I apologize for the very long post btw.
While Dr. Paul does have some valid points and indeed a few decent ideas, the problem with him is that where he's wrong, he's just so off the radar as to be slightly insane.
I wouldn’t say slightly insane and off the radar. As much as I want him as president, He does have a few policies that I do disagree with, but the good far outweighs the bad. However, sometimes Paul’s bad is let’s say Romney’s good. I need to go back and see everybody else’s views on things like energy.
Any person that promises to bring the past back by getting rid of programs we have today, that have been in place for decades is flatly deluded.
I do know there are a couple things Paul wants to get rid of. However saying “getting rid of programs” is a broad generalization. Mind sharing a few of these programs?
A lot of people are upset about President Obama signing the NDAA, but lets face it, we've already had indefinite detention, secret prisons, and 'extraordinary rendition' for years. YEARS.
NDAA within itself isn’t the problem. It is what the Repubs added into it that Obama passed that has everybody’s pants in a bunch. Section 1021 and 1032 to be exact.
What these Article allow that wasn’t in the past NDAA is the fact that the President can declare US Citizens as potential terrorists, and demand they be locked up indefinitely through the Military and it can be such. These are not POWs like it was in the past, these are US Citizens who voted for Him into office. The ONLY requirement for such is Obama simply saying, “Hey, I think he’s a terrorist”, and the Armed Forces are now swarming you. That’s it. Obama, realistically wouldn’t do this, but what makes you think future Presidents won’t do this? As mentioned before, no Trials, no due process, no habeus corpus.
Section 1021 and 1032 were not in the past NDAA passed bills. That is why now is different as opposed to the rest of the 49 years of NDAA. It’s the 1st time NDAA officially goes after USA citizens. It even gives our military authority over the Police, where it’s the Police’s job to capture and detain US criminals. However, unlike the Police, due to what is allowed, you don’t even need to commit a crime at all, even have a clean history to be labeled by the President as “a potential terrorist” and be detained.
In all fairness, I haven’t necessarily read the entire thing, though you don’t have to to know what they can and can’t do, but here’s a PDF file of it:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1540enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1540enr.pdf
Remember when all that flap about secret prisons came out during the Iraq war? Those prisons and systems didn't spring up magically overnight. In fact, I'd speculate that we could probably trace that sort of shady business all the way back to McCarthy. We've had an NDAA for decades, and there are all sorts of shady crappy things in each of them. Feel free to go back and read a few.
I agree and concur here. That being said, it still doesn’t justify the shady business.
People are upset about Obama allowing the Patriot act to be extended, but why the fuck weren't they upset about it in the first place? I sure as hell was.
I agree, but I don’t think people were that really educated on the Patriot Act at the time Bush signed it. Even then, we were still in a scare with 9/11.
It’s kind of like right now with the SOPA act. Not really anybody really knows what it’s about, and Congress is trying to pass it secretly or without much attention. SOPA literally is threatening the entire existence of not only our freedoms of speech, but the internet itself in the USA (unless you look for a back door and find yourself an internet service that connects you to the internet in the UK or Canada or something).
But I'll be honest here, if it's a choice between President Obama or any of these theocrats? I'll take President Obama. I'd *prefer* that we had qualified and decent candidates from multiple parties, but that just isn't going to happen.
The only real solutions are:
1) MUCH more voter participation and education. Not just filter bubble education either.
2) ... that's it really. People just need to be informed and participatory.
For too long our electorate has demanded bumper sticker solutions for textbook sized problems.
People like the current crop of GOP contenders are perfect examples of this. Even the so called educated Dr. Paul is suggesting very simplistic solutions.
Concerning the textbook sized problems, I think they aren’t even textbook problems. They are quite simplistic that has been taken out of hand. We got into debt, what do you do? You set up a budget and get out of debt.
"get rid of the FED" Firstly, the president doesn't have that power, secondly, the FED actually does a fair number of important things. What would he replace them with? Nothing. How is that a recipe for anything but an unmitigated disaster?
Alright, what I don’t get is, President doesn’t have the power to remove FED, but President Nixon had the power to sign it into law? According to wikipedia, this happened around the Great Depression, and if we are to listen to the media, we are heading to another Great Depression so if Great Depression is a requirement for changing the monetary systems, now would be a pretty good time.
Gold Standard/FED aside, even if you are correct and that this can’t happen (despite Bush getting us into the Iraqi war illegally without an official Declaration of War), Ron Paul until recently was the ONLY candidate who had a plan or even talked about removing 1 trillion off of our National Debt within the 1st year in office. Before then, Ron was the only candidate who even spoke of it, much less made it a priority. You can’t move forward without getting rid of what is dragging us down, and this Debt is what’s dragging us down.
He is also still the only candidate who’s going to start cutting spending by starting with his paycheck from 400,000 to 39,, his benefits by accepting none of them, and a refusal to take any expensive vacations or vacations at all while in office.
So, even if he can’t change from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard, he still is the only candidate who actually has a plan to decrease our debt, whereas guys like Santorum (even admitted in the NH debates), Romney, and the rest, are just going to keep on spending and eventually bankrupt us or maybe extend our allowed debt to the sextillions or something.
You will need to go into more details of replacing things with. That is a pretty broad generalization there.
"seal the border" like it's an easy 1 + 1 solution. I haven't heard anybody addressing the real reason why we have a lot of influx at the border int he first place. It's nave to think it's just seal-able like that.
The easy answer would be Drug Cartels, bad Mexican economy, pretty much, it’s because of Mexico that Mexicans are coming over. I really don’t blame them neither. My problem is when the illegals get more rights as illegals than my Mexican friends who have to pay taxes, get less rights, less grants and tuitions etc. all because they are US citizens as opposed to illegal immigrants. Before anything else I do want to make clear, yes I know that the Natives are treated as 2nd class citizens despite the fact that this is their land, and I honestly believe the Natives deserve much better than what the US gives them.
I honestly like Paul’s plan on the border, where we will be using our troops to secure the border instead of all over the planet like we do now.
I don't know why people are forgiving him so easily for the prejudicial and/or racist commentary made in the newsletters that bear his name. Either he has no oversight ability as his name means nothing to him because he allows people to publish whatever they want, or he agrees that blacks are, on the whole, thieving, gun-toting, AIDS-injecting thugs that run quicker than whites would expect. Obama doesn't express the same viewpoints as Rev Wright, but Obama is grilled for Wright's comments merely because he attended the same church over which Rev Wright presides. However, Ron Paul issues newsletters in his name that speak against anyone who isn't lily-white and the issue barely gets much play on TV or in newspapers. Did anyone hound Paul about this issue as much as they hounded Obama over Rev Wright? No. A few questions here and there, that's all. Is the mass media a little racist, too? Maybe, maybe not. The mass media is largely ignoring Ron Paul. He's like the guy at the accident scene who is behind the reporter, waves to the camera and yells "Hi, Mom!" They try to ignore him but since they can't video the accident scene without including him, he is not out of the picture.
Over and over again, yet people still need to bring this up.
exactly. I dearly wish we still had required civics courses in school. And Ron Paul is just one more who wants plenty of gov't to control anything *he*" doesn't like whilst claiming that he wants less intrusion into his life.
Velkyn, with all due respect, I have heard this from you many times. Would it be alright to provide evidence for the accusations against Ron Paul? If RP is doing anything, he is creating more rights than anything.
He is pro-life, not pro-choice, and he is giving the states the power to allow or disallow abortions. Has nothing to do with his own personal views.
He is not removing Social Security. He is going to give the young people the option to bail out of SS or to keep it.
As you see in the videos, he want’s to legalize drugs instead of having many people put in prison.
Sounds nothing like government control to me. You may be confusing Paul with Santorum.
I love the fact he wants to return from the Federal Reserve to the Gold Standard. Since Gold is constantly going up in value and price, that move should immediately make our money worth a little bit more to the rest of the world.
I'm no economist, but my understanding is it isn't that simple. In fact, in many ways it is returning to a more primitive system that has less flexibility and makes recessions and depressions more likely and more difficult to deal with. On top of that, it is not as if gold has inherent value any more than say, wool or lumber or ivory or potable water.
Here are some links for you to peruse:
http://www.pkarchive.org/cranks/goldbug.html this one points out that the gold standard is akin to saying it is an objective measure of wealth
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/15/gold-standard-forty-years-gone-and-good-riddance/ relates it to ron paul. Note in his first quote where he talks about gold having "real value". That is like talking about objective morals.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/why-is-the-gold-standard-crazy/2407/ a ron paul criticism from 2007. Still true today.
Thank you very much for this screwtape. It will give me something to research on. With this being said, I also agree overall that it isn’t that simple. Nothing will change overnight. It will be a gradual change. I do agree that gold, nor anything really, has any inherent value of it’s own. It’s what we give to it that gives it it’s value.
It is just atm, you present a FED note or a lump of gold to somebody, and more than likely, they are going to take the gold clump instead of the FED note. That is what shows you the current worth of our current currency.
With this being said, I don’t doubt MadBunny’s words being true that RP may not be able to go back to the gold standard. Realistically, I know to many in the GOP are going to stop him from doing such. But with the 1 bad idea if it indeed is, as I’ve mentioned, he has a lot of good ideas and is mainly the only candidate who really has a desire to rid of our national debt FED or gold standard.