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

reply to post by mnemeth1

In Rothbard's epic work The Case Against The Fed, he addresses how a return to sound money could be implemented. Rothbard writes: ......

Why is it that Socialists and "Progressives" always seem to support the status quo where the bankers transfer YOUR wealth (labor and property) into THEIR pockets. Is this the new "Marxist" philosophy? Make the poor poorer and the rich richer by redistributing the wealth upwards? Because that is exactly what we are seeing with our progessive socialization of the USA.

What is my beef with OBAMA and the 2009 Congress?? Obama is in the bankers pocket. He is FOR screwing the average American.

First:
How about an increase of the Money Supply from $831 billion in 2008 to $1663 billion in 2009. WHO do you think is going to actually PAY for all that money??? The poor that is who. (I really do not care if it was Bush or Obama, it is still them against the little guy)


Money is not capital, that is WEALTH, Mises concluded that an increase of the money supply confers no identifiable social value.

When new money is created it does not appear magically in equal percentages in all people's bank accounts or under their mattresses. Therefore money spreads unevenly, and this process has varying effects on individuals, depending on whether they receive early or late access to the new money

It is these losses of the groups that are the last to be reached by the variation in the value of money which ultimately constitute the source of the profits made by the bankers and the groups most closely connected with them.
www.lewrockwell.com...

Did you get that? This is the key point. When money is devalued by increasing the money supply, the first pigs to the trough steal the wealth of the late comers. Newly printed fiat money does not create new wealth it just transfers it from the poor, who are always the last to see the new money, to the rich who get to spend it first before the prices increase.

The truth of the above statement can be seen in the price spread between factory worker and CEO wages. CEOs, not being ignorant of economics like the rest of us, made sure THEY are not on the losing end of things.

In 1976 A typical American CEO earned 36 times as much as the average worker. By 2008 the average CEO pay increased to 369 times that of the average worker. timelines.ws...

In 1976 gold was $124.74/oz now it is $1,020.28/oz. The money supply was $113 billion now it is $1663 billion, a rough devaluation in the value of the dollar of a factor of ten. A 2009 dollar is worth about the same as a 1976 dime. During the same period the CEOs wages increased by a factor of more than twenty from 36 times a factory worker's wage to 369 times a factory worker's wage (which more than doubled). Minimum wage meanwhile has gone from $2.30 to $5.85.


So the bankers fleece the public through devaluation of our currency by increasing the money supply. According to the Grace Commision Report 100% of our income taxes winds up in the bankers pockets and according to Testimony by Mr. Morgan, the bank's president,in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969)

Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, . . . did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. www.webofdebt.com...

So the bankers get paid in YOUR wealth (labor) on every home mortgage and credit card in exchange for their bookkeeping entry.

McFadden's speech expresses my outrage at this state of affairs:

"Mr. Chairman, the United States is bankrupt: It has been bankrupted by the corrupt and dishonest Fed. It has repudiated its debts to its own citizens. Its chief foreign creditor is Great Britain, and a British bailiff has been at the White House and the British Agents are in the United States Treasury making inventory arranging terms of liquidations!...Mr. Chairman, the Fed has offered to collect the British claims in full from the American public by trickery and corruption....“The Fed Note is essentially unsound. It is the worst currency and the most dangerous that this Country has ever known... They should not have made the Government [liable on the private] debts of individuals and corporations, and, least of all, on the private debts of foreigners....The Prime Minister of England came here for money! He came here to collect cash! He came here with Fed Currency and other claims against the Fed which England had bought up in all parts of the world. And he has presented them for redemption in gold.”

On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON.

The petition for Articles of Impeachment as thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has
YET TO BE ACTED ON.
www.afn.org...

HISTORY REPEATS WITH AIG BAILOUT

During the Clinton Admin the Glass-Steagall Act put in place to prevent a repeat of the 1929 crash was repealed. "..the banking, brokerage and insurance industries spent $350 million on political contributions and lobbying..." for that repeal and to set the stage for the next economic crash.

"When the government began rescuing it from collapse in the fall of 2008 with what has become a $182 billion lifeline, A.I.G. was required to forfeit its right to sue several banks — including Goldman, Société Générale, Deutsche Bank and Merrill Lynch — over any irregularities with most of the mortgage securities it insured in the precrisis years." click
That is correct, our tax dollars were given to AIG to PAY FOREIGN BANKS and AIG was required to forfeit the right to sue them for possibly misrepresenting a mortgage deal to A.I.G. !!!

Socializing the debt and privatizing the profit....

...these CDS contracts, you could actually bet on somebody else’s mortgage. AIG, for instance, could have gone to Goldman Sachs and said, you know, “We’d like to bet that the mortgages that were issued by JPMorgan Chase are going to default in the next ten years.” So these two parties that don’t have anything to do with the actual underlying loan could actually gamble on the outcome of that loan. So, this is—it’s really no different at all from gambling. And that’s why they had to seek a specific exemption from gaming laws in the year 2000, when they actually went forward with the deregulation of these instruments....

Because of the way the bailout was engineered, we’ve essentially created a giant holding company, with the government as senior management. We now own controlling stakes in an enormous variety of companies, a dying insurance giant in AIG. We’ve absorbed all these toxic instruments, so we’re now the world’s largest hedge fund and the world’s riskiest hedge fund...

The only reason that Wall Street rallied yesterday was because this plan that Geithner administered is such an enormous giveaway to Wall Street. It’s essentially, you know—again, it’s state-subsidized hedge fund profiteering. And, of course, every hedge fund in the world was throwing a party at the news that Geithner came out with this plan yesterday.

www.democracynow.org...

This is my Second gripe with Obama.
Obama mortgage plan is specifically designed to push homeowners who want to refinance into foreclosure. That is what AIG, the bailout, and the Obama mortgage plan is really all about. If the bank can force you into foreclose the US government pays the bank AND the bank gets the house too. The CDS contracts are a side bet and do not pay off the mortgage for you. Your mortgage could have multiple CDS contracts so the banks do not want you to keep your home.

I just went through an Obama caused mortgage foreclosure. It cost me $19,000 to get out of the foreclosure. $5364.52 was for attorneys fees. I even had to pay the banks attorney who spent six months refusing to give my attorney a firm amount so we could pay the arrears caused by Obama's modification plan. Believe me the banks will do everything in their power to make sure they can foreclose. (Make sure you get a GOOD lawyer)

I'm a huge fan of Ron Paul for what/who he is; one f the few Republicans who is an actual conservative.

But that said, I also think that were he President, he would be in for a very rude awakening as to how the world actually operates. He seems to think that pretending this is 1864 will make everything better.

He's kinda like your persnickity ol granpappy; you love him to death, and he's a good man, but he's still convinced those confederate bucks will be worth something one day...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

It also doesn't address his specific ideas, like withdrawing from all military basis in the world and becoming a pseudo-isolationist nation.

In fact, that is EXACTLY what the father of our Country, George Washington, warned us about in his farewell address:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics or the ordinary combination and collisions of her friendships or enmities. Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense, but in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

www.csamerican.com...

Most of our ills today come from our over-extension in the world.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm going to ignore that because I said I ceded the point as a matter of discussion, though not fact, and asked you to put forth another one of Ron Paul's policy positions for that.


As for this statement

“Unless we have another bubble to replace the old bubble, like we had the housing bubble replace the tech bubble, it is very unlikely the US economy will be restored to robust growth any time in the near future,” predicted Stiglitz, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics in 2001.

It was with reference to robust growth in the near future, not as an entire basis for economics.

But I've already told you that economics isn't my field of expertise, so it would be a bit unfair of me to represent the position as I wouldn't be the best person to do so.

Please, let us move on.

reply to post by Oaktree

Originally posted by Oaktree
The very name of your thread is opinion!

It's a single line, you can't compare a single line to a whole article. Articles are supposed to cite evidence, thread titles aren't.

Your opening post was nothing but your opinion!

An opinion that I openly invited to be challenged thoroughly.
And some of the opinions were based in argumentation. Mainly that Ron Paul doesn't have realistic goals.

After stating your opinions, you then ask the good people of ATS to disprove your opinions

Actually, I asked them to prove Ron Paul's policy positions.

and when they attempt to humor you,
you accuse them of only stating their opinions.

With economics you need a certain level of something that isn't pure argumentation. You need data, you need market trends, you need statistics.

This entire thread is based on opinion.

I'm sorry, but everything is based on some level in politics on opinion. I'm here openly challenging my own opinion. More than can be said for some.

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
really now the fact that tens of milliions of people are out of work is due to the simple fact of taxation,regulation and unionization running rampant in this country

*Le sigh*
I'm going to do something I've done from you repeatedly, please back up your opinion with evidence. You never seem to answer this request, but I'll keep trying because I'm stubborn and masochistic.

and yeah the biggest contributing factor to all that is the federal reserve that has so massively devalued the dollar

Again, please provide statistical evidence that proves a causation.

thats has destroyed wealth and job creation in this country..................

Please provide statistical evidence to support this claim.

the federal reserve is what exactly what the founders feared and hated the most the central bank of this country....

Two part answer

Part 1: Please, show me evidence to support this claim

Part 2: How does the opinion of people who lived in the late 18th century have any level of relevance to what is going on today?

and really rampant poverty isnt a problem? maybe for you since your obviously not poor but it matters to them....

We have about a 10% poverty level, how is that 'rampant'?
And a good portion of the people that are in trouble now are in trouble because they tried to live the most comfortable life style possible with their finances instead of trying to come up with something more stable.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Here's a crazy idea: the founding fathers weren't demi-gods whose opinions hold the same amount of weight as they did in the past.

Washington was living in a period where an attack by sea would be small due to being over an ocean, attacks from Canada and Mexico would be fended off by a quick draft, and air travel didn't exist.

A standing military is necessary now because we find ourselves living in a period after two massive conflicts that changed the face of the world.

The best argument for a standing military is to use it like a nuclear weapon, as a deterrent. If we didn't have one and Mexico did, they'd be able to sweep through and do quite a bit of damage before we could respond.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium
Your joking right?

I hate to speak for another person, but xpert11 probably wasn't.

The 18th and 19th century views are the only way to get viable solutions for today's problems.
(time to get flamed but oh well, that's what I am here for)

I'm not going to flame you, I'm just going to say that 18th and 19th century values included discrimination against:
Different racial groups, most horribly in slavery and the near indentured servitude of the Asian immigrants that built the railroad system.
Different religious groups, everything from Catholics to Mormons to Jews and Muslims
Different ethnic groups, Irish and Germans getting some of the worst
Women

I think I prefer modern values to that.
And that's not even counting some of the other ridiculous stuff.

Hmm let's see now, where did we start falling short? Oh wait I KNOW!
When we kicked God out of the classrooms and told Him to take the Bible with Him.

When we followed our own governing documents? I'm sorry, but I pay taxes and I don't believe in any deity, so I'd not like to see my tax money go towards supporting any religious views.

If I were a member of a minority religion I'd hate to see my money go towards supporting views that conflict with mine.

And if I were a member of a majority religion I'd hate to see my money go towards supporting the views of minority religions.

Or would you not have problems with God being reintroduced into schools in the form of Allah?

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education was the beginning of our destruction.

It was actually the beginning of our salvation. It was one of the most well based Supreme Court decisions in history.

Want proof....................just look at our kids today, look at the daily struggles they have to go through, look at what they are being exposed to.

That's not proof, that's a bunch of vague statements that have nothing to do with religion in the classroom.
It's more a matter of technology and the availability of information than anything else.

Kids see more pornography? It's because they don't have to sneak into their dad's room and swipe his girly mags, they can just type in a few search terms and get a lot more than that.

What kind of adults will these over exposed children grow up to be?

I don't know, hopefully responsible ones. But I don't see how that has to do with religion in the classroom.

It is getting worse with every passing generation. Parents want to be friends instead of parents now. They let their children get away with a little more than they did as children.

Well, I'm sure some parents wouldn't have gotten away with interracial dating or being a homosexual. Children today are given a bit more freedom to be who they are, so what?

It is a descending spiral that gets worse with every revolution. We do not allow them to be children any longer. There are some things they are exposed to that just should not be, their young minds and emotions can not handle it.

What does this have to do with the teaching of religion at public schools?

We don't teach them good moral values, we turn on the boob tube instead to free up our precious time. From this point they are subjected to all sorts of behavior modifiers. Sex, violence, profanity, and best of all they do not have to think! Just sit and absorb it.

That's an issue of personal responsibility, isn't it?
I thought conservatives loved that phrase, 'personal responsibility'
I guess parents no longer have a personal responsibility to their children?

No, many do not want to hear it but if this Country is ever going to change it will be because we as a Nation returned to the values of the 18th and 19th century.

[sarcasm
Yay! Lynching black people that have the audacity to look at white people the wrong way!
Beatings of homosexuals!
SLAVERY!
[/sarcasm]

If we teach them better, teach them to care for their fellow man, teach them that hard work never killed anyone, teach them to live within their means, teach them respect and self worth, teach them that sometimes in life we will fail and it is part of living. If we teach them then and only then will this nations systems change.

How are any of these things 18th and 19th century values?
How was slavery caring for your fellow person? How was it hard work?
How was not allowing women to vote caring?
How was making homosexuals hate themselves respect and self worth?

And what does any of that have to do with taking religion out of the classroom?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I always had the idea that Ron Paul is part of the game that the Bilderbergers, NWO'ers and Bohemiangrovers are playing. If you just realise how these people have covered all the important and significant positions in US government, millitairy and media and expanding their influence in other counrties, you should admit that these guys do not let anything to chance.

They either know that Ron Paul will never be a threat to their plans or they installed him to give the voters an alternative option which votes they rather see go to RP than to an other politician that they can not control.

So, like at the time with Kerry Ron Paul can say anything...even very true things....to make him sound real....but in the end he will never be allowed to win the elections, Because they are fixed.....

reply to post by zatara

So, like at the time with Kerry Ron Paul can say anything...even very true things....to make him sound real....but in the end he will never be allowed to win the elections, Because they are fixed.....

Truer words were never spoken.
I do not know if any of you followed Paul's campaign closely. I did. These are my observations from June of 2008. (Sorry I do not have the data to back them up although I did comment here at the time)

Some time before June of 2008 Dan Estulin stated:

Bilderberg tracker Daniel Estulin says he has received information from sources inside the U.S. intelligence community suggesting that people from the highest levels of government are discussing “eliminating” Rep. Ron Paul because its controlled political system is threatened by Paul’s exploding popularity. Source

Initially, Estulin explained, the elite attempted to ignore the Ron Paul Revolution, but as the movement increased its size and profile, it was decided other, more drastic measures, specifically assassination, may need to be undertaken in order to circumvent �unknown factors� of the Ron Paul Revolution. Second Source

In the last week of May 2008, Ron Paul stated to his supporters that he was in the Campaign for the long haul. I know the Granny Warriors who live near me and campaigned for Ron Paul. Many farmers against National Animal ID, like me and the Granny Warriors, kept very close tabs on Paul's campaign.

Then the Bilderburgers met June 5 thru 8 in CHANTILLY, VA Within three days of the close of the meeting Ron Paul announce he was resigning from the race for President.

COINCIDENCE???? I really do not think so.


As I said I noted this on ATS at the time it happened and on many of the Say NO to NAIS websites.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


In regards to your reply to Quadrivium:

Yes it is personal responsibility to provide your children with moral guidance. People portray the word "morals" in a bad light in the world today. I don't understand what is so wrong with "morals".

Of course I have to agree with quadrivium with one point. At least back then you could discipline your kids. I mean timeouts only go so far but anymore it's illegal to give your kids a swat on the butt if you have to tell them something a third time. I have to say when I was a kid and got out of line there was a paddle with holes to greet me. When I cursed I got my mouth washed out with soap. Needless to say I was a well behaved kid. The way I grew up made me who I am today so I cannot complain about it. In fact I'm grateful for it.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

He has an isolationist view of foreign policy, he feels we shouldn't meddle when our nation isn't directly at risk. He doesn't support us having a single military base in Korea, doesn't see the necessity for fixing the problems we have in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thinks we should cease all foreign aid.

If you prove one position correct and implementable, I'll accept it and we'll move on to the next one. If you prove a majority of his positions are correct and implementable, I'll accept that I'm wrong and concede this thread.

The label of "isolationist" has been given to Ron Paul by his detractors, those groups which benefit directly from the military industrial complex. Thats like saying because Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Norway, Sweden (every other country in the World), doesn't have permanent military bases in a 132 different countries, that they are somehow "isolationist"...

That’s right, we have permanent military bases in 132 different sovereign nations.

Our Govt is the only one that insists on occupying almost EVERY other sovereign nation. And how are they doing it? By borrowing and plunging us into an endless cycle of debt and taxes, all the while supporting a socialist military welfare state to the tune of about $1 Trillion dollars a year (conservatively).

As far as implementing a policy of non-military imperialism, it could literally be done over night, (though it would most likely be done over the course of a few years but easily within 1 Presidential term). As Commander in Chief, the POTUS has the sole authority to deploy or recall our military at will without explanation or justification. Period. Congress is needed for a declaration of War, which has not been declared for decades. Hence we have names like the “Korean Conflict”, not the Korean War. Nor was Vietnam a "war", there was no declaration of war from Congress. As a matter of fact, the majority of our Government’s aggression has been decided by 1 single man, without the approval of congress.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

The point of my post is that if this country is going to change then we will need to Go Back( Progressives Cringing as they read) to the moral values that were held in this country during the 18th and 19th century.
Don't try and make what I said about race, you know that is not what I meant.
Besides if it was not for the Democrat Party race would hardly be an issue now (be careful not to ask for proof, I do not think this thread can handle it all).
In 1947 the Progressives won a great battle but look at the cost to our nation now. The Bible is a good learning tool and it is not against the First Amendment to use it as such (again be careful what you ask for).
Children in Public schools have no respect for authority or their elders any longer. They know that nothing can be done to them, there are little to no repercussions for their actions.
Progressive liberals have done more to ruin this country in the last 100 years than anything or anyone else.

Originally posted by Quadrivium

The point of my post is that if this country is going to change then we will need to Go Back( Progressives Cringing as they read) to the moral values that were held in this country during the 18th and 19th century.

Slavery? No rights for poor people and women? Ah, yes, those were the days. when children worked in factories and didnt own shoes.

Don't try and make what I said about race, you know that is not what I meant.
Besides if it was not for the Democrat Party race would hardly be an issue now (be careful not to ask for proof, I do not think this thread can handle it all).

Indeed. And what were the republicans doing at the time?

handing out lollypops?

In 1947 the Progressives won a great battle but look at the cost to our nation now. The Bible is a good learning tool and it is not against the First Amendment to use it as such (again be careful what you ask for).
Children in Public schools have no respect for authority or their elders any longer. They know that nothing can be done to them, there are little to no repercussions for their actions.
Progressive liberals have done more to ruin this country in the last 100 years than anything or anyone else.

How one-sidedly partisan of you.

reply to post by justadood

How one-sidedly partisan of you.

Really? You referring to the Democrat comment or the Progressive Liberal one?
Well maybe this will make you feel better------> Republicans are not any better these days (shhhhh, Don't tell anyone but they have been infected by the Progressive/liberal bug as well).

By-Partisan enough?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Your argument, as well as the logic you're using to base it on, is absurd. The only reason Ron Paul's legislation doesn't pass as often as it should has nothing to do with it having a lack of merit (that is a laughable notion at best) and more to do with the fact that too many of our politicians are bought and paid for by the powers that be. As another member has already shown you, Ron Paul isn't just complaining, he's taking action. It's unfortunate that we do not have more politicians who take as much action as he does. If more of them operated with the level of integrity that Paul does, the U.S. wouldn't be in this predicament and Ron Paul wouldn't be the lone voice in congress.

Unfortunately for you, this lame attempt to discredit Ron Paul does more to discredit you. I suppose we'll be seeing more threads like this pop up as 2012 nears, as it seems to be the best you people can do in light of the fact that you've been unable to produce any real dirt on the man.

reply to post by Quadrivium

The point of my post is that if this country is going to change then we will need to Go Back( Progressives Cringing as they read) to the moral values that were held in this country during the 18th and 19th century. Don't try and make what I said about race, you know that is not what I meant. Besides if it was not for the Democrat Party race would hardly be an issue now (be careful not to ask for proof, I do not think this thread can handle it all). In 1947 the Progressives won a great battle but look at the cost to our nation now. The Bible is a good learning tool and it is not against the First Amendment to use it as such (again be careful what you ask for). Children in Public schools have no respect for authority or their elders any longer. They know that nothing can be done to them, there are little to no repercussions for their actions. Progressive liberals have done more to ruin this country in the last 100 years than anything or anyone els

I have no party affiliations. I vote for candidates based on their individual merit. That said, there is no doubt that the liberals have had plenty to do with screwing up this country, particularly when it comes to the justice system. However, the conservatives have done no better, not to mention the fact they bring with them the Bible thumpers and the elitists who express the "us and them" mentality. Neither one of these parties on the extreme end are good for this country...and certainly neither one of them is going to be this country's hero and save the day.

You are right about today's children. Whether or not that has anything to do with the country straying from The Lord is debatable to some. There has definitely been a breakdown in moral character in today's society. However, we've had plenty of help getting where we're at in this regard through use of manipulation and deceit by those in power, too.

reply to post by DaMod

Originally posted by DaMod
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

In regards to your reply to Quadrivium:

Yes it is personal responsibility to provide your children with moral guidance. People portray the word "morals" in a bad light in the world today. I don't understand what is so wrong with "morals".

I have no problem with morals, I just have a problem with the ones that require illegal prayer in schools and are openly centered around the 18th and 19th centuries.
I think we can have far better morals than that.

Of course I have to agree with quadrivium with one point. At least back then you could discipline your kids. I mean timeouts only go so far but anymore it's illegal to give your kids a swat on the butt if you have to tell them something a third time.

If you have to respond to violence to discipline your children I don't understand why.

I have to say when I was a kid and got out of line there was a paddle with holes to greet me.

That's frankly barbaric.

When I cursed I got my mouth washed out with soap.

That's also barbaric.

Needless to say I was a well behaved kid. The way I grew up made me who I am today so I cannot complain about it. In fact I'm grateful for it.

"A well behaved kid" isn't a moral kid, it's a kid who does things simply to escape harsh punishment.

Harsh punishments don't teach morality, they simply teach punishment avoidance.

reply to post by gladtobehere

Originally posted by gladtobehere
The label of "isolationist" has been given to Ron Paul by his detractors, those groups which benefit directly from the military industrial complex. Thats like saying because Canada, Japan, Australia, France, Germany, Spain, Greece, Italy, Norway, Sweden (every other country in the World), doesn't have permanent military bases in a 132 different countries, that they are somehow "isolationist"...

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

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.

That’s right, we have permanent military bases in 132 different sovereign nations.

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

Our Govt is the only one that insists on occupying almost EVERY other sovereign nation.

Again, I'd like to see proof. But you'd still be 30ish nations off from the UN.

And how are they doing it? By borrowing and plunging us into an endless cycle of debt and taxes, all the while supporting a socialist military welfare state to the tune of about $1 Trillion dollars a year (conservatively).

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.

As far as implementing a policy of non-military imperialism, it could literally be done over night, (though it would most likely be done over the course of a few years but easily within 1 Presidential term).

Let's see the new argument.

As Commander in Chief, the POTUS has the sole authority to deploy or recall our military at will without explanation or justification. Period. Congress is needed for a declaration of War, which has not been declared for decades.

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

Hence we have names like the “Korean Conflict”, not the Korean War. Nor was Vietnam a "war", there was no declaration of war from Congress. As a matter of fact, the majority of our Government’s aggression has been decided by 1 single man, without the approval of congress.

They did technically give him a waiver from that with a bill whose name I forgot and I'm too tired to look up


reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium
The point of my post is that if this country is going to change then we will need to Go Back( Progressives Cringing as they read) to the moral values that were held in this country during the 18th and 19th century.
Don't try and make what I said about race, you know that is not what I meant.

I know it's not what you meant, but what you meant was a categorically false and over-idealized view of the past.

The morals of the 18th and 19th century did include issues of race, non-whites were considered inferior. It was seen as moral to help those 'poor souls' out.
It included genocide
It included maltreatment of women and a lack of equal rights for them.

Hell, you could probably be executed for being an atheist.

Besides if it was not for the Democrat Party race would hardly be an issue now (be careful not to ask for proof, I do not think this thread can handle it all).

One, you've already tipped your bias by using the improper name of the "Democratic Party".
Two, the issue became an issue because of slavery and genocide.
Frederick Douglass sure as hell wasn't a partisan, he was simply an abolitionist (and a former slave to boot).
Martin Luther King Jr cared a lot more about the equality of races than any politics.

The issue has been around since this nation's inception because it started off with a system where an african-american wasn't even considered to be a full person.

In 1947 the Progressives won a great battle but look at the cost to our nation now. The Bible is a good learning tool

Only if you're talking about its influence on later western literature. Aside from that it's malarkey. How does a book that says a woman who breaks up a fight by grabbing man's genitals should have his hand chopped off a good learning tool?

I've read the book, I did learn quite a few things, mainly things that I wasn't told about by religious leaders regarding the insanity of its contents.

Please, show me how it is a good learning tool. Does it help people learn...science? Nah, that one is right off.
Mathematics? Oh wait...no, it says pi=3, that one is right off.
History...who am I kidding, it doesn't even have internal consistency on that one.
Reading? Well, I guess any book can teach you that.

Honestly, what can it help students learn?

and it is not against the First Amendment to use it as such (again be careful what you ask for).

Listen, as an atheist I have to deal with issues of secularism a lot more than you do. They actually affect my life. All I have to do is cite a bunch of SCOTUS cases that show you're fantasizing if you think otherwise.

Aside from the fact that using the Bible in a school would prevent the free exercise of religion from non-Christians of all sorts, it would be a government sponsoring of religion.

Well, I guess you can use it in mythology class alongside Gilgamesh, Zeus, Sigurd, etc without a problem.

Children in Public schools have no respect for authority or their elders any longer. They know that nothing can be done to them, there are little to no repercussions for their actions.

Morality through repercussions isn't morality, it's reinforced pain avoidance.

Progressive liberals have done more to ruin this country in the last 100 years than anything or anyone else.

Yes, by allowing autoworkers to have a voice in the discourse, by allowing women to vote, by allowing non-whites to have equal rights, by allowing people of all religions to feel comfortable in a learning environment.

Sure is hell to me.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Here's a crazy idea: the founding fathers weren't demi-gods whose opinions hold the same amount of weight as they did in the past.

Perhaps to you, they don't, but to many of us, they were way ahead of their time, creating a democracy that to this day, is the greatest system this world has seen.

Washington was living in a period where an attack by sea would be small due to being over an ocean, attacks from Canada and Mexico would be fended off by a quick draft, and air travel didn't exist.

Actually, if you understood how the sea power of both the British and the French determined the years from 1760 to 1800, you wouldn't make such an ill-conceived statement.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

1) I did not say we needed to go back to the negative ideals of the time. I said we needed to get back to the morals.

mor·al   
[mawr-uhl]

–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
–noun
9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

SOURCE

2) A VERY short history lesson because you seem to be stuck in Progressive mode and I do not want to totally derail this thread.

"Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience."
-Fisher Ames, August 20, 1789, wording for the First Amendment to the Constitution, suggested in and adopted by the U.S. House during the First Session of the U.S. Congress. Annals of the Congress of the United States - First Congress (Washington, D.C.: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, p. 766.

Ninety men and months of discussion and it ended with Mr. Ames wording being adopted.
So what did Mr. Ames also have to say about the Bible in the classroom after the first amendment was installed?

"Should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a schoolbook? Its morals are pure, its examples are captivating and noble....
The reverence for the sacred book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and, probably, if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind....
In no Book is there so good English, so pure and so elegant, and by teaching all the same they will speak alike, and the Bible will justly remain the standard of language as well as of faith."
-Fisher Ames, Statement concerning education.

He also said........

"We have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education. We're starting to put more and more textbooks into our schools....
We've become accustomed of late of putting little books into the hands of children containing fables and moral lessons....
We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principal text in our schools....The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other manmade book."
-Fisher Ames, September 20, 1789, in an article published in the Palladium magazine.

3) Mr. Jefferson also had some interesting words on the matter of what progressive groups are trying to do in America today.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?" --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

I understand that the History from Progressive sites might appeal to your way of thinking but truthfully it is not History but SPIN.

The main problem with Ron Paul is twofold; what he does write up and present is more often than not shot down immediately, and half the time his own beliefs he feels he can not even bring forth in a legislative manner due to principle in believing government doesn't have the authority to legislate these things in the first place.

He's an ideologue, a massive one with that said. Not that this is a bad thing but it means the likelihood of anything of his being implemented is a long shot, until we have more individuals in congress with a similar mind to his.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
The main problem with Ron Paul is twofold; what he does write up and present is more often than not shot down immediately, and half the time his own beliefs he feels he can not even bring forth in a legislative manner due to principle in believing government doesn't have the authority to legislate these things in the first place.

He's an ideologue, a massive one with that said. Not that this is a bad thing but it means the likelihood of anything of his being implemented is a long shot, until we have more individuals in congress with a similar mind to his.

I don't see any of that as being a problem with Paul as you suggest.

I see that being a problem of all other politicians being bought off by special interest groups.

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.