Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Astrocreep]

ron paul is the ralph nader of 2008

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Uncle Duke

NOT ISOLATIONISM, JOHN! I swear, it's shit like this that kills me about the MSM. They should call people out on bullshit and faggotry like this but they just let it slide. The sad thing is there are idiotic SOBs out there in this country with the combined IQ of a hot steaming turd that will take shit like this as the gospel truth; these are the same people who have been failed by their fellow human beings by preventing Darwinism from doing it's natural duty. It's the same thing with hearing Republicans state that this is a Christian nation and people believing that line of horse shit. Learn about Madison, Jefferson, Washington and you'll find they have a very healthy distrust of the Church with regards to maintaining a free society...but that's another can of worms...

McCain is done for after this debate. He had one shining moment and that was taking Romney to task on the torture issue. Outside of that, he offered nothing new or moving; if anything, McCain regurgitated the same policies of the current administration. Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani regurgitated the same shit they always do. Fred looked so dis-interested I'm wondering why he's even running.

I would've loved to hear more about Paul's ideas if they would give him fucking time but of course CNN has an agenda - as evident by the Clinton plant question (not saying it wasn't a valid question because it very much is - what I'm pointing out merely is the agenda the news agencies have). These are the days where I miss having the League of Women's Voters running the debates - you know, when issues were actually DISCUSSED and you couldn't wiggle out of shit.

You're a fucking moron.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Araxen

lol, I got a chuckle last night, He believes there's an imaginary road being built as an international highway(from mexico to canada) as this big conspiracy theory. It's scary people are actually behind this guy.

An imaginary road?

Pat Buchanan on the NAFTA Super Highway

Lou Dobbs on the NAFTA Super Highway

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America homepage

I'm not one to jump up and down to scream conspiracy here, but this right here smacks of shenanigans. You think this country's immigration problem is bad now? You haven't seen nothing yet not to mention that a lot of the land being acquired for this effort is being taken through "Eminent Domain" via the courts and the Federal government.

We used to have amazing manufacturing in this country; now we send all of those jobs to China and India but don't create new jobs in the process to counter the loss. Quality of life for Indians and Chinese are rising and dramatic rates; our quality of life has remained stagnant for the last 15 years. Don't think so? Look at the increase in wages/salaries of the average American worker over this time versus the average CEO's standard pay and compensation packages. A 1-2% increase overall for the former versus over 400% total for the latter.

Am I saying that we shouldn't trade with other countries? Hell no. However, we continue to put ourselves at at distinct disadvantage through agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, and other various "Free Trade" agreements that destroy US sovereignty so a very small percentage of the population (politicians, lobbyists and corporate CEOs) reap the rewards. FFS, look at our "Free Trade" with China if you want a more glaring example of how well our current "Free Trade" policies have worked for us.

This is why people support a guy like Ron Paul. He's about as Free Market as a candidate can get. He doesn't buy into the Corporatism system that currently exists in our government structure and realizes that if things don't change - and pretty fast as well - this country is going to find itself collapsing under the weight of bad fiscal policies, bad government leadership and lose its sovereignty as a nation in the process. Of course, it's also like being the only sane person in a room screaming that Rome is burning while the rest of the people put fingers in their ears and sing to drown out his noise. Don't worry though; even those chickens have to come home and roost eventually.

As far as a North American Union goes, ask the average European how well the European Union has worked for them so far. Having been in Germany very recently and talking with people there, I can tell you right now there are a lot of pissed off Germans due to how far reaching the EU has been in German affairs not to mention the additional tax burden they carry now because of it. I love Europe and think there are some good ideas over there that should be tried here in the States but it's not the land of milk and honey like a lot of people tend to believe either.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Khorum

You're a fucking moron.

Ah, yes. The great fallback when someone doesn't have a point to make.

[Khorum]

Even if I did have a truckload of points you'd still be a fucking moron. You're a fucking moron not because of any deficiency of 'points' on my part (or on anyone's part) but because of an ABUNDANCE of abject stupidity on yours. I could go and edit out every other post in this year-old thread that rehashed the same goddamned nutbag anti-globalist drivel you just ejaculated into the internet---I could even go into a hardcore "points" deficit---and you'd still be a fucking moron.

[Vatoreus]

They're response to the gays in the military question was horse shit. "It's part of Judeo-Christian beliefs, so we have to protect that." wtf is that? Did they forget that European countries still have a lot of Christians there? Did they forget that Israel is fucking JEWISH?? Shit like this is why I have 0 faith in any of those republican candidates besides Ron Paul. You can believe a certain way, but you have to be fucking tolerant of other people's beliefs and not restrict them.

[Eomer]

Originally Posted by Uncle Duke

This is why people support a guy like Ron Paul. He's about as Free Market as a candidate can get.

See, this is what I don't get. Here we have someone who is in favor of the "Free Market." He even used capitals! But on the other hand, free trade is bad. Wait, I thought a free market was good? Is free trade not part of a free market?

As far as the whole NAFTA superhighway thing goes, I really don't see the problem even if it is true (which I doubt, because last map I saw of it showed it going straight into.... Manitoba??). Canada does not have some sort of artificial advantage over the US for manufacturing, we're equal competitors. Both our economies have benefited greatly from free trade with each other. Mexico, well, there's lots of arguments that could be made for and against free trade with Mexico, but I think most times they'll miss the most important point: 80 million or so consumers at comparable levels of wealth to the Americans/Canadians would be good for EVERYONE involved. Wealth generation is not a zero sum game. Having 450 million wealthy consumers in North America to trade with is better than having 350.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Even if I did have a truckload of points you'd still be a fucking moron. You're a fucking moron not because of any deficiency of 'points' on my part (or on anyone's part) but because of an ABUNDANCE of abject stupidity on yours. I could go and edit out every other post in this year-old thread that rehashed the same goddamned nutbag anti-globalist drivel you just ejaculated into the internet---I could even go into a hardcore "points" deficit---and you'd still be a fucking moron.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[Khorum]

What did you have trouble with, moron? Did you have a wittle stwuggle with teh big woids? What sort of rebuttal did you want to hear? You think a measured, reasoned response would make you look LESS of a fucking moron? When you slathered that half-digested anti-globalist horseshit onto your keyboard you immediately won Fucking Moronhood(tm) without assistance from anyone else. Fucking moron.

[Tallyn]

Originally Posted by Eomer

See, this is what I don't get. Here we have someone who is in favor of the "Free Market." He even used capitals! But on the other hand, free trade is bad. Wait, I thought a free market was good? Is free trade not part of a free market.

Absolutely, which is why we need to lift ALL types of trade regulation and let it actually be FREE. That goes for NAFTA and its ilk in addition to tarriffs, subsidies, and other kinds of protectionism (yeah, I'm looking at you sugar import restrictions). "Free trade agreements" are half-assed bandaids laid over a heavily regulated core.

Now, a natural consequence of true free trade would be the continuing movement overseas of certain types of jobs. That's unfortunate, but an inevitable consequence economic mobility. We didn't lose manufacturing jobs in the US because of bad trade agreements, we lost them because other people were willing to do the same work for less pay. You can't have it both ways. If you want to stay ahead of the game, you can't stop innovating. Someone else will come and take your lunch.

[Eomer]

And that's the point I'm getting at. A lot of the people who think they agree with Paul's stance on trade, quite probably don't agree. They are often in fact the exact opposite: trade protectionists. Uncle Duke most definitely is. Yet he figures Paul's trade policies are the bee's knee's.

Then again, I don't know much about Paul, so perhaps he is also a protectionist.

[Uncle Duke]

Originally Posted by Eomer

See, this is what I don't get. Here we have someone who is in favor of the "Free Market." He even used capitals! But on the other hand, free trade is bad. Wait, I thought a free market was good? Is free trade not part of a free market?

Free Trade isn't bad at all. Jefferson and others advocated trade over interventionist policy time and time again. The problem with our current trade agreements is we import more than we export by a gross margin at the same time exporting more and more of our jobs overseas/down south while not creating new ones to take their place. Those that do find replacements do not find them at competitive wages because the influx of illegal immigrants into the US have forced salaries across the board down to artificially low levels.

So who is winning out of all of this in the end? It's not the average American citizen. It's not even the average American business owner. The big winners are large corporate businesses who already have distinct advantages (corporate welfare comes to mind for an example).

As far as the whole NAFTA superhighway thing goes, I really don't see the problem even if it is true (which I doubt, because last map I saw of it showed it going straight into.... Manitoba??). Canada does not have some sort of artificial advantage over the US for manufacturing, we're equal competitors. Both our economies have benefited greatly from free trade with each other. Mexico, well, there's lots of arguments that could be made for and against free trade with Mexico, but I think most times they'll miss the most important point: 80 million or so consumers at comparable levels of wealth to the Americans/Canadians would be good for EVERYONE involved. Wealth generation is not a zero sum game. Having 450 million wealthy consumers in North America to trade with is better than having 350.

Here is the current problem with NAFTA Superhighway concept. As it has been reported, it throws national security of all the countries wide open because there will be little to no road checks on the highway. Fast transportation of goods is a great thing, don't get me wrong. However, would you feel confident having a massive roadway straight from Mexico pouring into both the US and Canada that doesn't have to stop for checks at the borders to make sure they're not smuggling immigrants in let alone possible biological/chemical/nuclear weaponry? Knowing how "trustworthy" the Mexican police are to begin with, I can see MASSIVE problems right off the bat there.

And you're right, Canada has no artificial advantage over the US when it comes to manufacturing. Our problem in this country is we as a nation have lost over 3.5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA versus the creation of a little under 500k. This is part of the reason why our trade deficit is the way it is; we produce nothing of value to really export to other countries to sell.

Let's look at other areas of NAFTA that are of major concern. Chapter 11 that allows corporations to sue the shit out the US, Canadian and Mexican governments if those government bodies does something that adversely affects their investments. Say one company invests heavily in a substance only later to be found out that not only is it bad for you but can cause serious genetic damage. Said substance ends up being banned by all three governments for further use in products and all existing products have to be recalled. This company can sue all three governments and under the provisions in Chapter 11 win substantial amounts in payments from each government because of this one ruling. Guess where all that money will be coming from?

Last point on this and then I'm leaving it alone. Milton Friedman - probably one of the most respected and influential economists of the 20th century - put it best that this isn't Free Trade but government managed trade. Simply put, when government gets involved in creates a level of bureaucracy in the trade between nations that becomes susceptible to manipulation by parties that do not have genuine interests in maintaining market balance but undermine the market and artificially manipulate it to their advantage. This comes from your lobbyist groups, corporate benefactors and contributors, etc. where they - the lobbyist group, corporations and the politicians - are the only ones that benefit. Even the playing field and force everyone to compete is when everyone gets to enjoy the benefits and the possibilities that Free Trade can bring.

[Foradream]

Originally Posted by Ancalagon

But he's not an isolationist. An isolationist wants to build a moat around Fortress America. An isolationist rails against not only foreign military intervention, but foreign trade -- a la Patrick Buchanan. Ron Paul is a non-interventionist. He is against military intervention unless our national security is directly and immediately threatened, and is against foreign entanglements, such as giving foreign aid to Israel or Pakistan. But he is not against trade; on the contrary, he is the most strident proponent of free trade you will find in Congress. He is not against diplomacy or travel.

I don't see how this view is capatible with the view that the CIA should be dismantled and that we give up our seat in the UN Security council (both things Paul has also suggested). Presumably we need some international presence if we're protecting our national security.

And do you guys really support the gold standard? I mean, really????

[darksensei]

Originally Posted by Foradream

I don't see how this view is capatible with the view that the CIA should be dismantled and that we give up our seat in the UN Security council (both things Paul has also suggested). Presumably we need some international presence if we're protecting our national security.

And do you guys really support the gold standard? I mean, really????

I've asked some people who know more about economics then I do, and while they don't support Ron Paul's position, they don't think it's a crazy idea. But I think what your forgetting is RP adheres to the constitution. Which part of government has the responsibility for the currency?

[Khorum]

It's easy to support bullionism when the only specifics you know about it are whatever you've lifted off Ron Paul's meme community and those 5-minute infoblurbs on YouTube. There's some merit to Paul's conviction in Vienna-school economics, specifically his transition to a Hayekian competing currency, but reverting to bullion in a nanosecond-precise global finance space (even with rigid Hayekian heuristics) is a preposterous political impossibility.

Coupled with his determination to erode the security of American interests across the globe, Ron Paul comes out a hopeless nutball.