MT Consensus: Ron Paul

kenny olav · December 2011

I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.

BinauralJam · December 2011

Hermitism, i like the sound of that, seems to work for China.

mikepegg44 · December 2011

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

It isn't really a concession, it is a very important distinction when discussing why someone would or wouldn't support something.
as to the stuff in bold, people could factor that in now if they wanted to...but it just doesn't affect some people like it does others...environmental costs aside,
By your definition, the government subsidizes the shit out of the renewable energy industry

i am at a complete and utter loss as to why you continue to bark up that tree!?? ... ok - TAX BREAKS ARE NOT SUBSIDIES!! ... what more do you want? ... why do you persist on it? ... i get it ... ron paul doesn't believe in taxing so if it means cutting taxes - he will support that ... AGAIN, I will repeat myself - subsidies come in many forms not just tax breaks ... good grief! ... why do i suspect i will get a response that yet again does not take into consideration the words i'm actually typing ... ??

as for renewables - yes, they are subsidized but not nearly at the rate of oil and gas ... not even close ... i believe in subsidies when the interests of the people are being taken into consideration ... and in approaching a matter holistically ... at the very least - i would want oil and gas to be on the same level playing field with renewables ... and that the costs and its consequences are factored in including expenditures on war ...

I take them into consideration, I am just telling you that interchanging words that may mean different things to two people can be confusing, so it is an important distinction if you are calling someone out for supporting subsidies. You didn't really have to freak out. Why not call it government assistance, or better yet, corporate welfare...i am all for those terms that cover everything. The words we choose, no matter how insignificant the difference may seem to us, can have very different meanings for people and it is always important to understand the definitions.

I would love for it to be a completely free market on energy to be honest. The best technology would win out. I don't think the government should be in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers. That being said, it certainly is a sticky wicket when you discuss cutting tax incentives. I think they should be cut, I think the entire tax code should be simplified.

polaris_x · December 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

I take them into consideration, I am just telling you that interchanging words that may mean different things to two people can be confusing, so it is an important distinction if you are calling someone out for supporting subsidies. You didn't really have to freak out. Why not call it government assistance, or better yet, corporate welfare...i am all for those terms that cover everything. The words we choose, no matter how insignificant the difference may seem to us, can have very different meanings for people and it is always important to understand the definitions.

I would love for it to be a completely free market on energy to be honest. The best technology would win out. I don't think the government should be in the business of picking and choosing winners and losers. That being said, it certainly is a sticky wicket when you discuss cutting tax incentives. I think they should be cut, I think the entire tax code should be simplified.

markin ball · December 2011

I think Ron Paul would get killed by Obama in the general but I would love to see the one on one debates and I would love to see so many of the issues Ron Paul cares about to be brought undeniably to the nation's attention. I hope he runs independent if he doesn't get the nomination. I just want the "system" to keep being hacked away at.

Sludge Factory · December 2011

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.

I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.

kenny olav · December 2011

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.

I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.

But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.

mikepegg44 · December 2011

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.

I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.

But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.

I want a million dollars, doesn't mean I am going to get it...especially from someone who is broke. So even if they want us there, we can no longer afford to help...you wouldn't give millions to charity if your house was in foreclosure...

Sludge Factory · December 2011

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

I think Ron Paul's libertarianism is naive, despite how wise he is on some issues, particularly in military policy, but even in terms of 'bringing all the troops home', incl from Germany, Korea, etc, his policy seems naive and maybe unwise. I'm glad he wants to reverse our centuries old policy of imperialism, but I think he'd take it too far in the other direction toward hermitism. He also sounds like a religious zealot when he talks about the Constitution.

I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.

But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.

Entangling alliances with other nations is what lead up to the World Wars. So you are advocating for mainting more entangling alliances? Seems folly to me. Essentially we have an alliance where if enough of the member states decide it, they can wage war on a non-member whether it is just or not. I'd prefer to not be a part of something that can further obligate US troops for more military operations abroad, especially when many times it is oppressive and done simply because the bureaucrats that run this country think they know best and that we need to police the world.

What is more isolationist/hermetic? Being part of an exclusive club that may or may not sanction you if they don't like you or trading with those who would do trade with you regardless of their allegiance ?

Idris · December 2011

Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.

Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.

Better Dan · December 2011

Idris wrote:

Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.

Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.

Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....

Idris · December 2011

Better Dan wrote:

Idris wrote:

Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.

Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.

Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....

Because he is topping the polls...and he's a threat to the way things are being done. It's also natural to go after the front runners.

Idris · December 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWmISSf ... ata_player

Part of the interview,

mikepegg44 · December 2011

Better Dan wrote:

Idris wrote:

Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.

Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.

Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....

at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...

polaris_x · December 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...

you're talking about a media that is supported by a population base that forced obama to publicly disclose his birth certificate ... he'd better get used to answering stupid questions ...

mikepegg44 · December 2011

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...

you're talking about a media that is supported by a population base that forced obama to publicly disclose his birth certificate ... he'd better get used to answering stupid questions ...

I forgot about that...not sure how...but honestly, I think those people who cared about the birth certificate will get over a possible racist much quicker than the president being a muslim who may or may not be from Kenya...

polaris_x · December 2011

Idris wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXWmISSfM9k&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Part of the interview,

on one hand - that reporter was annoying ... on the other - that's what media outlets do ... no such thing as journalism in the mainstream media ...

kenny olav · December 2011

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.

But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.

Entangling alliances with other nations is what lead up to the World Wars. So you are advocating for mainting more entangling alliances? Seems folly to me. Essentially we have an alliance where if enough of the member states decide it, they can wage war on a non-member whether it is just or not. I'd prefer to not be a part of something that can further obligate US troops for more military operations abroad, especially when many times it is oppressive and done simply because the bureaucrats that run this country think they know best and that we need to police the world.

What is more isolationist/hermetic? Being part of an exclusive club that may or may not sanction you if they don't like you or trading with those who would do trade with you regardless of their allegiance ?

One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.

Sludge Factory · December 2011

kenny olav wrote:

One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.

How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.

What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?

kenny olav · December 2011

Sludge Factory wrote:

kenny olav wrote:

One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.

How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.

What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?

This is the man named as the interim Prime Minister of Libya by the National Transitional Council, which btw was widely regarded as legitimate by the international community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurrahim_El-Keib

Now tell me you wouldn't rather have this man leading your country than Gadhafi.

MT Consensus: Ron Paul

Comments

Categories