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.
Abolishing the Education Department is part of the overall issue of returning the federal government back to its Constitutional roots. So yes, it is a real, pertinent issue.
A perfect demonstration as to why, precisely, your make-believe "candidate" is registering at 1% in the latest national polls. Well done
Biased polls conducted on landline phones to a specific age group & that excludes the lower-tier candidate's names are likely to have false data.
Limited government was a pretty cool idea 230-ish years ago. So sad that it’s out of vogue now, with both parties.
Fact is that Dr. Paul has already gotten the ball moving & forcing people to re-evaluate the role of the federal gov't. Should he be elected, he'll have no problem in using the bully pulpit to argue for his changes just like Reagan did.
Will some Paulnut please explain to me how Ron’s plan of bringing home all of our troops from all the rest of the world and thereby turning it over to the islamofascist and commie nutcases help us? What do we do when Middle East oil is controlled by Al Quaeda and is either no longer available or horrendously overpriced?
Are you ready to buy a couple of hogs, a cow, get some chickens, grow your own vegetables and ride a bicycle to work?
I think it has more to do with Israel than anything else. Both 9/11 “truthers” and neo-Nazis despise Israel and think that Jews (“neocons”) control US foreign policy.
Both groups, because of Paul’s extensive anti-Israel record, think he is their ally when it comes to this issue.
I'm going to take a stab and guess you've said (or think now) at some point here that:
1. Iraq is going well.
2. Victory is just around the corner.
3. Iraq is a political winner for the republicans.
4. Most Americans want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely and love this war.
5. Zogby polls showing Americans want victory in Iraq are proof Americans are against withdrawal in the next couple of years and other Zogby polls showing Americans oppose this war are just "Zogby's special sauce."
Any of this sound familiar?
And that has to do with Paul, how? If you can find some documented proof that Paul himself is in bed with neo-Nazis or Israel-haters, let me know.
Both groups, because of Paul’s extensive anti-Israel record, think he is their ally when it comes to this issue.
Paul doesn't have an anti-Israeli record. If anything Paul is pro-Israel as he would take the handcuffs off of them and let them dictate how to handle terrorists instead of us breathing down their necks with "Road Maps" for peace or whatever.
* Flips middle finger *
“That simply is not the case in the complicated world of pharmaceutical compounds and medical conditions.”
I think people are smarter than you give them credit for. And a buyer can never have perfect knowledge.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/05/AR2007070502149.html
Okay, first of all, he’s never going to be elected. That just won’t happen. Stop with the delusional thinking. Second, there would be no way for anyone elected President to force those changes in the atmosphere of division and derision that exists in Congress today. So, again stop with the delusional thinking. The days of a strong President ala Reagan forcing his will upon congress is long gone. Wake up, or pull your head out of the sand, or whatever it is that has led you to your dementia.
When you find those posts where I said any of that, please let me know. Until then blow away little leaf. You are of no concern this fall.
I'm not sure who's holding them sacrosanct, certainly not myself. But I'm not proposing doing away with our two governmental sources of information and investigation just yet. Mr. Paul has proposed this in the past and will not back away from that view.
You think people can analyze a chemical compound and decide whether the risks of the compound are greater than the benefits or vice versa? On what grounds? A gut feeling? Their freshman biology course? No, a buyer can never have perfect knowledge, but virtually no knowledge is not sufficient for "market forces" to rule the market. And patients clamoring for new experimental drugs have (in 99.9% of the cases) no real knowledge.
Case in point, Pfizer was working on a novel compound which would raise HDL and lower LDL. Ooops. A 60% increase in deaths was observed among patients taking torcetrapib (the novel compound) and atorvastatin (you know it as Lipitor) versus those taking atorvastatin alone in the terminated and (to you) unnecessary trial. Pfizer (a group of scientists included) was sure that this drug would be a great novel treatment. They were wrong. There is no way Joe Six Pack could have known. I could cite hundreds of other examples, but your mind is already made up.
"4. Most Americans want us to stay in Iraq indefinitely and love this war."
".....most Americans do truly support not only the soldiers in Iraq, but their mission also
The fact that you think those are equivalent statements is almost mind-numbing. The fact that you also think Ron Paul is a good candidate makes a strong case against Ron Paul actually being a good candidate.
And what is wrong with that statement. I stand by it. Do you really think that a majority of Americans wish for us to be losers in this fight? Do your delusions also involve auditory or visual halicinations? Do you believe that most Americans want to see the blood bath that WILL come if we leave before the mission meets with success? Do you believe that most Americans are that callouse? You found one statement I made and have tried to warp it into something that it clearly is not. You Ru Paul morons are dispicable. I’m done with you. You cannot hold a reasoned debate on any issue, but are adept at casting aspersions and throwing around inuendo. Your moron candidate will go down to defeat and then you can all gather at your moonbat locations and drown your tears in whatever drink you prefer. All you have done in your responses and postings to me is to prove yourselves as the liberal garbage that you all are. Have a nice life.
This particular point illustrates the stark difference between the philosophy of libertarianism on one hand and Constitutionalism on the other, since the power to establish post offices is in fact one of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution.
The fact you find Ron Paul to be a bad candidate is further proof that he is indeed a good candidate....
(Well, no it's not....but that statement makes as much sense as the above quotation from the808bass).
Ok. I'll be over in the corner teaching pigs to sing.
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.