Ron Paul's Candidacy - Should You Vote For Him?

[Char. Limit]

So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.

A quick question I thought up while reading this. Would you agree with the following statement?

"Social security and the FDIC are unnecessary, and FDR was wrong for instituting them."

What about this one?

"The economy was working fine until FDR came along."

Just wondering.

 

[jduster]

if you think hoover wasn't a big government guy, just google "Revenue Act of 1932"

 

[mheslep]

Federalism/devolution is for the birds.

Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.

 

[Jasongreat]

=

Char. Limit;3740599]A quick question I thought up while reading this. Would you agree with the following statement?

"Social security and the FDIC are unnecessary, and FDR was wrong for instituting them."

I guess it depends on your definition of wrong, were they constitutional?, No. Is the Federal governments job to protect individuals as individuals?, no it is not. Is it the federal governments job to completely remove the risks that come with liberty? No. A social security program should be part of state governments, since the individual is under the purview of the states. Did they convince the people he was doing their bidding? Yes. Did they help him get re-elected? Yes. So from my point of view, yes they were wrong. From FDR's point of view, they were right, i suppose.

What about this one?

"The economy was working fine until FDR came along."

Just wondering.

I already stated that Hoover started things going the wrong way, so no the economy was not working fine until FDR came along, although I would argue that the economy was worse off after FDR. I find it interesting that at the beginning of the twenties, the US had a depression, the federal government did nothing, the down turn ended and the roaring twenties began. A decade later we had another depression, the government made huge investments in the economy and the depression lasted a decade, Keynesian economics have never worked, never will IMO. If it is excessive spending which got us into the mess, escessive spending will not get us out of the mess. The belief that things are different in government is wrong, whatever affects us as individuals will affect the government in the same way. If you are underwater in debt, would you think taking on more debt is the way to solve the original debt, or does lowering your spending make more sense?

 

[mheslep]

We have tried the big government solution far more, ... Reagan

Reagan was a big defense guy, not a big government guy otherwise.

 

[Jasongreat]

Reagan was a big defense guy, not a big government otherwise.

Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held a lot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)

If the three things I listed above were removed from his presidency, I would have listed him in my list of conservatives, instead of the list of progressives.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Yes, Hoover was a big spending Republican, There were quite a few times, IIRC, that FDR stated that what he was doing was no differnt than hoover did, so he didnt understand why conservatives were upset about his policies. Calvin Coolidge made a statement to the effect that I have never been a spender, if you want a spender I am not your man, Hoover was then elected.

He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.

So true, he was also wanting to get a constitutional ammendment passed to make it constitutional, however Madison urged him that it was alright to do without the ammendment, and that by the time an ammendment was passed it may be too late as they were getting quite the deal. I wonder what is a better unconstutional use of government, buying a huge track of land that our country has profited off ever since, or FDRs policies, we have been paying for ever since, I will take an asset over a liability any day of the week.

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.

I agree government has a role to play, Paul and his supporters are not anarchists, it has a role well defined in a thing called the constitution and it doesn't matter wether we are in an agrarian society or a manufacturing society, a technical society, or a service society.

Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.

I am well aware, that what was once called a classical liberal is now called a libertarian or anarchist, and that those who support larger government are called Republicans and Democrats.

Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.

State rights was the base of our government, and I believe can be again. In a federlist/republican system each state is free to do whatever they want, except for those things enumerated to the federal government in the constitution such as defense, treaties, etc;. In doing so we would have fifty different tries at solving our problems, if one state becomes oppressive we are free to move to another state where we may find a better fit, if one state finds a solution others are free to follow or to tweak it to their beliefs. When we are formed as a nation, and everything gets settled at the national level, we get one try to solve a problem, if we don't like the outcome we are stuck with it since how are we going to vote with our feet? Where else is there to go? I like how some think that it is more efficient to take money from the states, send it to washington, pay the beaurocrats, than send what's left back to the state. Wouldnt it be more efficient to leave the whole amount in the state, for those citizens to do as they will. The only thing a national government is more efficient at is force.

It's precisely because they're efficient at force that the federal government should remain the most powerful entity. Bureaucrats will exist regardless. Do you believe that people can send money to states and no one take a cut off it? Ridiculous. You either have one agency taking up all the inefficiency, or fifty separate ones.

Furthermore, the 'efficiency' argument is untrue. What about companies that wish to operate across state lines? Instead of one set of rules that applies nationally, they have to follow two, three, ten, maybe even fifty different sets of rules. As for the 'experiments' argument, I think that too is not borne out by history. We have ample precedent that single payer health care is an incredibly good system of health care, yet only one state currently practices it (Vermont - and I don't believe it has been fully implemented yet). We can use other countries for experiments. And we can experiment ourselves. It's not hard, and it's not disastrous.

Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!

A non-interventionist = an isolationist

This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.

the civil war was fought to end slavery

The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.

that our founders founded a nation

What did they found, then? They certainly didn't found a vacuum cleaner!

that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.

The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...

That the Federalists were right, since we now have over two hundred years of history which prove most of the anti-federalist claims were spot on.

Given that a proper application of Federalist mentality (taken to its logical conclusion) would result in a country like Norway, Sweden, or Denmark, it stands to reason that this is patently false. I would urge you to conduct a thorough study of Scandinavian welfare states. These represent the most left-wing nations on Earth that still maintain a foundation in capitalism, and they are without a doubt the most egalitarian, most humane, most democratic, and most liveable nations. Their debt's pretty low too, just in case you were about to mention that.

That our government is not a voluntary agreement, one which can be negated at any time by any member for reasons of non-compliance by other members of the federal government itself.

That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).

That our government can do anything the people want, without ammending the constitution.

Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.

That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.

No, but the last hope of states rights supporters is a racist:

http://www.examiner.com/anonymous-i...nonymous-snares-ron-paul-operation-blitzkrieg

That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.

I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.

That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).

Not going to argue this one.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Then you must think the US is for the birds, as federalism is the law of the land.

Actually, I just think the US has a bad system. Sure, it's the law of the land. I didn't question that. I do question the efficacy of such a system.

 

[Angry Citizen]

A decade later we had another depression, the government made huge investments in the economy and the depression lasted a decade, Keynesian economics have never worked, never will IMO.

Again with the IMO. Please, please look at Scandinavia. Also, I think you may have gotten your hands on revisionist history. The government made huge investments in the economy after Hoover waited years before trying to do something.

It's interesting to note that FDR was probably wrong. But he was wrong because he did not go far enough. We have proof that the Great Depression was ended by government spending - in fact, I can tell you exactly what caused the reemergence of the American economy: World War II, with incredibly high government spending. FDR let us tread water for a while. What should have happened was a lot of nationalization, starting with the banks.

 

[mheslep]

Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing.

Agreed. He was not a libertarian on drugs. But on net, he tried to shrink the overall size of government, though he failed.

 

[ThomasT]

Reagan also signed the original amnesty plan for illegals, he doubled down on nixon's war on drugs, and set mandatory minimum laws for sentencing. I do agree that Reagan was a great man, held a lot of conservative beliefs, and was a good president, especially when compared to Carter. When compared to Jefferson he left me wanting a more conservative president. Although at the time I liked him as a whole, but I was only eight. :)

Not to get too far off topic, but just to offer an alternative view, I was in my 30's during Reagan's presidency, and, to me, he seemed like an incompetent stooge. An actor playing a part. We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office. As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.

 

[Jasongreat]

As far as I'm concerned, and wrt to what they did before and after their presidencies, Reagan was insignificant, a little person, just an actor, compared to a man like Carter.

Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)

 

[ThomasT]

Before his presidency Reagan was a governor of one of the largest states in the nation, Carter a peanut farmer in Georgia. According to this Reagan was a much bigger man than Carter ;). It seems he was a bigger person, and more signifigant than carter, but you did get one thing right, he was an actor. :)

Ok, we can agee to disagree on this -- except for the height thing, which I concede.

 

[Jasongreat]

=Angry Citizen;3740684]He sure wasn't a big spender when it comes to the Depression. His reaction to the collapse was practically laissez-faire.

How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I just said it wasn't the least bit constitutional.

I agree, I only wrote what I did to show a change in thinking in Washington. Jefferson atleast fretted about the constituionality of it, today the constitution isn't even mentioned.

Agrarian societies don't need much regulation (although the great Dust Bowl in the twenties or thirties sure does provide an incentive for some). Industrial societies, on the other hand, flat out require regulation. To say otherwise is to ignore reality. Corporations would rape the middle class if it weren't for regulation and big government. In fact, I have historical precedent: the Gilded Age.

Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from? Government loves to cause a problem then turn around and say they have a cure. Heck, if it wasnt for governmental overreach I don't think the politicians would have much to run on. The railroads were one of the last corporations created by the old rules, by those rules they can only be a railroad. Now that the rules have changed corporations can use those exceptions the people gave them when they formed and use the money they made off those to go into other markets, helping to get to the too big to fail area. The main thing that kills me is we always hear how superior we are to past generations, if we are so superior, why do we need so much more government than they did?

Republicans really don't want larger government, at least economically.

No, but they do like expanded government when it controls the morallity of the masses.

Furthermore, where does your argument end? The same exact logic could be applied for the primacy of city/local governments. Why send money to Austin when it could be kept in Podunk Texas? Heck, why send money to the city when it could be kept on your street? While we're at it, what's with those greedy neighbors wanting my money?!? I better hide my money under my pillow and spend it only on my own interests!

And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve a lot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.

This is actually quite true. But I don't believe we've ever had a non-interventionist president.

Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesn't want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.

The prime cause was most certainly about slavery, which trickled its way down into issues like 'states rights' and other baggage which was then quite important.

Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law. I can't remember who wrote it but it was a study of the civil war, they concluded that it would have been cheaper for the feds just to pay the going rate for the souths legal property, not to mention the half million men who would get to live the rest of their lives. If war was needed to end slavery, why did no other slave owning countries have to resort to war for slavery to end?

The term I would ideally prefer is 'Democratic Republic'. However, that often has connotations of Communism (for some strange reason). A true republic does not require a voting public, and a true democracy does not have representatives. We are a representative democracy. The term 'constitutional' is usually applied only to monarchies whose country has a Constitution. Surprisingly, the UK doesn't have a constitution, and I'm rather lacking in examples of a country with that system. I think Belgium might, or maybe Spain...

Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?

That's the definition of government. If it were voluntary, no one would pay taxes (except me, but I'm weird and have a sense of civic duty).

So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me. There is no need of force for taxes, our country went a long time on tariffs and duties. I think a national sales tax would work, if you want a ferrari you will pay the tax it takes to get one. On the other hand if the government abuses its taxing the impact would be immediate. People would quit buying the products because of the excessive tax. Unlike the system in place now, death by a thousand cuts, all federal tax would be in one place.

Not anything, but the Commerce Clause gives tremendous powers.

Tremendous powers to regulate interstate commerce, in state commerce not so much.

I beg to differ, good sir or madam. The Declaration of Independence was written at a time when the articles of confederation still hadn't come into being. If you want to see what a Ron Paul nation would look like, you may look at the nation under the Articles.

The declaration of rights was a declaration of what the citizenery of the colonies believed, the articles of confederation and then the constitution were their attempts at creating a government that would best suit those beliefs. The Declaration was the founding document of our country, the constitution was the controlling document of the federal government, atleast that's the way I see it.

The main reason I like Paul is he starts the discussion at zero, isn't that the way to barter? If we keep arguing about should the feds get 10, 20 or 30 percent, we are going to keep getting what we already have. I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.

 

[lpetrich]

Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):

What do you mean by "anti-American"?

A non-interventionist = an isolationist,

What's the difference?

the civil war was fought to end slavery,

Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.

In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.

You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.

But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.

that our founders founded a nation,

They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.

Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.

that the US is a Democracy and not a reprentative constitutional republic.

I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.

That anyone supporting state rights is a racist.

Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.

A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.

That the constitution is our founding document, instead of the Declaration of Independence.

It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.

That a strong imperialistic posture, was what our founders wanted, when they mentioned national defense(a huge faux paux, since it was the imperialistic policies of the british government our founders revolted against,imo).

Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.

 

[Dotini]

This chart will help readers get an idea where they fit on the political spectrum.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-PL07fcBkGNE/TnIhX5QzmkI/AAAAAAAAVaA/fQQNs9QMyPg/s1600/AsplundChart.jpg

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It still would have been useless, but at least he could have put centrists in the center.

 

[Angry Citizen]

How about his spending leading up to the depression? He was a big spending progressive conservative, in todays terms, a compassionate conservative.

I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.

Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?

Folks like Andrew Carnegie used to have a philosophy. First they'd create a company. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to create its product. Then they'd purchase everything that the company needed to ship its product to consumers. Then they'd try to buy out other companies in the industry. It was a system known as vertical integration, if I remember correctly. No government required. Indeed, it wasn't until the anti-trust laws came about that monopolies could be legally eliminated.

And it should be, why should the city send money to the county, when they can spend it how they want where they want to better their community? Next, why should a county send money to a state, when they are in a better position to see what the county needs than the state can? And finally, why should a state send its money to the feds, to solve problems in their state. One of the things I liked in the constitution of the southern confederacy, was that they prohibited taking money from one state to make improvements in another. It seems to me it would solve a lot of problems if California or Mass. or any other state were forced to pay for their failing policies, instead of taking money from their neighbors through the feds. It really helps one to see the error of their ways, when they face the consequences of those choices, on the otherhand it is very easy for people to put their heads in the sand when someone else bails them out.

I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.

However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!

Well maybe you should read more US history. Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson.

Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.

Why then did it take till the end of the war for the emmancipation proclamation, seems to me if the war was about slavery, one would free the slaves then send the army out to enforce said law.

The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.

Wouldnt that term mean that the majority controlled what the government could do, we have a document that controls the government, which is why it is a constitutional republic?

No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.

So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.

Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.

I think a national sales tax would work

I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.

I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.

Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.

 

[lpetrich]

Where did those 'evil' corporations get their monopoly power from?

So no business can possibly do bad things? As Angry Citizen noted, it's possible to build a monopoly by legitimate business practices, like buying the competition. It's also possible to use less-legitimate practices, like demanding that business partners not deal with rivals. That's what Microsoft has done with operating-system preloads. Make it significantly more expensive to preload Windows on 99.99+% of a company's PC's than to preload Windows on 100.00% of them. This makes it much more difficult for that company to offer preloaded alternates. There are even less legitimate practices, like physically attacking rivals, as in the frog wars between railroad companies in the 19th cy., and between rival criminal gangs. One might argue that that's not true capitalism, but that seems to me the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Washington was a non-interventionist, as was Madison, Monroe, Jefferson. None were isolationists though. Here is a quote from Jefferson: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." Notice how he wants to do buisiness with all nation, not isolationist. Yet he doesn't want to get involved in entangling alliances, non-interventionist.

Commerce with no military involvement? That's idealistic nonsense that only works with friendly nations. Even in the early years of the US, that policy could not be made to work.

So you feel that once a state enters the federal governmental compact there is no way they can get out, which sounds like a pact with the devil to me.

If the other states agree to secession, then I'm sure that national-level politicians will go along. That's an interesting historical riddle -- why was the North reluctant to let the South secede? Could it be the attack on Fort Sumter? Or concern about being weakened by division?

What's so patriotic about secession, anyway?

I think we need them to show why they deserve more than 0% of my labor.

To get protected, for starters.

 

[mheslep]

...We know now that he was clinically senile for most of his second term in office.

Well, "there you go again". At best all you will find are anecdotes about senility. As to being a 'stooge', Reagan was a prolific writer. You can judge for yourself from his ample letters and radio speeches.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/074320123X/?tag=pfamazon01-20

And from the PBS series, Howard Baker taking over from the disgruntled Don Regan as Chief of Staff:

Narrator: What Baker's transition team was told by Don Regan's White House staff that weekend shocked them. Reagan was "inattentive," "inept," and "lazy" and Baker should be prepared to invoke the 25th amendment to relieve him of his duties.

Edmund Morris, Official Biographer: The incoming Baker people all decided to have a meeting with him on the Monday morning, their first official meeting with the President and to cluster around the table in the Cabinet Room and watch him very, very closely to see how he behaved, to see if he was indeed losing his mental grip. They positioned themselves very strategically around the table so they could watch him from various angles, listen to him and check his movements and listen to his words and look into his eyes. And I was there when this meeting took place. And Reagan who was, of course, completely unaware that they were launching a death watch on him, came in stimulated by the press of all these new people and performed splendidly. At the end of the meeting they figuratively threw up their hands realizing he was in perfect command of himself.

Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): Ladies and gentlemen, is this president fully in control of his Presidency? Is he alert? Is he fully engaged? Is he in contact with the problems? And I'm telling ya, it's just one day's experience and maybe that's not enough, but today he was superb.

Reporter (archival): And Mrs. Reagan? The issue of Mrs. Reagan's involvement in West Wing decisions?

Howard Baker, Chief of Staff (archival): I haven't talked to Mrs. Reagan today. I intend to do that later today. I intend to do that later today. But let me say, I've known Nancy Reagan a long time too. And I did speak to her on Friday, and I expect -- there's the phone now.

Howard Baker, Chief of Staff: From moment one at the White House with Ronald Reagan, I came away convinced not only was he fully in command -- fully competent -- but that -- he was not being well served by the arrangements in the White House -- but that he was fully capable of discharging that job in a very, very effective way. And I still think that

.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/reagan-transcript/

 

[lpetrich]

I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

 

[Dotini]

I spent some time perusing what the candidates have recently stated about Iran, and Ron Paul is the only dovish one. I could easily find hawkish statements from Barack Obama, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

If more war and debt is sincerely desired, there are many to choose from who will leap to take us there. Romney, for instance, has surrounded himself with neocons, those wonderful folks who lied us into Iraq.

If you value peace above all else, our only current choice is Ron Paul.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Jasongreat]

What do you mean by "anti-American"?

What's the difference?

Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be.

In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery.

You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/CSA.htm
Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause.

But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery.

They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure.

Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map.

I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice.

Again, being mistaken != being anti-American.

A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle.

It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI.


Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.

Sorry, I misspoke, I meant un-american. As I have said in my other posts, the DOI was a statement of beliefs the colonists shared, so I consider those tenets in the DOI, american. If a belief runs contrary to that document I consider it an un-american belief. Still though there are a lot of un-american policies that are anti-american, as in they hurt americans.

The south was trying to protect their legal property, it was the US government when writing the constitution that continued the princple of slaves(human beings) being property. Protecting property is one of the enumerated powers of the general government. The south added to their constitution that no other slaves may be imported. By the by, I have read their constitution before, while I was reading the rise and fall of the confederate states by Jefferson Davis.

The founders did found thirteen different colonies(countries) domestically, one unified front for foreign affairs like treaties, wars, and trade, atleast they intended to.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;

The only problem I have with the term democracy being used is we are not a democracy, that belief is the one that allows for the justification of tyrannical policies. Quite a few supreme court decisions I have read say that even though there is not a power in the constitution allowing it they feel the people want it, therefore they agree to it. The only way the will of the people overides the US Constitution, is superduper-majorities of the states ammending the constitution.

The constitution should be legally binding, however it has not proven to be so in most cases. The constitution was based on the beliefs asserted in the DOI.

Yes, every candidate except Paul is war-hawkish, including Obama.

Edit: One of the proposals voted down was the inclusion of the word nation in the constitution, they opted for united states.

 

[Jasongreat]

I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false.

I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today.

However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city!



Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within.



The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy.



No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes.



Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me.



I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia.



Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.

Hoover was a self described progressive reformer, according to his wiki page. Hoover signed the revenue act of 32 which raised taxes to 63% on wealthy individuals. The depression only worsened. Harding in the early twenties, reduced the top tax rate from 73%, revenues increased and the forgotten depression ended, the roaring twenties began.

California's problem is not that they took too few taxes, it is that they spend too much.

Nice strawman, don't you think most locallities would make similar regulations? The city should be free to do everything relating to the individual. Like moral laws, gun laws, whatever that little group feels is in their best interest. Then the counties come along and legislates, what the cities don't have the resources to do on their own, then the state comes along and legislates whatever the counties can't do for themselves, then the feds legislate everything that the states can't do for themselves. Seems to me a simple plan, which would work better than what we have now? How does someone in Washington know the interests of the localities, 2000 miles away? I can see far more mischief coming from a one size fits all nation, than a to each its own confederacy.

I like your Madison argument, he was an interventionist because he went to war against others intervening in our affairs. The british were intervening in our trade and in our domestic affairs(supporting indians), as well as imprisoning americans to involuntary servitude in the royal navy through impressment. My point still stands, Madison was not an interventionist.

By your own definition then we were a constitutional republic until the ratification of the 17th ammendment in 1912, when the progressive era was in full swing. Is it a coincidence that those wanting to enlarge the powers of the federal government were also the ones who started referring to the US as a democracy?

See:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness

. That whenever the form of government becomes destructive it is the right of the people to abolish said government. Sounds to me like the founders beilieved in seccession. I stated in my earlier post that one of the first proposals in the convention was the use of Nation, they chose United States instead.

On my proposal of a sales tax, I never included what I thought those taxes should be applied to. I think any staple needed to live like food and shelter should be tax free, and every product not needed would be taxed like cell phones, cars, computers, etc;.

If by didnt work you mean did not allow for the ever increasing size and scope of the general government, I agree, however if you meant did not provide sufficient revenue to provide the government our constitution set up I disagree. We had no income tax until Lincoln used one to pay for his war, then it came back permantly when progressives wanted to increase the size of government, coincidence?

 

[MarcoD]

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.

Does it matter? It was centuries ago.

 

[turbo]

Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.

Does it matter? It was centuries ago.

It was a blink of the eye in long-term historical terms, and practically yesterday for any Southerners who hold a grudge against the "War of Northern Aggression". Most of the $$$$$$$$ artifacts that I auctioned in my years in selling military artifacts were sold to wealthy southerners who had collections.

 

[Tosh5457]

Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.

Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):... the civil war was fought to end slavery

I call BS. And thinking this betrays such a lack of study that no one should give you the benefit of the doubt on anything you've written about history.

The south succeeded and tried to raise a country with the EXPLICIT goal of defending slavery. Read the succession documents from the various states! Here is a choice quote from the Cornerstone Speech:

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition

Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy. He was not alone in championing this "ideal",again-the South succeeded, according to its leaders explicitly to defend slavery.

And always remember- the opening act of aggression in the Civil War was South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter.

 

[Tosh5457]

Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.

In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue, which Greenspan put in practice and Bernanke followed. Corporations can't expect the Fed will be there to lend money when they need, there have to be other solutions, namely more regulation. Now Wall Street will go back to what it always did, certainly partly because they know there's a lender of last resort.

 

[Angry Citizen]

In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.

Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.

 

[Tosh5457]

Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.

Just ending it and putting the gold standard monetary system back would be even better than controlling it. The gold standard brings stability and sound money. Switzerland for example, has a system close to a gold standard, since they have a lot of gold reserves.

Hmm nationalization of all banks is crazy in my opinion, the government can't and shouldn't run an entire sector. What we need is more regulation, and start by putting back the regulations that existed before, like distinguishing between commercial and savings banks.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The gold standard brings stability and sound money.

No it doesn't. In times of economic pain, a gold standard will destroy an economy. Keynesian economics is a proven format - it's just that most nations don't bother to pay down the debt in times of plenty like J.M. Keynes advocated.

 

[vela]

Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue.

The Fed was created specifically to be a lender of last resort. It was supposed to be there to provide loans to otherwise healthy banks when there was a run on them so that they wouldn't collapse and cause a financial panic.

I think Ron Paul is nutty about wanting to go back to a gold standard, but I can understand why he has problems with the Fed. The Fed wields an incredible amount of power over the economy, and its track record has been uneven at best. Reverting to a gold standard would wrest all that power out of the hands of the interests who control it now.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.

The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?