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.
Why, yes, DugwayDuke, as a matter of fact, it struck me as rather witty in a way. Furthermore, I am envious of folks with computer skills, having never learned photoshop myself.
Also, speaking for myself, I try always to keep things in proper perspective regarding politics and political candidates.
And I don't give a damn about your "sensitivity".
(that's a laugh line for those of you in Rio Linda)
“In fact, Congressman Paul did that at the very beginning. “
Yes, but he isn’t RUNNING on that promise. He’s not for the war, he’s apparently not for any war unless it’s fought on our own soil. I think that’s incompatible with conservative ideals, like a strong offense helps a strong defense. “Peace through strength” involves projecting overwhelming power against those who would harm you.
In other words, Paul has no concept of American Exceptionalism.
Then change the constitution to give government control of education because despite their control their is no constitutional authority.
That may have to happen, or not.
But the problem still remains, long term we could end up right back in the same mess 50-100 years from now, maybe sooner.
As a conservative I want to fix things for good by being reasonable and open to where we are now and where we are going, not just to where we have been.
The problem is that the money you paid for Medicare (and Social Security) is long since spent and gone.
That is your perspective. Mine differs.
We can go back and forth all day long. I know the basis of your point, and nothing else will matter to you. Time will tell which approach will prove to be the best.
That, as well as history and the world out side of my little corner of it...
So what, based on history and the constitution, makes you think that it wise to give Federal government control of education, as opposed to the state or locality that is.
So once again....
Control no, administering a national guideline and assuring no state fails it’s people, yes.
History proved that need right here in Mississippi when the state government itself denied the right of education to citizens based on race. It took the Feds to correct that.
Do you think the denying a specific group of individuals there eduction helps them in preserving their right to happiness? Isn’t that part of the Declaration of Independence, isn't the Constitution designed to protect those those rights. Or is it ok to treat citizens as you please based on race or religion and the like, as long as the state does it.
What do we do when the state fails the people. Tell them tough shit, take it up with your state?
The nation does not operate in a vacuum. Whatever the current state of any given government entity is now, for the most part many were created to address a concern that good people had for their fellow citizens. Those concerns will not dissipate simply because we say they should.
If there is a need to make modification to the Constitution, so be it, that is why the founders created the amendment process, but don't think that change is not needed or we can wholesale reverse everything that has happened since 1791. I whole heartily agree and have said so numerous time that the government is way to big and too inefficient, but there are certain things that modern America needs that is best done at a national level. If that was not true, we would have no need to have this conversation to begin with.
As usual with absolutist you swing from black to white, when real life is gray. That is not a conservative or liberal issue, that is fact.
Are certain abuses occurring in our government, certainly, and at this time it is quite clear that the bad is out weighing the good. Does that mean that we then go through and chunk everything wholesale? No, that would be irresponsible and to be honest if done too rapidly disastrous.
As far as what are viable concerns, the founders allowed for a Republic so decisions could be made about what was important at any given time. Otherwise they would have presented a static document and left no legislative process, since everything would have been finished in 1791. That was not the case was it.
The things the Fed does well, like the CDC, FAA and such need to be left, albeit in a form that performs the need functions only and adds benefit to our nation.
Now my question, because I always find this interesting. Do you dismiss the Declaration of Independence. It is in essence the lead in to the Constitution, stating those rights that later where defended in the Constitution itself. The right to the pursuit of happiness is in there. No where did I say that any one had a right to happiness, but nothing should impede them from the pursuit. You are knowledgeable on such things, certainly you know the difference between guaranteeing happiness and safe guarding the right to at least have a shot at it
The Constitution is the most important of out legal documents, but it does not stand alone. It has stood the test of time because it does interact with us, and our history. While I believe the whole living Constitution meme as it is used today is in error, it is indeed a document the founders created to live with us and guide us for all time. If that is not the essence of living, I don't know what is, and I find it insulting to great men to think otherwise. They maybe dead, but their work lives on. I would think given your position on the importance of returning to the Constitution you would agree, yes?
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.