Is Ron Paul a racist?

[#98QBKiller]

Oh, so you don't support the 1964 Civil Rights Act do you, Dr. Paul? How "Strom Thurmond" of you. That'll keep those white supremecist donations coming in. (private property rights my ass)

Yeah that was a weak answer he gave to that question.

[#98QBKiller]

Weren't we going to mecilessly shame, mock and terrorize the next person that started a Crazy Uncle thread?

:laugh: Crazy Uncle

[TMK9973]

I just wacthed it.

Here is my honest answer

1) On 9/11 - I thought he answered ok. Sounded reasonable. Nothing to bad. Eaither you belive it or you dont.

2) Earmarks - Man, he was owned! He resorted to the same thing RP supporters here end up doing "Um- Your confused" or "You just don't understand enough". It was almost comical.

Tim:You put 64 earmarks in the bill for your area. correct?

RP: Well - I didn't vote for them. You are confused about where I stand. I voted against all of the earmarks that I put in the bill.

Seems very lost.

3) Money - Wow - He seemed like a idiot. Get rid of income tax (1 trillion) and we will be find because we will bring home all troops (Hundards of Billion of $$'s). And pay down the debt. What about the rest.

BTW - Does anyone thing what would happen to unemployement rate? Ron Paul wants to bring home over 550,000 troops, and drasticly shrink the federal goverement. Your talking about close to a million people now out of work. What happens to them?

My wife, who is college educated and very smart, but doesn't ussally follow politics until a month before the primary's, watched him. She said "WHo is this?" I said "Ron Paul. Raising a lot of money. Your brother is looking at him closely. He is a intresting candidate". She watched him and then at the end says "Wow - He is a loon. People seriously want to vote for this guy?"

[JohnLockesGhost]

BTW - Does anyone thing what would happen to unemployement rate? Ron Paul wants to bring home over 550,000 troops, and drasticly shrink the federal goverement. Your talking about close to a million people now out of work. What happens to them?

You should read some Frederic Bastiat. You are committing the fallacy of the Broken Window.

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

II. THE DISBANDING OF TROOPS

It is the same with a people as it is with a man. If it wishes to give itself some gratification, it naturally considers whether it is worth what it costs. To a nation, security is the greatest of advantages. If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to have an army of a hundred thousand men, I have nothing to say against it. It is an enjoyment bought by a sacrifice. Let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position. A member of the assembly proposes to disband a hundred thousand men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of a hundred millions.

If we confine ourselves to this answer - "The hundred millions of men, and these hundred millions of money, are indispensable to the national security: it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be torn by factions, or invaded by some foreign power," - I have nothing to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy. The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody.

Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal has taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say - "Disband a hundred thousand men! do you know what you are saying? What will become of them? Where will they get a living? Don't you know that work is scarce everywhere? That every field is overstocked? Would you turn them out of doors to increase competition, and weigh upon the rate of wages? Just now, when it is a hard matter to live at all, it would be a pretty thing if the State must find bread for a hundred thousand individuals? Consider, besides, that the army consumes wine, clothing, arms - that it promotes the activity of manufactures in garrison towns - that it is, in short, the god-send of innumerable purveyors. Why, any one must tremble at the bare idea of doing away with this immense industrial movement."

This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the service, and from economical considerations. It is these considerations only that I have to refute.

A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-payers a hundred millions of money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred millions can supply. This is that which is seen.

But, a hundred millions taken from the pockets of the tax-payers, cease to maintain these taxpayers and the purveyors, as far as a hundred minions reach. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Cast up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?

[Mad Mike]

You should read some Frederic Bastiat. You are committing the fallacy of the Broken Window.

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Yeah, that worked out real well for france.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Yeah, that worked out real well for france.

Shall I quote it again???

If we confine ourselves to this answer - "The hundred millions of men, and these hundred millions of money, are indispensable to the national security: it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be torn by factions, or invaded by some foreign power," - I have nothing to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy. The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody.

I was addressing the point that any cuts to the military will result in unemployment. It's a fallacy.

[The_cavalierman]

My advice to ron paul supporters.....Don't waste your time and your vote

This is coming from a Democrat that really likes what Paul has to say. I think Paul has a lot of good things that the republican party would do well to adopt into their platform but simply put...they wont.

According to all of the polls for the primaries Paul is a non-factor in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Personally I would love to see him doing better because that would mean some of his ideas would have to be taken seriously by the rest of the GOP but that ain't happening.

I really hope RP pulls off something miraculous but realistically speaking he might have faired better as an independent.

[TMK9973]

Shall I quote it again???

I was addressing the point that any cuts to the military will result in unemployment. It's a fallacy.

Actually - It's not.

I understand that a wise man once stated that it's a fallacy. But History shows it's not. Go back to the revoltuanry war, Vietnam, or even just the base closings in the 90's.

When large troops are brought home, or released from duty, unemployement rises, which casues econmoics to suffer.

[JohnLockesGhost]

My advice to ron paul supporters.....Don't waste your time and your vote.

Perhaps the most disgusting sentiment being expressed by his detractors. I'm supposed to change what I know to be right because of what others might think. Assuming the polls are accurate, Paul won't win. Fine. I'm not going to abandon the one man who speaks for me regarding just war, sound economic policy and constitutionalism. Are we now supposed to elect our president based on who can win? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Have you ever heard of the beauty pageant phenomenon?

If you (and a panel of others) were shown a line-up of women and asked which one do YOU think is the most beautiful, the distribution would be a bell-shaped curve.

However, if you were asked which one do you think the OTHER people think is the most beautiful, the distribution is random. Do you really think THIS should be our mentality when choosing who we should vote for?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Actually - It's not.

I understand that a wise man once stated that it's a fallacy. But History shows it's not. Go back to the revoltuanry war, Vietnam, or even just the base closings in the 90's.

When large troops are brought home, or released from duty, unemployement rises, which casues econmoics to suffer.

So why not just draft everyone into the military and have zero unemployment?

[Mad Mike]

Shall I quote it again???

I was addressing the point that any cuts to the military will result in unemployment. It's a fallacy.

A) You cant ignore the security repercussions. If you are talking about reducing the military and pulling out of forward bases, security should be your FIRST concern, not something you ignore because it's not what you are trying to make a point about.

Unless you have facts and figures that can be correlated to the 1.5 TRILLION dollars of spending that Paul wants to cut, you are doing nothing but quoting someone's theories. No one in human history has ever even seriously suggested cutting 1.5 trillion dollars from a national budget, much less done it and to think it can be done without vast and unpredicted consequences is just insane.

Ron Paul is a loon.

[Mad Mike]

So why not just draft everyone into the military and have zero unemployment?

I see. Because it's crazy to draft everyone, you must be correct. Got it.

[jbooma]

So why not just draft everyone into the military and have zero unemployment?

WTF :doh:

[JohnLockesGhost]

A) You cant ignore the security repercussions. If you are talking about reducing the military and pulling out of forward bases, security should be your FIRST concern, not something you ignore because it's not what you are trying to make a point about.

If security is your first concern, fine. Argue that. I'm just pointing out (and Bastiat) that security (or soldiers more accurately) has a cost. We PAY for it. Don't twist something we PAY for into an economic positive.

[Baculus]

Mike Huckabee ALSO wants to abolish the income tax. As a quote from his website: "But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment." So I guess he is just as crazy, right? That looney Mike Huckabee!

As a side note, Huckabee and others such as Ron Paul ARE right - if the government didn't keep increasing its spending, we wouldn't need an income tax. And that is part of the issue that some of you are missing in this whole debate: Federal spending and the hidden "taxes" that we have to deal with, such as the devauling dollar and inflation. This issue is more then just about income taxes - it is about how our government raises and spends money.

I mean, really, I have mentioned on this board several times about the over $3 TRILLION in missing DOD finances, as well as the missing $57 billion from HUD's past budgets, and did any of you say anything? No. Not a peep. The government loses billions and trillions, and some of you just shrug your shoulders and don't say a word. But, man, suggest the idea of abolishing income tax and some federal departments, and you guys are up in arms. I am not really not sure what to make of that, either.

It also must be noted that abolishing the income tax is also a libertarian concept and as been part of the Libertarian national platform for a while. So Ron Paul isn't a "lone nut" - he is merely expressive a value that libertarians and some conservatives (and small government, traditional liberals) have had for a while.

Many of you guys who have posted on here are the same ones who have been criticizing Ron Paul previously, so it really sounds like the same broken thread, except on a slightly different subject. Not really anything new there, as far as your replies. Some of you are neo-cons, who believe in the idea of large government and activist foreign policy, which is a "liberal" foreign policy, as well as the large government "liberal" element. So, of course some of you aren't going to agree with his policies - the philosophies are just too divergent.

Karl Marx was a great advocate of a progressive tax system, which is what we have in this nation. So, on that note, I guess some folks here agree with Karl Marx. And considering that some of you support big government, an activist foreign policy, and progressive taxes...to what does that sound similar? Oh yea - communism!

Good going, comrades. ;-)

[JohnLockesGhost]

I see. Because it's crazy to draft everyone, you must be correct. Got it.

Once again, just using a rhetorical question to point out the obvious that there is no ECONOMICAL benefit to having soldiers.

The same argument was made by people who said Hurricane Katrina would be good for the economy because it would cause people to hire carpenters to rebuild houses. Well, by that logic we should hope for constant hurricanes (with no deaths of course). Think of all the jobs this would create.

[JohnLockesGhost]

WOOHOO! Go Bills. 14-0.

[Mad Mike]

If security is your first concern, fine. Argue that. I'm just pointing out (and Bastiat) that security (or soldiers more accurately) has a cost. We PAY for it. Don't twist something we PAY for into an economic positive.

It IS an economic positive. Its called valuable return on investment.

[Mad Mike]

Mike Huckabee ALSO wants to abolish the income tax. As a quote from his website: "But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment." So I guess he is just as crazy, right? That looney Mike Huckabee!

As a side note, Huckabee and others such as Ron Paul ARE right - if the government didn't keep increasing its spending, we wouldn't need an income tax. And that is part of the issue that some of you are missing in this whole debate: Federal spending and the hidden "taxes" that we have to deal with, such as the devauling dollar and inflation. This issue is more then just about income taxes - it is about how our government raises and spends money.

I mean, really, I have mentioned on this board several times about the over $3 TRILLION in missing DOD finances, as well as the missing $57 billion from HUD's past budgets, and did any of you say anything? No. Not a peep. The government loses billions and trillions, and some of you just shrug your shoulders and don't say a word. But, man, suggest the idea of abolishing income tax and some federal departments, and you guys are up in arms. I am not really not sure what to make of that, either.

It also must be noted that abolishing the income tax is also a libertarian concept and as been part of the Libertarian national platform for a while. So Ron Paul isn't a "lone nut" - he is merely expressive a value that libertarians and some conservatives (and small government, traditional liberals) have had for a while.

Mabt of you guys who have posted on here are the same ones who have been criticizing Ron Paul previously, so it really sounds like the same broken thread, except on a slightly different subject. Not really anything new there, as far as your replies. Some of you are neo-cons, who believe in the idea of large government and activist foreign policy, which is a "liberal" foreign policy, as well as the large government "liberal" element. So, of course some of you aren't going to agree with his policies - the philosophies are just too divergent.

Karl Marx was a great advocate of a progressive tax system, which is what we have in this nation. So, on that note, I guess some folks here agree with Karl Marx. And considering that some of you support big government, an activist foreign policy, and progressive taxes...to what does that sound similar? Oh yea - communism!

Good going, comrades. ;-)

Then Huckabee is also a LOON.

[Baculus]

A) You cant ignore the security repercussions. If you are talking about reducing the military and pulling out of forward bases, security should be your FIRST concern, not something you ignore because it's not what you are trying to make a point about.

Unless you have facts and figures that can be correlated to the 1.5 TRILLION dollars of spending that Paul wants to cut, you are doing nothing but quoting someone's theories. No one in human history has ever even seriously suggested cutting 1.5 trillion dollars from a national budget, much less done it and to think it can be done without vast and unpredicted consequences is just insane.

Ron Paul is a loon.

Ron Paul is not a loon. It is not crazy to suggest that we have our troops in too many nations, and being used in manners in which we have little business in using our military. Pulling our troops out of many areas, in which their presence makes little sense, is not going to compromise our security.

We currently have over 250,000 men and women in over 140 countries and in over 700 bases - that is a bit much. Here an image that has a tiny bit of information:

http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/usmilitarymap.jpg

As a said in an earlier post, the DoD couldn't track of over $3 trillion of its spending - this was announced by Rumsfeld in 2001. If the government can't account for trillions of its own spending, do you THINK it is plausible that we could cut about a trillion dollars in spending? Are you really enamored by the increases of federal spending we have had and with our borrow and spend policies, that we can't find any way to cut billions of the budget?

Is it possible that bloated budgets could be cut and pork barrel projects reduced?

It also comes down to this, Mike - do we cut the budget, or do we keep borrowing money and raising the federal budget? We have spent trillions in nationa debt interest rates over the last decade, too - so where does it end?

You don't seem to mind when the government mishandles money, or we have to spend trillions just on the INTEREST of the money we keep borrowing and spending, while we keep increasing our federal spending. But to reduce that spending, you howl with anger and call Paul a loon.

What is loonier?

This goes hand in hand with a lower income tax - if you reduce taxes, you have to reduce spending.

I will say this - don't think Ron Paul would accomplish reducing federal spending by that great amount, since he would have to work with Congress, but it is the philosophy of reducing federal spending that is important.

And it isn't looney - it is a concept that is as Red, White, and Blue as apple pie, Ronald Reagan, and a humble, citizen-serving government.

[Koolblue13]

Mike Huckabee ALSO wants to abolish the income tax. As a quote from his website: "But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment." So I guess he is just as crazy, right? That looney Mike Huckabee!

As a side note, Huckabee and others such as Ron Paul ARE right - if the government didn't keep increasing its spending, we wouldn't need an income tax. And that is part of the issue that some of you are missing in this whole debate: Federal spending and the hidden "taxes" that we have to deal with, such as the devauling dollar and inflation. This issue is more then just about income taxes - it is about how our government raises and spends money.

I mean, really, I have mentioned on this board several times about the over $3 TRILLION in missing DOD finances, as well as the missing $57 billion from HUD's past budgets, and did any of you say anything? No. Not a peep. The government loses billions and trillions, and some of you just shrug your shoulders and don't say a word. But, man, suggest the idea of abolishing income tax and some federal departments, and you guys are up in arms. I am not really not sure what to make of that, either.

It also must be noted that abolishing the income tax is also a libertarian concept and as been part of the Libertarian national platform for a while. So Ron Paul isn't a "lone nut" - he is merely expressive a value that libertarians and some conservatives (and small government, traditional liberals) have had for a while.

Mabt of you guys who have posted on here are the same ones who have been criticizing Ron Paul previously, so it really sounds like the same broken thread, except on a slightly different subject. Not really anything new there, as far as your replies. Some of you are neo-cons, who believe in the idea of large government and activist foreign policy, which is a "liberal" foreign policy, as well as the large government "liberal" element. So, of course some of you aren't going to agree with his policies - the philosophies are just too divergent.

Karl Marx was a great advocate of a progressive tax system, which is what we have in this nation. So, on that note, I guess some folks here agree with Karl Marx. And considering that some of you support big government, an activist foreign policy, and progressive taxes...to what does that sound similar? Oh yea - communism!

Good going, comrades. ;-)

Great post as usual B. Once again, the same people need to be reminded of what thier views actually are or suppost to be. It's funny.

[The_cavalierman]

Perhaps the most disgusting sentiment being expressed by his detractors. I'm supposed to change what I know to be right because of what others might think. Assuming the polls are accurate, Paul won't win. Fine. I'm not going to abandon the one man who speaks for me regarding just war, sound economic policy and constitutionalism. Are we now supposed to elect our president based on who can win? Isn't that self-fulfilling?

Have you ever heard of the beauty pageant phenomenon?

If you (and a panel of others) were shown a line-up of women and asked which one do YOU think is the most beautiful, the distribution would be a bell-shaped curve.

However, if you were asked which one do you think the OTHER people think is the most beautiful, the distribution is random. Do you really think THIS should be our mentality when choosing who we should vote for?

I Like Paul and I respect your right to stand by your candidate but IMO your best hope is that Paul lasts long enough and does well enough to at least influence the platform of the GOP going into the GOP convention.

:2cents:

[JohnLockesGhost]

I Like Paul and I respect your right to stand by your candidate but IMO your best hope is that Paul lasts long enough and does well enough to at least influence the platform of the GOP going into the GOP convention.

:2cents:

Appreciate that, bro.

Go Bills!

[TrumanB]

Great post as usual B. Once again, the same people need to be reminded of what thier views actually are or suppost to be. It's funny.

Well, his post would be great if it were actually true. Contrary to popular belief by Paul supporters, the anti-Paul supporters are not all neo-cons and big government proponents.

I believe in a much smaller federal government and a saner foreign policy. I want to reduce the federal income tax, reform the IRS, eliminate wasteful spending, and put an end to pork and earmarks (something that Paul has shown that he actually partakes in). Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax and the IRS altogether, neither of which is practical or realistic. His foreign policy views are stupid, simplistic, and outright dangerous. I didn't support the Iraq invasion and believe those forces should be permanently removed as soon and as safely as possible. But, I believe a large portion of those forces should be redeployed to Afghanistan and I believe we need to make a push for finding and killing Bin Laden, even if that means venturing into Pakistan to do it.

Paul has proven, once again, in this interview that he is not qualified to lead this country.

[Koolblue13]

Well, his post would be great if it were actually true. Contrary to popular belief by Paul supporters, the anti-Paul supporters are not all neo-cons and big government proponents.

I believe in a much smaller federal government and a saner foreign policy. I want to reduce the federal income tax, reform the IRS, eliminate wasteful spending, and put an end to pork and earmarks (something that Paul has shown that he actually partakes in). Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax and the IRS altogether, neither of which is practical or realistic. His foreign policy views are stupid, simplistic, and outright dangerous. I didn't support the Iraq invasion and believe those forces should be permanently removed as soon and as safely as possible. But, I believe a large portion of those forces should be redeployed to Afghanistan and I believe we need to make a push for finding and killing Bin Laden, even if that means venturing into Pakistan to do it.

Paul has proven, once again, in this interview that he is not qualified to lead this country.

I havn't seen it yet, so I won't coment on that. I am a RP supporter for two reasons. 1. I agree with his forign policy 2. I agree with the consumer deciding where thier money goes. I don't like being forced by my gov't to give billions to other countries, especially ones we end up in wars with or how primary crops are drugs. Our gov't has gotten way out of hand and does what ever it wants and I want it back. If Paul can't do it, he will at least open a lot of eyes trying. For that he has my support.