Ron Paul is wrong, primarily because his policies are impossible to implement

Originally posted by JohnCJ

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Give me some evidence that shows that any of his ideas could actually be implemented within a Presidential term by the executive branch of the government operating within the Constitution's restrictions on power.

Article I Section 7
The President can veto every law presented to him/her.

Article II Secition 2.
The President can order the military to withdraw from every base on the planet.
The President can choose not to make appointments to any executive office.
The President can revoke all regulations pertaining to laws and also choose not to implement regulations to facilitate laws.
The President can choose to not enforce laws.

Ron Paul has a lot of good ideas and they can be implemented! Why do you think he got
almost no attention the last time around? Because TPTB know that and will do almost
anything to stop him. I have to seriously consider voting for him.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Part of the issue is that you're not addressing Ron Paul's policy/ies. You are referring to a label pinned on him by his detractors.

What is it that you think his detractors are referring to when they label Ron Paul as an “isolationist”?

When people label Ron Paul as an “isolationist”, they are referring to his policy of scaling back the US military empire. He is for dialogue, trade, good relations and a strong national defense, the exact opposite of isolationism. He is opposed to an immoral global military empire based on endless debt and borrowing, something that the Military Industrial Complex (and other interested parties) will never agree to as it is a Trillion dollar a year business.



A lot of the following is a bit off topic, but his policy of a strong national defense and bringing the troops home could be implemented within one Presidential term.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
I'm sorry, could you provide evidence that we have permanent military bases in 132 different countries?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 132 worldwide military bases, but have 132 different nations with military bases?

This source shows that we have a military presence in 154 different countries with bases in 70 countries. However, according to the 2007 Department of Defense Base Structure Report, we have 823 foreign military bases. The information can be found on page 23 (I have other sources showing 130 different countries 132 with Iraq and Afghanistan but I would like to provide a more reliable source):



www.defense.gov...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
However, my contention about isolationism isn't related solely to military bases. It's in relation to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. It's also in relation to the Korean conflict which is still legally ongoing and we are a primary force preventing it from flaming up again.

Are you suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are better because of the US presence? The United States military attack and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are the cause of the problems. Iraq and Afghanistan need to be liberated from the United States occupation so they can rebuild their lives, their infrastructure and their country.







As far as Korea, are we to believe that as soon as the US leaves, North Korea would invade? With the exception of the United States, no other country has invaded another sovereign nation in the last 20 years. Prior to that it was done by our installed puppet: Saddam Hussein.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Wow, that's just random speculation.
You do realize that prior to 2001 the USA was actually paying off the national debt? It was only when Bush implemented the tax cuts that we lost our budget surplus.

Not sure where you got this information from, but I’m guessing that you are confusing our nation debt with our budget deficit? It would be nice if you sourced some of your opinions/statements.

In 2001, our national debt was almost $6 Trillion dollars...



Spending on “Nat. Security Discretionary” is about $1.4 Trillion per year.



Keep in mind, $2.3 Trillion went missing PRIOR to the INCREASED borrowing and spending since 2001.



Taxes need to be cut drastically across the board. Our financial problems are due to a debt based monetary system coupled with an endless cycle of borrowing and spending, something Ron Paul has spoken on repeatedly.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yes, but that doesn't mean he actually can do it. Imagine the worldwide political reaction. Imagine the violence in Korea, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

So even though as the Commander-in-Chief he could implement his policy of bringing the troops home, he couldn’t do it…?

Well, lets imagine it. No more pre-emptive wars of aggression based on lies, no more overthrowing and assignations of foreign leaders, no more torture, secret prisons or renditions… There would be a World wide celebration in the streets and Americans could begin the process of ending our debt based monetary system.

It's hard to implement all those changes but he's doing something more. He's educating people young and old on what needs to be done. You can try to change the world with legislation and it won't work, changing minds is better.

Look how much he woke up the country to the Federal Reserve...even the business channels are discussing it now. You're telling me he hasn't done anything? He was talking about the economy in the 2008 debates and the media and other candidates were calling him crazy.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Part of the issue is that you're not addressing Ron Paul's policy/ies. You are referring to a label pinned on him by his detractors.

What is it that you think his detractors are referring to when they label Ron Paul as an “isolationist”?

He wants to withdraw all military operations and cease foreign aid to other nations. In the modern world that would be considered 'isolationist'.

When people label Ron Paul as an “isolationist”, they are referring to his policy of scaling back the US military empire. He is for dialogue, trade, good relations and a strong national defense, the exact opposite of isolationism.

"A strong national defense" is actually the ideal of an isolationist.
As for trade, we were an isolationist nation in the run up to both world wars...didn't stop our trade their.
And the same goes for dialog.

He is opposed to an immoral global military empire based on endless debt and borrowing, something that the Military Industrial Complex (and other interested parties) will never agree to as it is a Trillion dollar a year business.

I am opposed to current government spending habits, but I believe that the only way to fix them is through a well planned out and responsible budgeting process as opposed to trying to solve it as soon as possible.

As for the global military empire, I have a problem with hard power as well, I prefer diplomatic soft power.

Of course, I did issue a challenge for specific policies...this is getting a bit non-specific.

A lot of the following is a bit off topic, but his policy of a strong national defense and bringing the troops home could be implemented within one Presidential term.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
This source shows that we have a military presence in 154 different countries with bases in 70 countries.

Well, you just said we had 132 permanent foreign military bases.

However, according to the 2007 Department of Defense Base Structure Report, we have 823 foreign military bases.

Yes, but the standard for 'base' in that isn't exactly very high. It probably goes something like "secure location with military personnel"

The information can be found on page 23 (I have other sources showing 130 different countries 132 with Iraq and Afghanistan but I would like to provide a more reliable source):

Well, at least you're admitting you don't have a reliable source for the 132 different countries.

Interestingly, for some reason, though this may be because of the low resolution of the image so I may be wrong, it marks the Republic of Malta (south of Sicily) as one of the nations with a military base.

Oddly enough, I live in Malta and there is no military base at all.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Are you suggesting that Iraq and Afghanistan are better because of the US presence? The United States military attack and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are the cause of the problems.

I never said that at all. I've said repeatedly that I opposed the attack on Iraq on all counts and found the attack on Afghanistan to be ill-planned and ill-conceived even though I do believe there was justification.

Iraq and Afghanistan need to be liberated from the United States occupation so they can rebuild their lives, their infrastructure and their country.

I'm sorry, I make it a policy to not reply to videos directly. You can use them as sources, but at least provide some of the information in textual form. 17 minutes of video would receive several thousand words worth of response.

Now, how would Afghanistan fare against the Taliban when the USA leaves?

As far as Korea, are we to believe that as soon as the US leaves, North Korea would invade? With the exception of the United States, no other country has invaded another sovereign nation in the last 20 years. Prior to that it was done by our installed puppet: Saddam Hussein.

I wouldn't actually consider Taliban ruled Afghanistan a sovereign state, but that's beside the point. North Korea does not have a stable leadership and they regularly threaten to use force during the course of negotiations. Their leader isn't someone we can expect to be reasonable.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Wow, that's just random speculation.
You do realize that prior to 2001 the USA was actually paying off the national debt? It was only when Bush implemented the tax cuts that we lost our budget surplus.

Not sure where you got this information from, but I’m guessing that you are confusing our nation debt with our budget deficit? It would be nice if you sourced some of your opinions/statements.

No, Bill Clinton actually started to pay off the national debt aside from achieving a budget surplus. Source

In 2001, our national debt was almost $6 Trillion dollars...

I'm not going to argue against graphics, but I will provide a counter-source. Clinton paid off 0.7% of the debt in his first term and an additional 9% of it in his second. The link I provided earlier has the information.

Further information can be found here

Spending on “Nat. Security Discretionary” is about $1.4 Trillion per year.

So we need to streamline procurement and other military spending issues?

Keep in mind, $2.3 Trillion went missing PRIOR to the INCREASED borrowing and spending since 2001.

This is Bush era, I was speaking about Clinton.

Taxes need to be cut drastically across the board. Our financial problems are due to a debt based monetary system coupled with an endless cycle of borrowing and spending, something Ron Paul has spoken on repeatedly.

You can't just pay off the debt with a decrease in spending, it needs to be matched an increase in revenue. If we raised taxes on the wealthiest members of society to the Clinton levels we'd taken in an additional $700 billion annually.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So even though as the Commander-in-Chief he could implement his policy of bringing the troops home, he couldn’t do it…?

He'd have the blood of nations on his hands. The USA made the mess, we need to clean it up.

Well, lets imagine it. No more pre-emptive wars of aggression based on lies, no more overthrowing and assignations of foreign leaders, no more torture, secret prisons or renditions…

Well, you're also imagining a world where I support pre-emptive war (I don't except in the most extreme instances where we actually see a nation mobilizing for a direct invasion), aggression based on lies, overthrowing of foreign leaders (again, extreme instances are an exception), assigning of foreign leaders, torture, secret prisons, and rendition.

Those are all not the issue. The issue is that we made a massive mess in Afghanistan and Iraq and now we have to clean it up.

There would be a World wide celebration in the streets and Americans could begin the process of ending our debt based monetary system.

And now you're mixing issues up. We were just talking about military policy.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul




Um, howbout his audit the fed bill?

What the op fails tp address is the fact that Ron paul's voting record is extremely consistent with his stated policy.
Of course any great change in a system would have to be gradual. To say that Ron Paul has it "easy" is laughable. He is up against entrenched msm partisan bias, both the left and right consider him a threat and attempt at every turn to marginalize him. Ron Paul is the last hope for this country. He is the only honest politician I have ever seen in action.

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Um, howbout his audit the fed bill?

Depends on what he means by 'audit'. Of course, if you provide a bill number for it, I can look into it, but I'm not going to speak about it without being entirely read up on it.

I will say this, it could be a waste of tax payer money, it could be a good thing. Depends on what the bill states.

What the op fails tp address is the fact that Ron paul's voting record is extremely consistent with his stated policy.

The OP is neutral to that. I simply said his policies are impossible to implement, not that he's inconsistent.

Of course any great change in a system would have to be gradual.

At least someone is admitting that. I find it refreshing.

To say that Ron Paul has it "easy" is laughable. He is up against entrenched msm partisan bias, both the left and right consider him a threat and attempt at every turn to marginalize him.

I don't consider him a threat, I think he's more of a goof than anything else.

And he does have it easy. When nobody takes you seriously you get to say anything you want while criticizing the establishment and not putting forth feasible alternatives to current established policy.

Ron Paul is the last hope for this country.

No, he isn't. No singular individual, especially one with as ridiculous ideas as his, is going to save the country.

Only an informed populace that has an appreciation for rational thought, logical analysis, compassion, science, and reasoned debate will help this country.

Ron Paul is definitely not up for reasoned debate, as his followers are already calling him the last hope for the country.

His policies aren't all rationally thought up or compassionate.

He has little love for the issues of science, not supporting a federal curriculum while science is under attack.

And nobody is up for logically analyzing his positions.

He is the only honest politician I have ever seen in action.

Kucinich is an awfully honest guy. But attacking every politician on issues of honesty is sort of... redundant.

This discussion revolves around just one of Ron Paul’s policies: bringing the troops home and ending the global military industrial complex i.e. the giant business of endless warfare. This policy could be easily implemented in one Presidential term.

This discussion is related to another important issue which revolves around monetary policy. It is Ron Paul’s view that this cycle of endless borrowing, printing money and taxing will ultimately lead to the collapse of the economy, run away inflation (further devaluation of the dollar), or both.

This is why I bring up the fact that the business of war i.e. the military industrial complex is costing us $1 Trillion dollars a year, money that our Govt does not have.

















Back to addressing your other comments.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
He wants to withdraw all military operations and cease foreign aid to other nations. In the modern world that would be considered 'isolationist'.

"A strong national defense" is actually the ideal of an isolationist.

According to your definition, the basis for which is your opinion, every other nation in the World is “isolationist” because they do not have 823 foreign military bases, do not engage in endless wars, do not install dictators, do not provide foreign welfare and who believe in a strong national defense.

Even though Ron Paul is not an “isolationist”, I cant find a single thing wrong with being an “isolationist”.

Obviously, you support the war industry regardless of whether or not its moral or whether or not the tax payer can afford it, which we cant.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Yes, but the standard for 'base' in that isn't exactly very high. It probably goes something like "secure location with military personnel"

Source?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Now, how would Afghanistan fare against the Taliban when the USA leaves?

What a nice person you are that you’re concerned with the well being of the people of Afghanistan. Are you somehow suggesting that our Govt’s attack on, and occupation of, Afghanistan is somehow less harmful than the alleged Taliban?

I suppose youre asking about the Afghanis who are not Taliban or who are not aligned with the Taliban. I take it you’re talking about the alleged Taliban that was destroyed in 2001 and then allegedly regrouped in 2004? I wish our government would make up their minds.

The Taliban was overthrown in late 2001. It has regrouped since 2004 and revived as a strong insurgency movement

en.wikipedia.org...-5

First off, our Government ie the politicians, have lied to the American people so frequently, that it is difficult to trust anything they say, especially when it supports their agenda or interests.

I completely reject the premise that there is a “regrouped Taliban insurgency” behind the attacks against our troops. I would argue that these are Afghani nationals who have taken up arms against our Govt’s invasion and occupation. They are sick of being killed, being bombed, being irradiated with depleted uranium (war crime under international law), they resent our invasion, resent our occupation and want us out of their country. A fact that our Government will never admit because it means they would be forced to leave.

The truth behind Afghan insurgency: There is no true Taliban insurgency.

www.boston.com...

Afghans' uranium levels spark alert

The UMRC says: "Independent monitoring of the weapon types and delivery systems indicate that radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads were being used by the coalition forces."

news.bbc.co.uk...

US air strike wiped out Afghan wedding party, inquiry finds

www.guardian.co.uk...

US military in Afghanistan uncovers sadistic death squad in ranks

FIVE American soldiers who formed themselves into a “death squad” go on trial this month for the murder and dismemberment of Afghan villagers.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
North Korea does not have a stable leadership and they regularly threaten to use force during the course of negotiations. Their leader isn't someone we can expect to be reasonable.

I find it a bit hypocritical that someone who supports the debt based business of war would talk about others being “reasonable”.

The United States Govt runs a global military empire, has been involved in constant wars since World War 2, is the only country to have used nuclear weapons (and that on a civilian population), has used chemical weapons Agent Orange and Napalm against civilians in Vietnam, sold chemical weapons to a dictator they installed (Saddam), then attacked that same nation based on lies…

I had to stop myself because the list of atrocities committed by the US Govt against other sovereign nations could go on for a very long time. The reason for this brief history is because it relates back to your statement about other Governments being “reasonable”…

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
So we need to streamline procurement and other military spending issues?

You previously said that my figures on military spending were speculation so I provided a source documenting my figures.

We, and by we, I mean the US Government, needs to stop its unsustainable level of borrowing and spending so we, the American people, are not forever burdened by an endless cycle of debt and taxes.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
It was only when Bush implemented the tax cuts that we lost our budget surplus.

What is your basis for this comment? Gov’t receipts or revenue has steadily increased year over year according to the Congressional Budget Office. In 1994, our Govt took in took in $1.25 Trillion in revenue while in 2007, our Government took in $2.568 Trillion, more than double…even with the “tax cuts”.

Any and all surpluses have vanished due to increased spending not due to a lack of revenue. To suggest that we give the Government more of our money is completely out of the question.

www.cbo.gov...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
You can't just pay off the debt with a decrease in spending, it needs to be matched an increase in revenue. If we raised taxes on the wealthiest members of society to the Clinton levels we'd taken in an additional $700 billion annually.

There’s really no other way to classify this statement other than it being someone’s opinion and I couldn’t disagree more, especially since Government income increases year over year, even with the so called “tax cuts”.

www.cbo.gov...

Government spending did not reach $2 Trillion until 2002. The Obama administration has projected $2.567 Trillion in revenue for next year, more than enough money to meet our budgetary needs if the Government would simply stop their never ending deficit “spending” which is facilitated through borrowing.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
He'd have the blood of nations on his hands. The USA made the mess, we need to clean it up.

We, and by we, I mean they, the Presidents of the US, have oceans of blood on their hands now. I agree with you that the US Govt caused the mess. The first step in “cleaning up the mess” is to ask for forgiveness and leave, not unlike Vietnam. Would you let the same surgeon operate on you after he intentionally amputated the wrong limb? Of-course not. This immoral, illegal, attack and occupation of Iraq must end now.

The Iraqi people must then decide whom they would like to employ to rebuild the infrastructure that our Govt destroyed, not to mention the near impossible task of decontaminating the tons of radioactive depleted uranium used against them by our Govt.

Horror of USA's Depleted Uranium in Iraq Threatens World

American use of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time." US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die. – Dr. Christopher Busby

www.truth-out.org...

Originally posted by gladtobehere
There would be a World wide celebration in the streets and Americans could begin the process of ending our debt based monetary system.

And now you're mixing issues up. We were just talking about military policy.

I disagree. There are 2 reasons why Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. One is for moral reasons: it’s a profit based business of war based on wealth, power and control. Secondly, the American people can no longer afford it. We are sick and tired of the Government’s policy of borrowing, spending and taxing, regardless of the administration, Republican or Democrat.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

 

I will say this, it could be a waste of tax payer money, it could be a good thing. Depends on what the bill states.

You're in favor of spending Trillions a year on the business of war but then talk about wasting tax payer funds on an audit of our financial system?

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
No, he isn't. No singular individual, especially one with as ridiculous ideas as his, is going to save the country.

Ron Paul is definitely not up for reasoned debate, as his followers are already calling him the last hope for the country.

His policies aren't all rationally thought up or compassionate.

He has little love for the issues of science, not supporting a federal curriculum while science is under attack.

And nobody is up for logically analyzing his positions.

Could you please mention a policy of Ron Paul's that is "ridiculous"? No one is up for logically analyzing his positions? Again, what are your statements based on? Not "one person has logically" analyzed Ron Paul's ideas? What are you basing these opinions on? Which specific policies are you talking about?

Please add some substance to your general statements. How does presenting opinions as fact support your point of view? Youre just simply saying things...

Is it possible that you dont know much if anything about Ron Paul? Maybe you just made up your mind based on what others have said about him?