Is Ron Paul a racist?

[Sarge]

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.

I'm all for getting rid of the IRS and the income tax as we know it. But don't go on NATIONAL TV while running for president and have no idea how you are going to replace the revenue.

He had no clue, except to say he'd cut spending. No mention of the Fair Tax, Sales Tax, nothing. Just cut spending.

And who does he think he's going to be dealing with if he ever had to deal with Congress? Dems and a bunch of lukewarm Repubs that spend like Dems.

And is he going to start in his own district?

Dumbass

And bring all the military home. Talk about pie in the sky. How long does he think that the Communist in North Korea will stay in their borders if we leave? An aggressive country whose people are hungry because all they do is spend money on their military. A country has already crossed the border once.

Yeah, let's just leave

But maybe, with his contributions from white supremists and neo Nazi's, he really doesn't care what happens to the little brown people.

And that is only one area where his "foreign policy" or lack thereof, is totally unrealistic

Like I said, time to beam back to the Mothership

[JohnLockesGhost]

And bring all the military home. Talk about pie in the sky. How long does he think that the Communist in North Korea will stay in their borders if we leave? An aggressive country whose people are hungry because all they do is spend money on their military. A country has already crossed the border once.

Yeah, let's just leave

So how long should we stay? 50 years? 100 years? Until the Koreans kick us out like they're about to?

The South Koreans have over 600,000 troops, a larger population, a MUCH stronger economy and much greater military technology. Can't they take care of themselves? Why is unreasonable (pie in the sky) to think that they could?

[Sarge]

So how long should we stay? 50 years? 100 years? Until the Koreans kick us out like they're about to?

The South Koreans have over 600,000 troops, a larger population, a MUCH stronger economy and much greater military technology. Can't they take care of themselves? Why is unreasonable (pie in the sky) to think that they could?

It's not just about helping the Koreans. It's also about having a strategic presence in the area. You know, around the CHICOMS.

If the Koreas want to reconcile on their own, like they're trying to do, fine.Maybe we can get out one day. But the North Koreans don't have almost their entire military parked on the 38th parallel for nothing. They haven't geared their entire military to invade the south for nothing. They don't have enough artillery to drop tens of thousands of round on Seoul for nothing

Only stupid kids that know nothing of history or military operations and idiots think differently

[JohnLockesGhost]

Only stupid kids that know nothing of history or military operations and idiots think differently

Oh, we're coming home one way or another. Either we come home voluntarily soon, or we come home after our economy at home is destroyed and we can't afford it.

Even if I know "nothing" of history I have some suggested reading, Sarge:

A classic.

I think you'll find some remarkable similarities.

[The_cavalierman]

It's not just about helping the Koreans. It's also about having a strategic presence in the area. You know, around the CHICOMS.

If the Koreas want to reconcile on their own, like they're trying to do, fine.Maybe we can get out one day. But the North Koreans don't have almost their entire military parked on the 38th parallel for nothing. They haven't geared their entire military to invade the south for nothing. They don't have enough artillery to drop tens of thousands of round on Seoul for nothing

Only stupid kids that know nothing of history or military operations and idiots think differently

1. China won't allow North Korea to invade the south because China does not want anymore North Korean refugees. China wants stability on their left flank.

2. Should North and South Korea unite and the US withdraws we would still have a presence in the region in Japan (definitely) and Australia (if needed).

3. The only reason the most of the North Korean military is parked near the DMZ is because most of the South Korean military and Americans are parked near the DMZ.

4. North Korea does not have the resources to launch a major campaign against the south even if the Americans withdraw. They have a lot of manpower but their arsenal is the equivalent of 1960's cuba.

I know leaving Korea sounds pie in the sky but if you really study the situation it is not as crazy as it sounds at first glance.

[Mad Mike]

Oh, we're coming home one way or another. Either we come home voluntarily soon, or we come home after our economy at home is destroyed and we can't afford it.

Even if I know "nothing" of history I have some suggested reading, Sarge:

A classic.

I think you'll find some remarkable similarities.

Only one problem....

We are not, nor have we ever been an empire.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Only one problem....

We are not, nor have we ever been an empire.

Roll your eyes all you want. Your argument is strictly semantic. The comparisons are completely valid.

[Mad Mike]

Roll your eyes all you want. Your argument is strictly semantic. The comparisons are completely valid.

No. They are not. Rome ate half of the known world in a frenzy of constant expansion which could not be sustained. I think you are the one who needs to read that book.

[The_cavalierman]

No. They are not. Rome ate half of the known world in a frenzy of constant expansion which could not be sustained. I think you are the one who needs to read that book.

I have to agree with that

The downfall of Rome can be traced to...

1. Unsustainable expansion

2. The dilution of the Roman Army

3. The rise of the barbarians

[Mad Mike]

1. China won't allow North Korea to invade the south because China does not want anymore North Korean refugees. China wants stability on their left flank.

2. Should North and South Korea unite and the US withdraws we would still have a presence in the region in Japan (definitely) and Australia (if needed).

3. The only reason the most of the North Korean military is parked near the DMZ is because most of the South Korean military and Americans are parked near the DMZ.

4. North Korea does not have the resources to launch a major campaign against the south even if the Americans withdraw. They have a lot of manpower but their arsenal is the equivalent of 1960's cuba.

I know leaving Korea sounds pie in the sky but if you really study the situation it is not as crazy as it sounds at first glance.

For a military man you don't understand warfare very well.

Do you have any clue how much artillery N. Korea has and how close it is to Seol?

http://www.rense.com/general37/nkorr.htm

North Korea has 2 artillery corps and 30 artillery brigades equipped with 120mm self-propelled guns, 152mm self-propelled mortars, 170mm guns with a range of 50 km, 240 mm multiple rocket launchers with a range of 45 km, and other heavy guns. North Korea has about 18,000 heavy guns. North Korea's 170mm Goksan gun and 240mm multiple-tube rocket launchers are the most powerful guns of the world. These guns can lob shells as far south as Suwon miles beyond Seoul. The big guns are hidden in caves. Many of them are mounted on rails and can fire in all directions. They can rain 500,000 conventional and biochemical shells per hour on US troops near the DMZ. The US army bases at Yijong-bu, Paju, Yon-chun, Munsan, Ding-gu-chun, and Pochun will be obliterated in a matter of hours.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/images/map-avenue.gif

And yeah, It's all our fault for being there.

[Sarge]

1. China won't allow North Korea to invade the south because China does not want anymore North Korean refugees. China wants stability on their left flank.

China will just close their border and shoot anyone that comes across. Communists are good for this

2. Should North and South Korea unite and the US withdraws we would still have a presence in the region in Japan (definitely) and Australia (if needed).

Japan is an island and would require a navy and airlift to move our troops to mainland China

3. The only reason the most of the North Korean military is parked near the DMZ is because most of the South Korean military and Americans are parked near the DMZ.

That's where the last war left off

4. North Korea does not have the resources to launch a major campaign against the south even if the Americans withdraw. They have a lot of manpower but their arsenal is the equivalent of 1960's cuba.

Great. Do you know how many artillery rounds per hour the North Koreans

can drop on Seoul, and for how long?

I know leaving Korea sounds pie in the sky but if you really study the situation it is not as crazy as it sounds at first glance.

It is pie in the sky

[Baculus]

No. They are not. Rome ate half of the known world in a frenzy of constant expansion which could not be sustained. I think you are the one who needs to read that book.

That isn't true - Rome didn't just expand in a "frenzy of constant expansion." Much of their territories, in particular during the Republic period, were gained by wars that they didn't necessarily start, but gained their involvement - Sound familiar? Some of it was defintely expansionism, and some of it was personal hubris, but some actions were defensive in nature as well.

There are definitely similiarities, and differences as well, between the US's post-colonial holdings and the Roman Empire.

So, not going to even bother to respond to my post regarding your inconsistent position of criticizing the idea of cutting the income tax and your cavalier attitude towards government mishandling of revenue? Is your position that indefensible?

[Baculus]

I'm all for getting rid of the IRS and the income tax as we know it. But don't go on NATIONAL TV while running for president and have no idea how you are going to replace the revenue.

He had no clue, except to say he'd cut spending. No mention of the Fair Tax, Sales Tax, nothing. Just cut spending.

And who does he think he's going to be dealing with if he ever had to deal with Congress? Dems and a bunch of lukewarm Repubs that spend like Dems.

And is he going to start in his own district?

Dumbass

And bring all the military home. Talk about pie in the sky. How long does he think that the Communist in North Korea will stay in their borders if we leave? An aggressive country whose people are hungry because all they do is spend money on their military. A country has already crossed the border once.

Yeah, let's just leave

But maybe, with his contributions from white supremists and neo Nazi's, he really doesn't care what happens to the little brown people.

And that is only one area where his "foreign policy" or lack thereof, is totally unrealistic

Like I said, time to beam back to the Mothership

I agree that solid numbers are always good. Of course, when was the last time we really heard good, accurate solid numbers that were actually implemented? During the 2000 Bush campaign, we heard numbers, but they were either inflated, grossly inaccurate, or just flat out lies.

I guess a balance between inaccuracy and politico-speak would be admittedly nice.

What Ron Paul proposes would actually shrink the government spending to levels of around 1995, but with our current expenditures, it is a question of reality vs idealism. And perhaps our government is so far bloated, it now isn't as feasible as we'd like. But we both now there are programs that can definitely be cut and slashed.

Also, Ron Paul has actually discussed some methods and ideas for cutting taxes and programs, but he has written about these in a series of articles and hasn't always discussed this in interviews, which is disappointing:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul379.html

Also, realistically, I don't see us pulling troops out of Korea, just like I don't see us getting out of Iraq in a short amount of time. But, I believe the theme is true, though - we're in places where we probably have little business, and often supporting folks that really have little in common with American ideals. But, all in all, there are places where we need continued military support, while other locations, we can probably close up shop, which will help consolidate resources in the DoD to where it needs it.

It is this support of anti-democratic forces that has gotten us into trouble in the past and present. So part of the issue really comes down to prudent foreign policy.

[The_cavalierman]

It is pie in the sky

1. China tried the close and shoot policy before and they were still overwhelmed by Korean refugees.

2. Yes logistics from Japan would be difficult but not impossible. Remember, McAuthor did it before with far more primitive means and a bunch of civilian ships.

3. The DMZ is heavily armed by both sides so your point about North Korea's army makes no sense.

4. I know the North Korean Army has everything zeroed artillery wise. You act like the south has no Artillery and no US help to counter.

This is rich....you are being a negative nancy when this can clearly be done. The only reason the neocons want to stay in Korea is strategic foothold.

Taiwan is where you should be worried about a strategic foothold. Far more important IMO.

[Baculus]

I was reading about Fred Thompson's platform on his website, and noticed one thing: He wants to dissolve the IRS!

Gee, I guess he is a loon, too, right, since he wants to dissolve a government agency?

One thing folks forget about Ron Paul: He believes in the Presidency as a position that's limited by checks and balances. Sure, he talks about some of his philosophical ideals (smaller government, less international entanglements, etc...), but really, as President, he wouldn't have the sweeping powers to do everything he discusses, because that one of his criticisms of the current Presidency - powers that overstep the position.

[CMonster]

Here are some of my observations:

• 
  I'll go ahead and interject my thoughts, because RP isn't a great orator or debater. He is, however, honest, a man of integrity and more right in his positions than his debating skills would suggest.
  
• His views on the Middle East continue to scare me. Iran is not a threat to Israel? Oh, you don't say. Iran has no army or navy? Oh, you don't say. I love the part where he says that "anyway, Israel has 300 nuclear weapons". Well, yeah, that's what we've been trying to prevent these last 40 years. A nuclear holocaust in the M.E.
  RP is exactly right about Iran/Israel. Let me assure you that WE, the US, are scared to death of Israel because they have by a wide margin the best intelligence, the best technology and the best military (size notwithstanding) in the world. They have 300 nukes and are not afraid to use them. They are also a small country isolated in the ME surrounded by countries that hate them, making them a caged animal that everyone is afraid of.
  Iran has the equivalent of a 3rd world military and no nukes (which is why it's absurd that the US would be worried about them). They know very well that if they actually attacked Israel, Israel would nuke them back to the stone age.
  
• His denials about statements he made concerning abolishing social security was comical. First, he said he must have been misquoted. Then, he said it wasn't part of his platform. Yeah, right, gotcha.
  Let's not try to parse semantics. RP wants to phase out entitlements sooner rather than later, but his platform is not to drop social security as it is to drop income taxes.
  
• His defense of earmarks that he supported were equally comical. Yeah, we know Dr. Paul, that it's part of the current system. We just all thought you were trying to change the current system, not be actively involved in the worst parts of it.
  It wasn't comical, it just wasn't well articulated. Trying to suggest that RP isn't principled or is guilty of double talk is silly. RP has consistently voted to downsize government and taxes which is the fundamental system that supports and allows earmarks.
  As a representative of a district his constituents contribute a sum total of tax dollars each year. If he didn't try to get get earmarks into bills then his constituents would get nothing for their tax dollars.
  You are trying to blame RP for the very system he's trying to change.
  
• Yeah, Dr. Paul, let's deport immigrant babies and children that were born here. That'll solve all of our immigration problems. :doh:
  I don't think he ever said that deporting children was the answer to all of the country's immigration problems. If you disagree with that position, great. I happen to disagree with that myself.
  
• 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)
  I think RP made it quite clear that this wasn't a "white supremecist" issue and rather a constitutional issue.
  
• Ronald Reagan is a traitor, but he never really said it. Reagan is a total failure, yet he has photos of him in his campaign literature. Does he ever mean what he says?
  He explained this quite clearly. Reagan, like Bush 2, ran on THE SAME PLATFORM THAT RP IS RUNNING ON and then did the opposite thing once in office. Stop trying to reduce political campaigns to 1 sentence sound bytes. Some things need more than 1 sentence to explain.
  

I think he hurt himself more than helped himself in this interview. He was evasive on most topics and came off as being dishonest on a lot of his answers. His responses were jittery and his thoughts were unorganized. He was far from being "presidential".

The "jittery and unorganized" really goes to the point that RP isn't a great orator. However, I find it hilarious that someone would claim that to be "far from presidential" after 7+years of a president who has trouble completing thoughts and sentences and often knows very little about the topic at hand.

[CMonster]

That isn't true - Rome didn't just expand in a "frenzy of constant expansion." Much of their territories, in particular during the Republic period, were gained by wars that they didn't necessarily start, but gained their involvement - Sound familiar? Some of it was defintely expansionism, and some of it was personal hubris, but some actions were defensive in nature as well.

There are definitely similiarities, and differences as well, between the US's post-colonial holdings and the Roman Empire.

So, not going to even bother to respond to my post regarding your inconsistent position of criticizing the idea of cutting the income tax and your cavalier attitude towards government mishandling of revenue? Is your position that indefensible?

Anyone unwilling to acknowledge that there are mutiple parallels between the fall of the Roman Empire and where we are today in the US is in denial.

[TrumanB]

However, I find it hilarious that someone would claim that to be "far from presidential" after 7+years of a president who has trouble completing thoughts and sentences and often knows very little about the topic at hand.

Uh, yeah, I don't believe Bush has been very presidential himself, despite being in office for 7+ years. What does that have anything to do with Ron Paul?

[CMonster]

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

This I do not understand.

I fail to see what made GWB "qualified". He merely failed at everything he tried in his life.

Rudy Giuiiani knows less about foreign policy than most college students majoring in foreign policy and relations and failed so miserably at preparing NYC for a terrorist attack that it's comical.

Obama has been a senator for 1 term. Hillary Clinton is a 2 term senator whose only major initiative (Health Care) failed miserably (although I wouldn't put the blame all on her).

You'll have to explain what "qualifies" the other candidates.

Methinks the answer is adherence the status quo, unfortunately.

[CMonster]

Uh, yeah, I don't believe Bush has been very presidential himself, despite being in office for 7+ years. What does that have anything to do with Ron Paul?

Because being "Presidential" is just campaign tricks. No one is more "presidential" than Romney and that's all the more reason not to vote for him.

How about we vote for the best person who has the best ideas and stop worrying about who "looks" or "seems" the part.

[TrumanB]

This I do not understand.

I fail to see what made GWB "qualified". He merely failed at everything he tried in his life.

Rudy Giuiiani knows less about foreign policy than most college students majoring in foreign policy and relations and failed so miserably at preparing NYC for a terrorist attack that it's comical.

Obama has been a senator for 1 term. Hillary Clinton is a 2 term senator whose only major initiative (Health Care) failed miserably (although I wouldn't put the blame all on her).

You'll have to explain what "qualifies" the other candidates.

Methinks the answer is adherence the status quo, unfortunately.

Uh, I don't support any of those candidates you just mentioned. None of them. So, I fail to see your point. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am leaning towards McCain on the Republican side and Biden on the Democrat side. Both of whom I believe are the most qualified and experienced out of all of them. I don't think there's any of the current candidates that are even close to these two.

[TrumanB]

How about we vote for the best person who has the best ideas and stop worrying about who "looks" or "seems" the part.

Show me where I said anything about "looks". His thoughts were unorganized and he tended to ramble in his answers. I would expect a 10 term congressman to conduct himself better than that. Anyways, besides the poor communication skills, 75% of his ideas are straight up crazy. I have more of an issue with that than his inability to put a coherent thought together.

[CMonster]

As to the North Korea/South Korea issue, this should be CLEAR AS DAY:

1) Given that our debt is reaching unmanageable proportions, and if you believe (as many of you do) that we need to be in the Middle East because of Islamofacism (or whatever term you have been scared by), can we AFFORD to be in Korea?

2) Isn't China more concerned with what happens over there than we are?

3) If we believe that we are the primary arbiter of what should happen between North/South Korea than how do you argue that we are NOT an empire? That would be the definition of an empire.

We have HUGE problems at home both economically and with our national security so why are we interested in Korea?

[CMonster]

Uh, I don't support any of those candidates you just mentioned. None of them. So, I fail to see your point. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I am leaning towards McCain on the Republican side and Biden on the Democrat side. Both of whom I believe are the most qualified and experienced out of all of them. I don't think there's any of the current candidates that are even close to these two.

Interesting.

Biden would be a great choice. As you said he's qualified and experienced and he was one of the only guys who was right about Iraq from the begining (Ron Paul and Obama being the others).

I'm a little confused how you could also be considering McCain, whose position on Iraq has made him look a little silly. His "surge is working" stance has been comical considering that no political progress has occurred nor did it ever have a chance.

I don't like him for his absurd foreign policy positions and the way he embarassed himself pandering to GWB in 2000.

[CMonster]

Show me where I said anything about "looks". His thoughts were unorganized and he tended to ramble in his answers. I would expect a 10 term congressman to conduct himself better than that. Anyways, besides the poor communication skills, 75% of his ideas are straight up crazy. I have more of an issue with that than his inability to put a coherent thought together.

Because it does not matter if he rambles or communicates poorly if he consistently has the correct answer.

THAT'S the point. It's having the answer. Not looking, or sounding, the part.