Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Gary Floyd

Campaign 2008

Recommended Posts

I am kind of starting to agree with Ron Paul on the "American Empire" thing. I think it could be wise to reduce military spending and scale back our worldwide military presence. No mainstream candidate will ever say this, though.

 

Will Czech or Narcoleptic Jumper or some other member of the Ron Paul Rebel Alliance ® please explain why we need the gold standard to me? I'm not being condescending, I really want to know.

 

I just don't see the runaway inflation NJ is referring to.

 

Preserving the Constitution, hahaha

 

Wait a sec, didn't you vote for Bush?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pulling back on our military presence around the world is intelligent (and cost-efficient). I can understand and I agree with that. But it's not that Ron Paul stops there. He's a straight-up isolationist: We don't need to pull out of the UN. We don't need to pull out of NATO. I don't understand the need of continuing self-destructive foreign policy moves. I don't agree with him on Iraq because I don't trust him to pull out "when it is safe" when he wants to pull all our military assets around the world. THAT will piss off a bunch of our allies as well (I believe I mentioned Korea on the previous page. Japan might not be too happy with that, either...). There's a difference between "Switching gears" and "Completely destroying the transmission" that Ron Paul supporters don't seem to get. Essentially, when I see a Ron Paul supporter I see someone who wants to get out of Iraq at the cost completely decimating whatever foreign relations we have left. That's not an intelligent strategy.

 

The Gold Standard isn't going to magically fix our problems, nor is eliminating the Federal Reserve. It won't control inflation or suddenly make people better with money and not make bad investments; they'll still happen, and we'll start moving towards a Silver Standard, etc etc... Plus, I don't know if he actually has the power to do that, under his own office (That's a Congress thing). I mean, the whole "Strict Constitutionalist" is great to talk about... but in practice, we wouldn't have purchased Louisiana if Jefferson had held to his ideals. He won't be able to initiate most of what he says because he simply doesn't have that sort of power under his own interpretation.

 

It's not small government that is the problem, or that it's frightening. It's microscopic government that frightens people: if we moved towards the Libertarian ideal, we'd be closer to a confederation of states than an actual nation. I can understand cutting down on government excess and bureaucracy, but I'm not for completely raping the government of any power because I'm not sure that State Power is that much "better" than Federal power. Shifting the power doesn't mean that the power the government holds over you isn't there. There is nothing that makes it intrinsicly better or more protective of your rights: If you're in the majority in that state, you're fine. But if you aren't... well, move to another state, eh?

 

And Narcoleptic Jumper still hasn't reconciled his hatred and fear of big business with Ron Paul's completely Laissez Faire stance. So the Federal Government being reduced to a husk and allowing multinational corporations to have free reign is completely okay with you?

 

So, in conclusion:

 

Becoming a completely isolationist state (And this isn't about intervention: leaving NATO and the UN isn't a "non-interventionist" move...)? Crazy.

Refusing to do anything economically except lower taxes and deregulate? Crazy.

 

What is it about the idea of a small government that sends so many people right over the edge?

 

What is it about any sort of centralization that sends so many people into a paranoid fit? Is it some sort of long-internalized desire that springs from when you were a toddler screaming "I CAN DO IT!!!"? Is it too much to ask for help, or to actually help another?

 

Hey, look! I can speak in sweeping generalizations, used platitudes, and pseudo-freudian terms, too! I suppose it's a Midwestern thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
he wants to pull all our military assets around the world. THAT will piss off a bunch of our allies as well (I believe I mentioned Korea on the previous page. Japan might not be too happy with that, either...).

Forget those places, what about Israel? If that country wasn't strongly backed up by American support, they would most likely not even exist. After all, since its creation they've consistently fought off more invasions and terrorism than any other nation on the planet, all with American aid. If we completely cut off all our support, say goodbye to Israel, say hello to Holocaust 2: Electric Chair Boogaloo.

 

I do like some of Paul's ideas a lot, the reasonable and practical stuff like keeping Congress from constantly voting itself pay raises or ending the pointless and costly war on drugs. But damn he's got some goofy stuff to go along with those. I still don't see how eliminating the Fed is supposed to make things better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech
Forget those places, what about Israel? If that country wasn't strongly backed up by American support, they would most likely not even exist. After all, since its creation they've consistently fought off more invasions and terrorism than any other nation on the planet, all with American aid. If we completely cut off all our support, say goodbye to Israel, say hello to Holocaust 2: Electric Chair Boogaloo.

Jingus, shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd maybe vote for Ron Paul for lesser offices, but something about putting the federal government in the hands of someone who's basically ideologically opposed to its very existence makes me uncomfortable. "Big government" can do good work sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Czech, what's your argument here? That Israel isn't surrounded by enemies and that it hasn't fought several defensive wars against invasions? Or that America hasn't been the number one ally of Israel in helping them to do so?

 

A totally isolationist policy might sound good in theory, but there are just too many people around the world who rely on American aid for survival. Paul's plan seems to basically be "FUCK 'em, they should've thought of that before they decided to get born in a third-world hellhole". I understand the appeal of not risking the lives of our troops, believe me, I understand it better than you imagine. But Paul's strategy isn't just America First, it's America Only. Come to think of it, what's his position on the USA being the #1 supplier of monetary foreign aid and disaster relief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech

I mean, yeah, not that I don't support giving as much aid to Israel as we can, provided they want it, but there's really no other proper response to "Holocaust 2: Electric Chair Boogaloo" other than "Jingus, shut up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say Holocaust Part Deux, but losing American Support would almost certainly cause some serious destabilization in the region.

 

But hey, OUR EMPIRE WORKS FOR US NOW, right? I mean, what can be a more graceful end than abruptly and completely pulling out of all our previous military obligations, flipping the bird to our allies by leaving the UN and NATO, and completely cut out our foreign aid budget?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Blue Man Czech

I have some major reservations about Ron Paul's foreign policy, since we have a special relationship and responsibility w/r/t Israel. So yeah, some of that is pretty extreme, but other than that, he's solid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in order to lower interest rates, the Federal Reserve has to print more money. more money in circulation = more inflation. it's really that simple. Paul wouldn't "get rid" of the Fed, of course, you can't just pull the plug. What he would do is legalize competing currencies (basically legalize the constitution so that gold and silver can be legal tender instead of only federal reserve notes) to put a check on the Fed so they have to actually compete and can't just completely control our money supply and create inflation. he would also force them to operate with transparency so we know what they're actually doing and why (he would also I think put an end to government secrecy in general, and who knows what that may mean). it's not just a simple matter of "switching to the gold standard" or whatever you think you've heard Ron Paul's position is.

 

and he's so totally not a "straight up" isolationist. there's a difference between isolationist and non-interventionist and it's so obvious I'm not even going to bother saying it. and I think the majority of the world would be very happy to have the US military out of their hair.

 

as for RP being the biggest big business candidate, that's just completely absurd. government regulation of the market is precisely why our country (and therefore the world) is owned by corporations, because they fucking WRITE the regulations. Ron Paul would give the country back to the people, where it belongs. He's not running for ruler of the world, is the key difference between him and the rest of the field.

 

and Atheist, he's not completely opposed to the existence of the Federal government! sheesh, since when does the Constitution call for zero federal government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always wondered why people would want to elect candidates to government who don't believe in the government so much. I can understand not wanting the government to run wild, but is it really that much more comforting to think of a day where the government is being marginalized in favor of multi-national corporations with nothing but the bottom line for shareholders on their agenda? Oh wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean, yeah, not that I don't support giving as much aid to Israel as we can, provided they want it, but there's really no other proper response to "Holocaust 2: Electric Chair Boogaloo" other than "Jingus, shut up."

It's a fair cop, I suppose.

 

Ron Paul would give the country back to the people, where it belongs. He's not running for ruler of the world

Narc, shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...much more comforting to think of a day where the government is being marginalized in favor of multi-national corporations with nothing but the bottom line for shareholders on their agenda? Oh wait....

 

Well, under Bush right now, we basically have both. (big government and corporate interests)

 

I think the US approach to foreign policy needs to de-emphasize charity and interventionism, and take on a more mercenary type of approach. You're some foreign country in Africa and need money to fight AIDS? Fine, but we're getting huge trade concessions and natural resource interests. You need our military to help stabilize your region, Middle East? Fine, but we're getting free oil. You want to send illegal immigrants our way, Mexico? OK, but we're going to start charging you for them.

 

Oh, and when people start protesting, pull out of the country. That's what should have happened in South Korea a couple years back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those kids probably chose to support Paul after studying his position on monetary policy and noninterventionism.

 

Sheesh, politicians need to stop using kids as political cover. Yes, Democrats too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

RONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRONPAULRON

PAULRONPAUL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to Laura Ingrahm on the way to work today and she was all snooty because I guess Obama is in favor of either decriminilization or outright legalization of pot......has he actually come out and said this on the campaign trail? If so, kudos to him because while a lot more politicians agree with this stance then people think, very few of them have the balls to say it until they are out of office or at least in a lameduck situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBAMA vs. CLIN-TON. CNN GRAPHICS.

 

Ok, is Obama giving a personal example after everything he says? Like that one presidential candidate a few years ago who couldn't just make a point without trying to draw in an emotional appeal?

 

Stop clapping you fucking seals.

 

Clinton not writing anything down while Obama was is an interesting visual (and perhaps intellectual) difference. Now she's doing it. With a RED pen? Her pen doesn't match her power suit.

 

Do you think CNN arranged black people and women together for these crowd shots, or is it purely coincidental.

 

I seriously have no idea what these two each are proposing for health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The always-classy Washington Times is trying to burn (intended) Obama over his stance for a sensible marijuana policy. Unforunately for them, the scoop was instantly neutered when the Obama campaign readily admitted that that is true. Other than Ron Paul (well, and Mike Gravel, but you know what I mean), Obama is the only candidate who is not in favor of lengthy jail sentences & no college financial aid for marijuana convictions. Hillary Clinton is vehemently opposed to any change in the retarded marijuana policy. The "conservatives" over in the GOP insist that yet another pointless law and bountiful waste is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone else see Ed Helms in the audience? Was I just imagining?

 

They're in Hollywood. Celebrities seem to be making up a large portion of the audience. I think I saw Jason Alexander and Stevie Wonder in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in order to lower interest rates, the Federal Reserve has to print more money. more money in circulation = more inflation. it's really that simple. Paul wouldn't "get rid" of the Fed, of course, you can't just pull the plug. What he would do is legalize competing currencies (basically legalize the constitution so that gold and silver can be legal tender instead of only federal reserve notes) to put a check on the Fed so they have to actually compete and can't just completely control our money supply and create inflation. he would also force them to operate with transparency so we know what they're actually doing and why (he would also I think put an end to government secrecy in general, and who knows what that may mean). it's not just a simple matter of "switching to the gold standard" or whatever you think you've heard Ron Paul's position is.

 

The problem is that, if you look in comparison, economic downturns still happen with the Gold Standard. And they are ridiculously harsher: The recessions of the 1800s were far worse than the one we call "the Great Depression", and those countries that still were on a commodity standard during the Depression were hit harder and longer than those that weren't. Inflation isn't necessarily a bad thing as it reduces the 'sticky wages' problem (where wages don't go down when demand does, causing output to fall). It's a safety valve, really, and something a commodity-based system doesn't allow for. I know you are paranoid about the Gnomes in Zurich (look it up) and the mysterious men that control the Federal Reserve, but the fact of the matter is, that if (actually, more like when) our currency devalues, it's going to have a much more drastic economic hardships than you would under any sort of Commodity-based standard.

 

The fact of the matter is that it's all fiat: Gold doesn't do a service, it just sits there. We give gold the price we want to. Tying our currency down to a fixed-rate is only going to tie hands and cause speculation runs that can destroy an economy (Look at Argentina). If you're economic state is weak, you'll get destroyed (again, Argentina), and we'll have a full-blown Depression instead of a Recession. It's not a magical solution that will instantly make the government transparent or better, either. Frankly, it'll just make fighting and gridlock the order of the day as people dogfight for funds for their districts. It's not like someone would vote out a person who is getting pork-barrel deals for THEIR district...

 

and he's so totally not a "straight up" isolationist. there's a difference between isolationist and non-interventionist and it's so obvious I'm not even going to bother saying it. and I think the majority of the world would be very happy to have the US military out of their hair.

 

Israel, Korea, Japan, and many others. And you'd be surprised how many people want US military bases in their area: They bring in a ton of money, as we all know they spend so much. People might whine about them and the "American Empire!", but the fact of the matter is that they help many economies more than they know.

 

And he is an isolationist. How is being part of the UN "interventionist"? How is being part of NATO "interventionist"? Completely pulling out all our military assets aboard, along with pulling out of major organizations like the UN and NATO and cutting our Foreign Aid budget is isolationist. Don't fool yourself into thinking it's anything else.

 

as for RP being the biggest big business candidate, that's just completely absurd. government regulation of the market is precisely why our country (and therefore the world) is owned by corporations, because they fucking WRITE the regulations. Ron Paul would give the country back to the people, where it belongs. He's not running for ruler of the world, is the key difference between him and the rest of the field.

 

And how is that different from completely eliminating the government form the scene? If there is no regulation, the corporations are writing the regulations still. It just cuts out the middle man. Completely neutering the Federal Government in just about every way would only give corporations more power. Heck, have you ever considered that corporations have a better hold over state governments? This idea of "Let's get the Federal Government out of the picture and everything will be just fine!" is foolish because it relies on this idealized version of state governments. Less regulation will just lead to things like the Mortgage Crisis we're currently in, or the state the Airlines are in.

 

and Atheist, he's not completely opposed to the existence of the Federal government! sheesh, since when does the Constitution call for zero federal government?

I'm sorry, but having a nearly-powerless Federal Government that completely deregulates the economy for corporations to run wild in might as well not be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gary Floyd, what are you doing.

I'm Ron Pauling this Ron Paul so that Ron Paul can Ron Paul this Ron Paul Ron Paul. Is That Ron Paul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×