Posted on 09/13/2007 9:02:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week the Republicans had another debate, this one on FOX News. Not much has changed in the last few months; Rudy Giuliani is still in the lead in the polls and Fred Thompson is still in second despite the fact he didn't announce his intentions to run until a few days ago. What has changed, and changed for the worse, is the surging popularity of a Texas Congressman by the name of Ron Paul. I've been running into normal, intelligent people who support Paul, and it really scares me.
The reason Paul is as popular as he is has to do largely with his sudden support from Democrats and I have to admit, when I didn't know much about him I thought he sounded like a good candidate. He wants to end the Iraq war, have tighter borders, lower taxes and decrease spending, what's not to like? The problem doesn't lie with his policies and ideas, but rather his execution of said policies. How to end the war in Iraq: immediate pullout not only from Iraq, but from the whole of the Middle East. Never mind the slaughter that will occur with our exit. Paul, by the way, denies that this will happen, as the people saying it will are the same that said it would be an easy win. It was a mistake and we never should have been there.
He has more than one unworkable policy. Who else here wants to abolish the FDA? Dr. Paul is your man. His case against the FDA is that they take taxpayer money and are supposed to regulate the food and drugs coming into the country and those produced here, but there are still cases that get by them. Obviously, he claims, we would be better off with no Federal regulation. Corporations should police themselves. Paul is a big fan of the free market and wants to see an end of just about every federal agency that does anything useful or helpful. DEA? Gone. Medicare/Medicaid? History. IRS? The government has no right to take your money.
Paul is such a fan of the free market and letting businesses do whatever they want that during a recent session of Congress he was the one dissenting vote when Congress decided to stop giving tax money to corporations profiting from the genocide in Sudan. It seems pretty cut and dry, companies are making money off of a genocide. Why would you give them money to keep doing that? Paul's answer: We shouldn't tie the hands of corporations by limiting their business dealings. That pretty much covers foreign policy for Paul.
Paul doesn't like the federal tax system and actually signed a document circulated by the National Libertarian Organization a few years ago affirming this belief. Lower taxes is one of the tried and true methods of getting people to vote for you. The problem with Paul saying he'll get lower taxes is that it's not entirely true. Yes, your income will be less taxed, but Paul wants to raise the sales tax to 23 percent at the least. Have fun being poor, because you won't be able to afford anything under Paul's administration. What would be really interesting is seeing how much price gouging we would see with no regulatory bodies, but I'd rather not think about it.
More interesting is Paul's absolute belief in the free market. He wants to see an end of public service agencies and governmental controls. Private post offices, for example, would be bought up by companies and if you're not served by the same post office as say, the people sending you bills, you might never get the bill. Or you might incur a fee when you get the bill. Imagine all roads in the country being up for sale: Paul sees a future where this has happened and thousands of toll booths are being constructed across the country.
We wouldn't have a nutcase presidential candidate without him being a racist, not these days anyways. Paul luckily fits that bill. He's made his case against the African American community known very well, starting with this comment back in 1992, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Later he would say the age to be prosecuted as an adult should be lowered to 13 because "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." It's no wonder White Supremacist Website and forum Stormfront.org has come out in support of Paul, as has former Ku Klux Klan member and politician David Duke.
Here's a list of things Paul wants to end because they have had failures in the past, or he sees them as useless: CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA. That's the short list. This is my biggest problem with Ron Paul. He offers no constructive thoughts, only destructive ones. He doesn't think a single thing can be made to work if it failed even once. Bad intelligence? Cut it out completely, don't try to reform it.
Overall, Paul has no workable ideas. He wants to return to a gold standard, which would destroy the US economy. He wants to cut nearly every government department and build a giant wall (not a fence) on our border with Mexico. I honestly don't understand how people can think he would make a good president.
“One of my older kids was responsible for FDA compliance, in her section, at a major drug manufacturer. The record keeping and reporting forms are a significant amount in the cost of our drugs.”
A buddy of mine is involved with some massive customized computer program, developed by IBM to help drug companies navigate the process. I understand it is profitable to IBM and the goal is to speed up the time of new drug development for 12-10 years to 9-8 or less years through a more automated paperless process. If a new ‘miracle’ drug is developed that could mean thousands of lives saved in that time, but why not just cut it to 0 in the first place by abolishing the FDA and save even more lives?
Of course you didn't. You said that the Fed has many powers now that are not specified in the Constitution. Many are not needed, but many are; - like controlling education.
There are dozens of functions the Fed has now that are not specified in the Constitution. Many are not needed, but many are. It is not 1789...
And our Constitution has been Amended 27 times since 1798. -- No amendment has given the feds powers not specified.
If you guys want to chuck them all, go for it, hell I'll stand out of they way. But beware the back lash and long term costs. You may be gravely disappointed. The real world can be a harsh mistress..
. It will be especially harsh to those, like you, who agree that the feds can use powers "- that are not specified in the Constitution -"..
It won't be harsh to me. I favor the reasoned approach.
It is not reasonable to favor using powers "- that are not specified in the Constitution -"
Seems time, history and facts are on my side in this.
Dream on. You are simply in denial as to the facts and to history.
You want to take up the constitutionality of where we are now, you need to build a time machine and go back a century plus or minus a few years. I am looking at what we have now, today in 21st century America. I play the hand dealt, not the hand I wish I had.
You and your group, those would use powers "- that are not specified in the Constitution -"; have dealt the hand we are playing.
We want a new game to start.
Get me a plan to transition back that will not wreck the economy, open us up to outside attack and keep the union whole, you know 'conserve' the nation, I am sold.
Hyperbole. Privatizing our education system will do none of the above.
Hell I'll push the damn thing, because I don't disagree with anything you say, within reason and adjusted for 200 years of change.
There you go, admitting reform is a 'damned thing'. Sorry, but I can't buy your sort of 'conserve the nation' rhetoric.
Even that can be dealt with via amendments if needed to satisfy the need. I have yet to see much in that regard, just a bunch of best wishes, pipe dreams and hyperbole...
Look in a mirror. The view is not pretty.
There are people out there who read this kid saying that Ron Paul wants to do away with "CIA, FBI, Department of Homeland Security, FDA, IRS, Medicare, FBI, DEA, UN, NATO, NAFTA and CAFTA" and say "Alright, he's the guy for me!" Sometimes painting with a finer brush is better.
Knowledge itself is a tradeable commodity in capitalism, albeit imperfect as well, which is why patients go to see doctors (if they choose). I’d hope no doc would recommend a a drug without it having been thoroughly tested (FDA approved or not). Docs themselves trade in knoweldge, they respect certain sources and journals and have reputations and I think would be perfectly able to make informed recommendations to their patients without the FDA. Off-label use of medication has brought many advances and has even become the standard of care in certain areas. Again, I think docs and patients are smarter than you give them credit. Companies that make false claims or sold products that didn’t contain the ingredients they said would be guilty of a breach of contract, and could be rightly sued by consumers.
I don’t see what is really so radical about it.
“The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, “See if it weren’t for the government, you wouldn’t be able to walk.”
- P.J. O’Rouke
After all, he's got his feelings and all that stuff is for the children dontchaknow....
L
Since you posted me first, like most libs you can dish but not take. You are busted and you best change your name again since you will be exposed everywhere here. Go tell $0R0$ that your campaign failed.
Pray for W and Our Troops
That's what I am looking for, an appreciation of the sheer magnitude of the task ahead.
Dreams are great, but translation into reality is a whole other ball game.
I will put this out for consideration, maybe it will shed some light on my thoughts about some things staying at the Fed or national level.
I am concerned about going back down this road again if we are ever successful in making the trip back. Again, because it is such a concern, the education piece will serve as an example. If a state fails, be it California or Mississippi, it will have an impact on the whole country. As easy as it would be to say to hell with them, the reality is that the rest of the citizens in the US would want to do something. We are, despite anything else, one nation under God, a single country, indivisible. The demand will be one that is both emotional as well as practical, we can't have one state full of idiots(ok no Mississippi jokes).
If there is a uniform standard, minimally invasive and simple as it pertains to qualifications, civil rights (can't get rid of that or it's a no go) and minimum expected results, one that has some level of enforceability or at least remedy, it can prevent the very demands that started the Dept. of Ed many years ago.
Be it education, air travel or what have you, some national entity will have to exist if for no other reason, as a bulwark to prevent the very actions and problems that first started this mess 50+ years ago. Constitutional or not, that is what we have now.
Now if an amendment is needed to make folks more comfortable with this new reality, so be it, it is over due and I give it my full support. But don't quote the Constitution to me, I know damn well what it says. I am looking out my window, that is what I have to deal with right now, I didn't create it, but I have to deal with it. You will not inspire me or many others with wild ideas and dreams, but you can win us over with reasoned approaches and solid plans to get us out of this mess safely and securely, with minimum fuss. The only other requirement is that it addresses the concerns of US citizens living in 2007, not 1807.
With that the discussion can stopping being about dreams and concepts and start being about solutions and implementation.
I am not going to act to satisfy someones feeling about the constitutionality of things or because they fell oppressed by the man or whatever. I am going to act on long term things, those that go past my time and into that of the future generations. We have spent the last few decades flipping out different rules and such to appease the need to do something and do it now, and see where it has gotten us. Doing for the sake of doing does nothing. To preserve this nation we have to act and do it well.
But what do I know, from what I hear I am a socilaist liberal (damn that's funny....)
So you hate kids huh. And people say us conservative are mean...
Go figure...
Must be a bitch knowing the country has a future...
Other than that, your response is about what I would expect.
I am so sorry I dispute your greatness...
But I understand, because indeed the liberals are all but totally in control.
However, like many other things, just because the left has leveraged it against us, does not invalidate certain minor aspects and applications.
I don’t want the Fed to “control” education, but in the 21st Century some guarantees that we have an uniform approach is vital to our national economic interest. We compete, for ill or naught on the world economic stage. Should we handicap any of our citizens because of geography? Again this could be as simple as a private accreditation board, with some Federal laws backing it up. There are issues beyond curriculum to deal with as well.
For me this is an economic issue far before it is an emotional one.
Read what I said to Jeff Head about the other reason.
No, not at all. You insinuate that I'm part of Hillary's or Soro's camp which is such a bald-faced smear that it doesn't warrant further discussion.
That's because most of Paul's critics have their snout in the government trough in one way or the other.
I usually don't resort to such responses, per FR's guidelines. But the poster in question is a big-time tool & butt-muncher for the current administration.
Can’t argue with that. That’s why no one is answering his post.
I think you’re a constitutional conservative, as am I, but I don’t dig your candidate because he’s just flat out wrong on defense if he thinks that we leave the terrorists alone so they leave us alone. The constitution puts the president in Commander in Chief of the military, and congress voted for the war when they voted for the funding. I think he would REALLY help his candidacy if he said “I will seek a declaration of war from Congress in order to align with the constitution”, rather than “It’s unconstitutional so I’m outa here, to hell with the consequences!” That’s my big beef with Ron Paul.
If we’re talking about saving the country, a few good nukes is all it takes before the question of limited government becomes moot.
No not at all, you are part of the $0R0$ campaign. Your history shows it. You have offered nothing here but excessive attempts to divide Republicans/FReepers, nothing else over the past year.
Gee, who benefits from that or a Perot candidate??? Go tell your boss your busted.
Pray for W and Our Troops
So get out your own damn checkbook and keep your paws off mine.
we can't have one state full of idiots(ok no Mississippi jokes).
But you'll settle for 50 States full of idiots. Nice work there, Sparky.
But don't quote the Constitution to me, I know damn well what it says.
It's that pesky following it part that's giving you trouble.
The only other requirement is that it addresses the concerns of US citizens living in 2007, not 1807.
What you really mean is that the rules can change over time. How'd you like to play poker with me and I get to change the rules over time?
some national entity will have to exist if for no other reason, as a bulwark to prevent the very actions and problems that first started this mess 50+ years ago
Why does it have to be the Federal Government? You don't even realize how messed up it is to not even be able to imagine the Federal government telling you how much water your flush toilet can use.
That's beyond sad.
L
Actually I have learned to play several different variations of poker over the years...
Things don’t happen in a bubble...
Stay static and die.
Which one of those variations of poker permits the dealer to changes the rules in the middle of a hand?
Things don’t happen in a bubble...
No they don't.
L
“Yes, DugwayDuke, you are not the only Paul-bashing troll on this thread. Take great comfort that not everyone is a Ron Paul fan here.”
Yes, I take great comfort in the fact that most freepers are too intelligent to fall for the pseudo-conservatism of Ron Paul. If anything Ron Paul is ‘troll’ in the republican party. He should return to the make-believe, let’s pretend, world of the libertarian party.
BTW, the accepted way of dealing with ‘trolls’ around here is to bring that person to the attention of the moderators.
Regarding Congressman Paul and Israel, I think it would be instructive to listen to his recent speech at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1895041/posts
This is really the only appropriate response to most of the mouth foamers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.