me.
Lar_drewstar





Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 34
Reputation: 19.8Reputation: 19.8
Location: Winnipeg Manitoba

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2007 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I agree with most of Dr Paul's positions I do disagree with his stance on Israel and NATO. Disengagement from alliances of the past only establishes an air of suspicion and distrust. I mean you cant really back out of something you've agreed to in the past can you? Certainly not with alliances of great importance.
Stephen





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 645
Reputation: 72.9
votes: 5
Location: Ontario

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Winston2004 wrote:
Stephen wrote:
Winston2004 wrote:
The guy is an absolute nutcase and his ideas suck, with all due respect!


would you care to elaborate on your point by discussing where you disagree and why?

I'm guessing here, but I think you disagree with his position on foreign policy.

What about the other stuff? Less government... eliminating wasteful and unnecessary federal departments?


Once he opens his mouth, he forgets about all that wonderful less government, less taxes and start linking those things to foreign policy. I can't understand why any sane person would listen to such a moron?! Every time this moron opens his mouth he just reaffirms that he is the most ignorant and naive member of the US Congress. How anyone can take him seriously as a Presidential candidate is a mystery to me.


The part that I have highlighted in bold is what I glossed over because it had no value in informing me of the rationale behind your views. I'd appreciate a bit more substantiation of your position on of Dr. Paul, because I simply have a vague understanding about your dislike of his foreign policy (which I knew before but still don't know why). Please, emphasize signal and cut out the noise.

It might also help for you to cite specific items mentioned in the YouTube video (which is what this thread is about). The video is an hour long, there is plenty of material in there to discuss.
Paul Morrison





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1Reputation: 38.1
votes: 2
Location: Thunder Bay

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its art imitating life. For years SNL has been running political campaign statements by ‘Tim Calhoun’, a fringe political candidate. Tim Calhoun’s views, however, are nothing compared to the GOP’s current Presidential candidate, the ‘crazy uncle’ of US politics, Ron Paul. Ron Paul’s anti-war, anti-everything rhetoric has bamboozled enough people that he’s actually begun to poll slightly higher than the margin of error, as high as 6%. He’s at a unique spot on the political spectrum, right where the whacky right and moonbat left bump into each other. He appeals to a cadre of ‘9/11 truthers’, radical leftists, anarchists, Klan members and assorted kooks and weirdos, but apparently he’s managed to convince a few people who might otherwise be declared ’sane’ into supporting him as well. In fact, I recently made a comment about Ron Paul being a whacko in the company of friends, and was shocked to be confronted with one of Ron Paul’s supporters. So, in an effort to convert those being misled, here’s what Ron Paul stands for, and why they are all terrible ideas (for the record, almost all of this was taken from Ron Paul’s website):

1) All bi-lateral or multi-lateral agreements are bad. Free trade is bad. Univeral standards are bad. Especially NAFTA, which is about merging the US Canada and Mexico into one country.

Ron Paul has a special place in his heart for other countries. He frankly wants nothing to do with them. He doesn’t want any multi-lateral agreements in regards to trade. He seems to be immune to understanding that as a net producer its in the US’ interests to have trade barriers removed. However, in his mind, it opens up the US market to undermining US businesses. Yes, Ron Paul, cheap Canadian gasoline hurts the US producers, so too does cheap pulp and paper, forestry products, all of which the US turns into other consumer goods, or fuels the US economy. Higher prices via tarrifs would hurt the US more than it would help. He also lives in a dream world where NAFTA is really about unifying all three countries into one. This is a complete fantasy with no basis in reality. Its a non-starter in all three countries, but he’s still convinced there’s an evil cabal trying to bring it to fruition.

2) The UN wants to directly tax the US.

Apparently Ron Paul thinks the UN wants to tax americans directly, as some form of global welfare scheme. Its simply untrue and has no basis in fact.

3) Build a wall to keep out immigrants, send all the illegals back, end the citizenship right of children born in the US (to eliminate so-called anchor babies), and track everyone on visas so that we can kick them out if they overstay.

The ‘build a wall’ plank and the ’send them back’ planks are becoming more mainstream options by the day, but they are extreme positions at this point. More odd is his desire to eliminate anchor babies, essentially creating the possibility of children being citizens of no country at all. As for the visa tracking idea, this would require a massive bureacracy to achieve, something which conflicts with Ron Paul’s stated goal of reducing the size of government. Its a completely impractical idea, which is why no one else has ever tried to implement it.

4) Disband the department of Education.

I don’t think much further comment is required, other than that his comments on education betray a view of public schools as a place for miscreants, while home schooled kids are paragons of virtue, a view which I think is oversimplistic.

5) Get rid of government environmental standards and replace them with the right to sue if you suffer results from Pollution.

Somewhere out there on the hustings in Iowa, John Edwards just had dollar signs flash before his eyes. This idea would create a system in which lawyers solicit people suffering from cancer, and then try and find an ‘environmental’ cause (bonafide or not, doesn’t matter), and then sue pretty much every business for causing cancer. The ABA would fall over itself to see this idea become law, and it would nearly guarantee that the US would have to abandon any form of manufacturing for fear of litigation. American society is already overly litigious, this would just make it way worse. Instead of a government panel of scientists deciding what is considered ’safe’, that would be determined by 12 people unable to escape jury duty.

6) He’s against universal medical coverage AND private HMO’s or insurance. Instead he wants to make medical expenses tax deductible and create health care savings accounts.

So, if you’re poor, you die. That’s pretty much how his medical plan would work. If you don’t make enough money to pay tax, then there is nothing to deduct from, and if you have low income, you are unlikely to be able to put anything away in a savings account.

7) Wants to weaken the FDA, especially when it comes to regulating ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ medical products. He’s also against universal vaccination.

The universal vaccination issue is a staple of the lunatic right, so we shouldn’t be surprised about this, but remember what I said about him being where the moonbat left meets the whacky right? He’s against any sort of regulation of ‘natural’ or ‘alternative’ medical products. This would allow any shuckster to sell ‘Simpson and Son - Revitalizing Tonic’ as a cure for impotence, or cancer. Heck, they might even be able to convince people not to keep going for chemo or radiation therapy. Crystals and bear testicals should be unregulated, that’s Ron Paul’s position.

8 ) Opposes any standards for home schooling.

In a related note, I just recieved a PhD from PomoUniversity. Since we’re not allowed to have standards, its therefore a legitimate degree, and I now demand you all address me as ‘Dr. PomoChristian’. This is, by far, one of the dumbest ideas in his pantheon. The result of this decree would be to create a situation in which no one recognizes a person who has been homeschooled as being acceptable into a university. They would not have a recognized state high school diploma, and would thus be barred from higher education. The standards are there to protect homeschoolers as much as to restrict what they are being taught.

9) Opposes Abortion.

Not that I have a problem with this position, but I think that if his supporters on the moonbat left realized he was anti-abortion, they might try and burn him at the stake. So, I thought I’d just point that out.

10) Opposes all sorts of common sense law and order laws, like tracking all deposits of more than 10 000, secure drivers licenses, FISA warrants, sneak and peek warrants, other important national security measures.

Before you consider this position, remember, most of these provisions far pre-date Bush. The tracking of deposits of more than 10 000$ has been in effect for a long time, and is mainly used to prevent counterfeiting and money-laundering, and also to interdict drug trafficking. Secure driver’s licenses are a means to ensure that identity theft is less possible, and to interdict terrorists attempting to move under assumed identities or forged documents. The FISA system was set up to allow for search warrants in which the people under investigation are foreign entites (for example, China or Al Qaeda), and when a conventional search warrant would result in the public release of intelligence sources or methods. The system is designed to be a compromise between protecting americans from harm, and protecting the rights of accused people, since it still requires judicial oversight. Scrapping this would hobble the ability of US intelligence agents to prevent future terrorist attacks or break up terrorist organizations or interfere with espionage by foreign nations or groups. Ron Paul would basically make every police officer’s job much tougher, and expose millions of americans to potential terrorist attacks.

11) Wants to truly eliminate gun controls, eliminate the Federal Firearms License.

Bruce Cockburn’s ‘If I had a Rocket Launcher’ should be playing in the background during Ron Paul’s campaign stops. The man wants the repeal of all gun laws, and to eliminate federal firearms licenses. This would essentially make all firearms legal, even automatics or whatever a person desires. There would be no controls over emotionally disturbed people getting guns, no background checks or waiting periods. Even I, a supporter of the rights of gun owners think this is a terrible idea.

12) Wants to leave the UN

He wants the US out of the UN. That’s pretty straightforward.

13) Wants to recall all US forces from anywhere overseas.

So, good luck Korea, you’re on your own now.

And last, but not least, he’s a racist. This is the one thing I didn’t take from his campaign website:

Quote:
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action…. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That’s what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn’t ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.


That’s from his Ron Paul Survival Report in 1992 - You can read the transcript from the Nizkor Project, a jewish anti-hate site. That gives an darker (pun intended) spin on his vote against aid to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina (the only person who voted against the aid package). I mean, how crazy do you have to be to tell a million people just flooded from their homes by a hurricane and related flooding, to ‘tough it up’

He’s also had to defend himself lately of accusations of hanging around with white supremecists and other ne’erdowells.

He attacts ‘9/11 truthers’ like bees to honey, thanks to his comments suggesting the government was planning a terrorist attack on the US, in order to bring about martial law and a new fascism.

What people need to understand about Ron Paul, is that his view of the world is basically this: There is a cabal of people trying to run the world. These people want to run the US for their benefit, and they want to do it on the backs of normal people. He has never identified outright the whom the cabal is made up of. At various times he infers that it is the US government, the Bilderbergs, the World Bank, the UN, Israel/Jews/Zionists, and the like. This is why his coalition of the extreme left (who believe that the cabal is ‘BushCo’ or ‘Halliburton’) can co-exist with the stormfronters and skinheads (the cabal is the Jews). His campaign is one in which people are urged to be scared of the coming darkness this cabal will bring.

That’s just not a view of the world which is accurate or healthy. Which is why 6% is his apex in scientific polls (in web polls the Ron Paul Army makes him a winner by thousands of votes, mainly by spamming or the use of webbots). Only 6% of the population is sufficiently deranged to believe in his cabalist conspiracy theories. A statistically insignificant number are like my acquantaince, merely misled.

http://www.pomochristian.ca/ar.....president/
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
Its art imitating life.

No, this is spam imitating content.

Please don't post the same, long post over and over. Make your point ONCE.

-Mac
PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Paul Morrison wrote:
Its art imitating life.

http://www.pomochristian.ca/ar.....president/


Good Post!

The guy is a racist in disguise and thats why he has Neo-Nazis and anit-war loons supporting him.
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

truth4freedom wrote:
In what manner do you find Ron Paul's defense and foreign policy ill advised? I think fighting like mad on foreign soil while leaving your own borders wide open and not enforcing your immigration laws to be far more damaging than withdrawing from the Middle East and agencies like the WTO and UN.
I'm agreed on one aspect of your post; "withdrawing from...agencies like the WTO and UN".

We learned on September 11, 2001 (and should have learned with WTC I, Khobar Towers, the embassy attacks and the USS Cole attack) that terrorists are emboldened by a policy of withdrawal and isolation. Let me back up a few years.

I was, in my teens and early 20's, opposed to the US involvement in Viet Nam. On January 20, 1973 I took part, at age 15, in an antiwar demonstration to "celebrate" Nixon's inauguration. I campaigned for McGovern. Four short years after the helicopters evacuated the last remaining US citizens from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon, the deposed Shah of Iran needed surgery. To his credit, Carter allowed him into the US for the surgery. The result was the embassy seizure by the "students" including the thug "I'm a Dinner Jacket" President of Iran. Similarly, the US had given way on the Panama Canal, China and other areas, so much so tha tour allies doubted that we could be trusted.

Restoring that trust took much doing. The First Gulf War helped, and Afghanistan and Iraq II helped more. Notably, there have been no attacks on US soil since 911, and the only major attacks on US interests have been during the presidencies of appeasers Clinton and Carter (other than 911, which occurred right after GWB took office and he was untested). Can we really afford the experiment?
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So is the "best" response to future terror attacks might be to stomp and walk away? Forget this "occupying forces" nonsense... just give them an abject lesson on the power of modern weaponry and leave them to clean up the mess?

-Mac
JBG





Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 823
Reputation: 93.1Reputation: 93.1
votes: 8
Location: NYC Area

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
So is the "best" response to future terror attacks might be to stomp and walk away? Forget this "occupying forces" nonsense... just give them an abject lesson on the power of modern weaponry and leave them to clean up the mess?

-Mac
It depends on the situation, but in general, I am quite open in saying that the Brits created a historic catastrophe by pulling their bases entirely from the former colonies. Perhaps their bankrup financial condition left them little choice but to cut and run, but they (and other powers) left in their wake an array of failed states. Back when mobility was limited to horses, i.e. when the Christians beat the Muslims back from Vienna and Tourres, leaving that chunk of the world unpoliced was bad mainly for the likes of Marco Polo. Now, Jihad is global and unrelenting in scope, and isolationism is just unacceptable.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Ron Paul @ Google

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB