Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Can Ron Paul get any respect? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Can Ron Paul get any respect?
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that this is the front page of the NYT or Washington Post, but it's nice to see someone checking off all the victories and putting to bed some of the MSM lies of those trying to discredit said victories.

So what gives? Will RP make some headway, or will the MSM successfully disparage and ignore him?
Is Ron Paul the real deal?
quote:
It’s long been contended that none of the brilliant statesmen who crafted our founding documents could be elected to high public office today because they wouldn’t pass muster with any of the special-interest groups or, more particularly, the media those groups influence. Well, we might just have a test to that theory in this presidential contest. Item: Dr. Ron Paul. Not heard much about him ? If you’re a network news junkie, no wonder. Any television coverage would only be a sound-bite, probably derogatory. The media excuse for ignoring him is that Paul consistently does poorly in the normal political polls conducted through telephone surveys. If he were truly a fringe candidate, lack of polling numbers might justify a cold news shoulder. But he has consistently finished high in party straw polls and debates. He came in first in seven of nine straw polls held in the past month, and took either first or second place in 23 of the total 37 straw polls taken since June. He has participated in seven Republican debates and, by whatever measuring method the sponsors chose, won five of them, sometimes by staggering margins.

In the first debate on May 3, Paul won MSNBC’s on-line poll. On May 15, Paul came in second in Fox News text messaging voting by the audience. On June 5, he won the on-line CNN poll in all but two categories, “Snappiest Dresser” (Mitt Romney ) and “Most Disappointing Performance” (Rudy Giuliani ). On Aug. 5, he won the on-line ABC News poll by getting 63 percent of the vote, eight times more than runner-up Romney. On Sept. 5, he won the FOX News public text messaging poll. On Sept. 17, he finished second in an immediate straw poll of 340 delegates after the “Value Voters” debate. (Mike Huckabee was first. ) On Oct. 9, on the question “Who won the debate ?” Paul received 74 percent of the votes on the on-line CNBC poll. And on Oct. 21, he won the FOX News viewer text voting.

A debate record like that ought to garner big headlines. Instead, all Paul gets is discounts and disclaimers.

Most of the “news” about Paul has centered around his campaign as a fluke, fueled by technological trickery. FOX News commentator Sean Hannity guffawed on air about Paul’s fans “stacking” the text message results, apparently unaware that the cellphone polls disallowed multiple votes from any single phone number.

The notion that Paul’s supporters are more ardent has even been presented as a criticism. Why isn’t a candidate who energizes his base at a higher level than others newsworthy ? Here’s a novel concept: Maybe the reason Paul is trouncing the “serious” Republican contenders in debates is—his ideas. Or more accurately, his fidelity to the Founders’ ideas. This physician, congressman and presidential candidate is a man after the Founders’ own hearts.

Some ridicule Paul as a radical because he honestly, literally believes we should reduce and restore federal government as envisioned and outlined in the Constitution.

He’s a big 10 th Amendment fan. That’s the most ignored item in the Bill of Rights, the one that reserves undelegated powers to the states or the people. Paul’s proposed We the People Act would forbid federal courts from hearing cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, public display of religious symbols and the like, topics the Founders undoubtedly never intended to be decided at the national level, much less see the light of day in the Supreme Court.

Having an M. D. in the White House, with firsthand experience in health care and its looming issues, might not be a bad idea, either. Paul’s refusal to accept Medicare and Medicaid while practicing is principled, not to mention inspiring.

He also is faithful to Washingtonian non-interventionist foreign policy. He’s been smeared for allegedly saying in one debate that the U. S. invited the 9 / 11 attacks. But those were the moderator’s words. This is what Paul said in retort to that suggestion: “If we think we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.” Which makes perfect sense to me, and probably millions of others.

Serious authorities on the Mideast situation confirm Paul’s position. The 9 / 11 Commission Report included a list of reasons given by Osama bin Laden himself in his 1996 fatwa for attacking America, which were, in order, American involvement in the Midde East, Palestine and sanctions on Iraq.

“We’re being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live,” Michael Scheuer, a former CIA bin Laden specialist, told CNN. That doesn’t jive with the official Republican party line, however, and its bankroll for PR spin dwarfs Paul’s. Which brings up another admirable aspect of this constitutional, Jeffersonian throwbackhis fund-raising. Unlike everyone else running for president, some 96 percent of Paul’s contributions come from individuals. Half come in donations of $ 200 or less. People who actually get acquainted with him and his fresh, 220-year-old ideas also seem to get behind him. Even his campaign is aptly named. Paul’s performance may well tell us whether there is “Hope for America” yet as originally conceived by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison et al. All those luminaries are relegated to the eternal silence of the grave, but if they could cast a voice lifeward, I think they’d endorse Ron Paul.



[ November 05, 2007, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
won MSNBC’s on-line poll
quote:
second in Fox News text messaging voting
quote:
won the on-line CNN poll in all but two categories
quote:
won the on-line ABC News poll
quote:
won the FOX News viewer text voting.
What all this says to me is that he's very popular to the tech savvy crowd. Online and text messaging polls aren't very representative of the total public even if they do prevent double voting. The straw polls may be a bit more impressive. I do agree that the media hasn't given him a fair shake, though.
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For the online polls - most of his results are likely the result of rigging - it is pretty trivial to do.

The reporter has apparently never heard of Caller ID and text message spoofing,

http://www.spooftel.com/faqSMS.html

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron Paul wants the "Maginot Line" defense. Pull back and defend the borders.

George Bush uses the "Best Defense is an Aggressive Offense" approach, so we leave the borders wide open but take the fighting over there before they bring it here.

The Democrats have a mixed approach. Pull back AND leave the borders spread wide open. The liberal plan is to make sure we have plenty of first responders.

Of course, I'd mix the Bush/Paul plan the other way, big on offense and secure the borders, but nobody asked me. My understanding is that's what most of the other Republican candidates say they want to do though, so it's all good.

Also, Paul, if I am not mistaken, is in favor of complete drug legalization. Probably more technically, for leaving it up to the states. Constitutionally, I have to agree with him. I've always maintained that the Commerce Clause provides too thin a rationale for regulating what may well be INTRA-state, not INTER-state, drug sales. Of course, the Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has ruled that a farmer growing wheat and selling it to local markets in his own state is still liable to be regulated by the Feds because under the theory of "the interstate commerce clause let's big government do whatever it wants to do" that farmer's crop going to local markets made other crops take up the slack in providing to other states. I can probably agree with Paul that that's a big crock of nutrient rich fertilizer.

So I'm for legalizing drugs? Not quite. I'm for passing a Constitutional Amendment to legitimize our drug laws. If that effort failed, then I would be for letting democracy run its course and having states regulate themselves and the feds only regulate illicit trade between states without reciprocity agreements.

But that's where Paul loses it. The drugs and the cut and run platform doesn't cut it with most Republicans. And that's no fault of the media.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The only problem I have with Ronald Paul's Republican policy is his opposition to SS adoption. Upholding Libertarian policies, however, he will not be able to oppose them.

I am a libertarian and a Libertarian. Unless preventing Sister Hillary from becoming president boils down to 1 vote, I'll vote for Ron Paul with a clear conscience.

If the next president is going to be from the Southwest, well, what with LBJ and Dubyuh and Silly Billy, I'd say President Paul, M.D., is about the best the Southwest can offer at the moment!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Best Defense is a Strong Offense is another way of saying !ATTACK!.

In geopolitics, it's called warmongering. This is LIFE, not football.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His new ad is really pathetic. Look up a critique of it on Slate.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron Paul just raised around 4.1 million in 24 hours from over 35,000 donors.

Happy Guy Fawkes Day.

Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Must be those internet spammers again. [Roll Eyes]

Ricky - I looked but couldn't find it. Do you have a link?

[ November 06, 2007, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, since there is almost a direct correlation between fundraising and free air-time, we'll see how much more coverage he gets.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think this is where/why he's seeing a lot of support - a consistent ideology and he seems to honestly believe and follow it while the others jockey for position and adjust their positions accordingly. Protest vote or if people really like what he’s saying, he is, at the least, believable and it seems to me people are tired of the smoke and mirrors.
quote:
The candidates "all have visible flaws, from the perspective of the Republican base, and Ron Paul is at least forceful," says Cal Jillson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "He has an ideology that is consistent and that he is personally committed to."

Paul also appeals to people who are fed up with the partisanship and tear-down-the-front-runners mentality in American politics. "A lot of people will look at Paul and say, that guy is talking to me, not to the people at the other podiums next to him," says Mr. Jillson.

From the CSM

[ November 07, 2007, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Colin JM0397 ]

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Things Ron Paul supports:

* a Constitutional amendment to abolish the income, estate and gift taxes (H.J.RES.23)

* He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve (H.R.2755).

* He wants to end birthright citizenship (H.J.RES.46)

* He wants to ban any Federal Court from delivering a judgement on state laws on Religion, privacy rights, sexuality, and marriage rights (H.R.300)

* He wants to ban abortion by declaring that human life exists from conception (H.R.1094);

but

* Ban any "Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity." (H.R.1095)

* and withdraw the United States from the UN (H.R.1146) and its various attendant bodies like the WHO and UNICEF.


Needless to say, Mr. Paul sha'nt be getting my vote.

Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WeAreAllJust LooseChange
Member
Member # 3411

 - posted      Profile for WeAreAllJust LooseChange         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron Paul's investments are in gold and precious metals.
He has a LOT to benefit from the policies he preaches.

I think he has the potential to screw up the economy and the political system SO bad, that it might just work.
We will finally get together and decide how to really start solving our long term problems, which has been lingering for generations.
On the other hand - we might just die off which will be a solution by itself.

If he is on the line against Clinton - I'll choose him. Things in US need to get WAY worse before the majority of Americans (and politicians) realize what is to be poor and all the consequences which this brings.
Memory of the Depression has long been forgotten.
US needs to reach that low again so it can reform for the better and change its ways of Empire.

Posts: 174 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Storm - you're partially correct on some of those. He's against federal laws for some things - like Abortion, which doesn't mean, if he got his way, states couldn't go either way.
quote:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”

Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.

As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.

Straight from RP himself: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/

------------------

Indeed things will get pretty bad if he was to have his way with things. One needs look no further than the forced currency and market crashes massaged along to ensure "the people" feel they needed things like the Federal Reserve to stabilize the system. No one gives up their hard won power without a fight and we'll all be stuck in the middle of it with the economy and monetary systems in shambles.

What's better - limping along in a messed up quasi-constitutional system that siphons money out of each of our pockets – but we’re all pretty fat and happy right now… Or, as Change says, breaking it so bad that we need to put it back together properly?

I know what the answer of most of the country is - we like our comfort more than our freedom.

A little background and history on the banking and Federal reserve thing: http://www.etherzone.com/2002/sans100102.shtml

Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, actually HR 1094 would make it illegal, while HR 300 would only remove Federal protection and allow the States to decide.
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
See, the thing is, colin, that if ron paul were to screw things up so badly that we decide we have to fix the system, it would mean tens of millions of people dying, in all liklihood.

I like freedom, but not so much I'm willing to kill millions of people to get it. And would we really end up with lots more freedom? Not likely... the broken system would have been one of unrestricted freedom, so the reaction fix would be lots more restrictions.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Colin JM0397
Member
Member # 916

 - posted      Profile for Colin JM0397   Email Colin JM0397   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Digging a little deeper, and off topic, but am I the only one seeing a similarity with the Panic of 1819 and what's going on with the "housing bubble" and troubles with the mortgage lenders?
quote:
In particular, because of the damage to Europe's agricultural sector, the U.S. agricultural sector underwent an expansion. The Bank aided this boom through its lending, which encouraged speculation in land. This lending allowed almost anyone to borrow money and speculate in land, sometimes doubling or even tripling the prices of land. The land sales for 1819, alone, totaled some 55 million acres (220,000 km²). With such a boom, hardly anyone noticed the widespread fraud occurring at the Bank as well as the economic bubble that had been created.

In the summer of 1818, the national bank managers realized the bank's massive over-extension, and instated a policy of contraction and the calling in of loans. This recalling of loans simultaneously curtailed land sales and slowed the US production boom due to the recovery of Europe. The result was the Panic of 1819 and the situation leading up to McCulloch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 (1819).

Second Bank of the United States
Posts: 4738 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Colin - sorry, it seems to have vanished. It was a poorly made ad, with goofy looking people mouthing their support for paul, and Slate simply interspersed comments on youtube from purportedly disappointed supporters. Maybe it was a fake and that's why I can find neither the Slate item nor the ad on youtube.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
threads
Member
Member # 5091

 - posted      Profile for threads   Email threads   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
A little background and history on the banking and Federal reserve thing: http://www.etherzone.com/2002/sans100102.shtml

That article is extremely one-sided. The criticism of the Fed for overseeing the Great Depression is obsolete. The Fed's strategy has changed a lot since the Great Depression and, quite frankly, the Fed of today is not even comparable to the Fed pre-Greenspan. The market stabilized fairly quickly after Greenspan took over and the rough oscillations between recession and growth that existed previously were smoothed out (admittedly with a few notable exceptions however eliminating the Fed would not have changed that fact).

quote:
Originally posted by Colin JM0397:
Digging a little deeper, and off topic, but am I the only one seeing a similarity with the Panic of 1819 and what's going on with the "housing bubble" and troubles with the mortgage lenders?

Many economists are predicting a coming recession but I haven't seen any predicting a depression.
Posts: 778 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tens of millions of people, eh Everard? Spin me a scenario.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't see any possible result of paul's policies being enacted oher then civil war.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Really? I can put you in touch with some libertarians and conservatives who see a civil war coming if we continue on the current path.

How would your civil war come about? Ron Paul anneals a solid liberty coalition, and the Left collectively decides to take up arms against the Right and/or secede the states they control from the Union?

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well. Ron Paul does seem sincere.

His views are also insane, but that's besides the point, yes?

Keeping the Supreme Court from ruling on cases with a suspiciously conservative agenda in the background. Sure. Judicial tyranny? I suppose forcing people to not restrict the freedoms of other people, such as when it comes to marriage, abortion, religious oppression (goes both ways, of course, to atheists as well as Christians/whatever majority religious group is there), individual privacy, etc, would seem to be tyranny to those being disallowed by force to be tyrants in such regards themselves.

Leaving the U.N.? On what grounds is that anything but insane?

Ending birthright citizenship? I give you one guess what this is about. Actually, none: It's about immigration. He wishes to keep citizenship from being based on birth to keep the immigrants from being legal, because he wants them here no more than his ancestors wanted my ancestors here.

I'm Irish/Italian. My greatgrandparents were thought of with the same bile as many people hold for the Hispanics today, and they used some of the same rhetoric, too. As the child of immigrants, to support something that would attack those like my greatgrandparents, to think of these people in the way many conservatives think of them, would be a betrayal of my own heritage, a betrayal of my own ancestors, the people whose nationality runs in my blood, who faced the same kind of persecution.

I will not betray my own blood, by doing unto others as others did to my ancestors. How can this man support such an evil? How is the evil not obvious now, when the same thing is obviously evil when you look back at it being done to the Italians and Irish and Germans and whatnot?

Ending income tax, and all those other taxes. Madness. Yes, the government has some flaws, but the solution is not to starve the government of the only effective way they can get the money to defend us in a nuclear world. The government back before the 1930's was crap, honestly, and pretty much unable to do anything useful, most of the time. At least now the government can DO something, if something is needed. Do we really need to go back to the wonderful humanitarianism of the guilded age? /sarcasm

Ron Paul is a consummate... something. He's definitely legit. Legitimately insane.

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If large segments of the population really believe this insanity... I can see how a civil war would come about, quite honestly. Bigoted "libertarians" who want the freedom to persecute those who they wish to persecute, such as gays, atheists, liberals, hispanics, anyone they disagree with. So disgusting.
Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You dirty mic dago paddy wop, 0meg...(quoth the kike) [Razz] (ever see "Do The Right Thing"? [Big Grin] )
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
His "Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?" line makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? But is this one of those ideas that's too simple to work?

[ November 08, 2007, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Omega M. ]

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When FDR ruled for 4 terms, he took some very radical steps (or so they were perceived at the time) that many people felt were insane.

Sometimes radical departures are good.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sometimes they are, yes.

Godwin's law alert: While FDR took some very radical steps that worked out very nicely for the country, around the same time, Hitler was taking some very radical steps that didn't turn out so well.

Radical change, by itself, isn't a good thing. Its a value neutral thing. The changes have to be well considered, and beneficial to the people affected, and, for example, not cause a world war, in order for radical change to be a good idea.

I don't see most of ron paul's radical changes being good for a lot of people. In fact, I see those changes promoting racial, sexual, religious, and economic hatred and violence.

[ November 08, 2007, 09:38 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it?" line makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?"

Sadly, Paul hasn't taken his own advice.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hitler not only was psycho, he had the government so under his thumb his psychosis was law.

FDR was just the prez. Dubya has been more ably dictatorial than FDR was.

So, that said, what I'm saying is that a radical leader tends to be mitigated in a parliamentary government.

I'm for the USA leaving the UN. It would be one of the best things ever to happen to the UN. We treat it as our chewtoy anyway.

Immigration today isn't what it was 150 years ago. Being born here because one's parents are here illegally is not insane. It may have problems, but it makes sense.

F0lks on the Right, you know, use the same rhetoric of 'just plain nuts' against guys like Kucinich (whom I'm also fond of).

Screw ideology. Someone who shows integrity in their actions as they relate to their convictions, and does so with high respect to the Constitution (which is all we've got when it comes down to it), is far more valuable to me for that integrity and respect than their given ideology.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Screw ideology. Someone who shows integrity in their actions as they relate to their convictions, and does so with high respect to the Constitution (which is all we've got when it comes down to it), is far more valuable to me for that integrity and respect than their given ideology."

I don't know... take actions that have historically led to misery, and I don't care HOW much integrity you have, and how much you respect the constitution... you're not someone worth voting for. (That said, i think Ron Paul doesn't really have respect for the constitution. Some of the laws he proposes are extremely unconstitutional).

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 1070

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Screw ideology. Someone who shows integrity in their actions as they relate to their convictions, and does so with high respect to the Constitution (which is all we've got when it comes down to it), is far more valuable to me for that integrity and respect than their given ideology.

Yeah, this genuinely makes no sense to me. I'm sure that David Duke and Louis Farrakhan have oodles of 'integrity in their actions as they relate to their convictions, etc', but their interpretation of the Constitution combined with their ideology leads me to conclude that them being president would pretty much suck.
Posts: 2936 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
FDR was just the prez. Dubya has been more ably dictatorial than FDR was.
kenmeer, you've got to be joking.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
quote:
The government back before the 1930's was crap, honestly, and pretty much unable to do anything useful, most of the time. At least now the government can DO something, if something is needed.
Yeah, terrible government... letting private parties do all the useful things, people starting from nothing and rising out of poverty at unprecedented rates. Libraries sprouting up across the land, people helping other people help themselves. Terrible.

I love the passive construction, "if something is needed." That'll cover any old crime in the book.
"If something is needed." By whom? And what end are you implying by "need"? Are we keeping an eye on the full set of ends, here, or just a particular end?
quote:
Do we really need to go back to the wonderful humanitarianism of the guilded [sic] age? /sarcasm
They accomplished a great deal, for being far less wealthy than we are today.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" people starting from nothing and rising out of poverty at unprecedented rates"

erm. Unprecedented compared to what, exactly? And do you have, perhaps, sources on this?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
GODWIN ALERT! GODWIN ALERT! GODWIN ALERT!

Hitler had great integrity. He turned down money he desperately needed to win a war, because he really and truly believed that exterminating the Jews was necessary to his vision of the greater good.
</Godwin alert>


So no, integrity isn't enough, when it serves policy one finds disastrous at best and hideous at worst.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ev -

Unprecedented compared to anywhere else in the world up to then. People came to this country in incredible numbers, often with little or nothing in their pockets, and then created an astonishing amount of wealth. The fact that a lot of people were still poor, and that everyone in those days lived in conditions you would find appalling, doesn't change my argument a bit. I don't know which economic history texts you would find convincing. What would you accept as evidence that you're wrong and I'm right?

Don't get me wrong: other nations had their own periods of prosperity. But there was nothing quite like the American expansion in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The only thing that compares, in terms of the numbers of people, is the worldwide rise from poverty taking place now, thanks to the various processes we call globalization.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0Megabyte
Member
Member # 1217

 - posted      Profile for 0Megabyte   Email 0Megabyte       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky:

...


...


What? Was that even English?!

[ November 08, 2007, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: 0Megabyte ]

Posts: 2668 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I haven't made an argument on this point yet, warsaw, so I'm not sure how I can be wrong?

A large number of people did rise out of poverty in america after immigrating here. But that explosion out of povery happened AFTER the state started putting certain breaks on industry. And, of course, ANY population explosion like the immigration explosion of the early 20th century is going to create wealth in an industrialized state.

Both in america, and in other nations immediately following the industrial revolution, there was a lot of wealth generated. That wealth started to work its way down the ladder after welfare-liberalism started to take hold.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What part didn't you understand, 0meg?
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I haven't made an argument on this point yet, warsaw, so I'm not sure how I can be wrong?
Is that a question or a statement?
Your questions would tell just about anyone what your basic position is. You don't tend to ask people to prove your existing beliefs for you, as I sometimes do.
quote:
A large number of people did rise out of poverty in [A]merica after immigrating here. But that explosion out of pover[t]y happened AFTER the state started putting certain breaks on industry.
And do you have, perhaps, sources on this?

Just tell me, Ev, what evidence would change your mind? Are you going to move the goalposts on what defines poverty? Are you going to make some argument about wealth distribution, instead of talking about absolute wealth down to the family level? Are you going to allow some "breaks on industry" to take credit for huge increases in wealth down to the family level, and then turn around and blame capitalism for the Great Depression?

I've seen this game played before, so let's dispense with the usual dance:
What would convince you that people were rising out of poverty in the late 19th century at an unprecedented rate? What evidence do you have, in turn, that state-placed breaks on industry caused people to suddenly rise out of poverty where they hadn't before?
quote:
And, of course, ANY population explosion like the immigration explosion of the early 20th century is going to create wealth in an industrialized state.
No, population explosions don't create wealth. Plenty of countries have had population explosions without commensurate economic growth.
People came here because there were opportunities here, even in the era before the welfare state.
quote:
Both in [A]merica, and in other nations immediately following the industrial revolution, there was a lot of wealth generated. That wealth started to work its way down the ladder after welfare-liberalism started to take hold.
First, let's not use passive construction. Who created that wealth?
Second, are you claiming that the people on the bottom of this "ladder" weren't rising out of poverty before the welfare state? Really? The quality of life didn't rise for hardly anybody starting on the bottom?

Well, that's a remarkable claim. For that to be true, one would have to believe that all those millions of people were immigrating without anyone rising up to create a middle class. Like, one gigantic mass of people at roughly the same quality of life for the better part of a century, with a couple of robber barons who just shot up.

[ November 08, 2007, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: WarrsawPact ]

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1