49 replies to this topic

[jaydfox]

There is nothing special about him specifically regardling lifespan extension, it is just his whole collection of policies. Basically he will get the federal government out of all of the things which it isn't needed in and let the free market take care of itself.

No more wars, no more foreign aid, no more federal reserve, no more dept. education, no more dept. of home defence, no more welfare etc. Suddenly you have a government with a shit load of expenses gone - therefore the need to tax people is almost lost.

The role of the government, as my understand of Ron Pauls overall principle, is to simply protect the states - so the federal government will provide a defence force and intelligence agencies to provide protection for 'The united states' - and then let the states run their own state without interference from the federal. It just makes sense.

It is, ironically enough, what America is supposed to be all about. Ron Paul is just the first person (in the last few hundred years anyway) who is actually going to do it. he is going to follow the USA constitution.

I honestly can't see him accomplishing that. He can sign those changes into law, once the Congress approves them first, and good luck with that. Some of the changes he can possibly effect to a certain degree with executive orders, but there's only so much he can do. Luckily (for him, if he's elected), Bush has greatly expanded the executive branch's powers, so he can probably do more than he could have 8 years ago. Nevertheless, he'll have an uphill battle getting Congress to go along.

[Aegist]

There is nothing special about him specifically regardling lifespan extension, it is just his whole collection of policies. Basically he will get the federal government out of all of the things which it isn't needed in and let the free market take care of itself.

No more wars, no more foreign aid, no more federal reserve, no more dept. education, no more dept. of home defence, no more welfare etc. Suddenly you have a government with a shit load of expenses gone - therefore the need to tax people is almost lost.

The role of the government, as my understand of Ron Pauls overall principle, is to simply protect the states - so the federal government will provide a defence force and intelligence agencies to provide protection for 'The united states' - and then let the states run their own state without interference from the federal. It just makes sense.

It is, ironically enough, what America is supposed to be all about. Ron Paul is just the first person (in the last few hundred years anyway) who is actually going to do it. he is going to follow the USA constitution.

I honestly can't see him accomplishing that. He can sign those changes into law, once the Congress approves them first, and good luck with that. Some of the changes he can possibly effect to a certain degree with executive orders, but there's only so much he can do. Luckily (for him, if he's elected), Bush has greatly expanded the executive branch's powers, so he can probably do more than he could have 8 years ago. Nevertheless, he'll have an uphill battle getting Congress to go along.

But at least it is fighting in the right direction...no?

[Liquidus]

But at least it is fighting in the right direction...no?

Lifting the restrictions would be huge I'd imagine.

[Andrew Shevchuk]

At this point I'll vote for either Barack Obama or Ron Paul. If neither of them is on the ballot I'll vote for whichever Democrat is on there. If they are both on the ballot I haven't decided which one I'll vote for yet.

*Subliminal Messages : Pick Ron Paul....Pick Ron Paul...*

lol, I like how the voices are coming from so far away...

[RighteousReason]

I like Mike Huckabee-


Damn! He seems to be perfect on every issue!

I really couldn't ask for more in a President.

He is a creationist...

So is Ron Paul, apparently.

[Aegist]

I like Mike Huckabee-


Damn! He seems to be perfect on every issue!

I really couldn't ask for more in a President.

He is a creationist...

So is Ron Paul, apparently.

How is he? We have already had this conversation - in this thread! He is a DOCTOR, an educated man with some idea of science. Education and Science are antidotes to Creationism.

Ron Paul is a Catholic (I think) - not an idiot (I'm certain) - and therefore not a creationist (I'm 98% certain)

[Aegist]

I like Mike Huckabee-


Damn! He seems to be perfect on every issue!

I really couldn't ask for more in a President.

He is a creationist...

So is Ron Paul, apparently.

How is he? We have already had this conversation - in this thread! He is a DOCTOR, an educated man with some idea of science. Education and Science are antidotes to Creationism.

Ron Paul is a Catholic (I think) - not an idiot (I'm certain) - and therefore not a creationist (I'm 98% certain)

Damn. I was wrong. How very very disappointing.
http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2571

[niner]

I've noticed something about Ron Paul's candidacy: People seem to read into it what they want. I followed one of Gashinshotan's (or whatever he calls himself now) links the other night, and got to StormFront.org in two clicks. The white supremacists there were big Ron Paul supporters, like he was going to be down with their ideas or something. That's probably about as likely as Ron Paul being an immortalist.

Paul has other issues: http://en.wikipedia....d#Disadvantages

[EmbraceUnity]

If you like the fact that over the past century many people have worked tirelessly to ensure that workers and consumers have protected rights, do not vote for Ron Paul. He will happily tear all of that down if he could, and probably pray every day for the return of the messiah (aka armageddon). Hrmm... sounds an awful lot like another guy I know.

Edited by progressive, 30 December 2007 - 09:16 AM.

[Alien65]

President of the U.S. is probably the most important and responsible job on the face of the earth. Forget God, gays, choice and guns, the near future presents life and death challenges for the planet. You would think the standard for qualification should be extremely high. I will not speak for Republicans but as a Democrat, I see 2 qualified candidates: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Because of our media entertainment driven society, the least qualified are in the forefront. Not that I wouldn't want Bill back in the Whitehouse but Hillary is not qualified and probably wouldn't get elected. I don't know what else to say except "there has to be a better way".

Edited by Alien65, 06 January 2008 - 05:25 AM.

[niner]

President of the U.S. is probably the most important and responsible job on the face of the earth. Forget God, gays, choice and guns, the near future presents life and death challenges for the planet. You would think the standard for qualification should be extremely high. I will not speak for Republicans but as a Democrat, I see 2 qualified candidates: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Because of our media entertainment driven society, the least qualified are in the forefront. Not that I wouldn't want Bill back in the Whitehouse but Hillary is not qualified and probably wouldn't get elected. I don't know what else to say except "there has to be a better way".

I can understand your consternation. Could you elaborate on the near future life and death challenges for the planet? Compared to the height of the Cold War, I'm not sure that anything we are facing now is that big of a deal. Terrorism is overblown (no pun intended...), Peak Oil can be dealt with, and Global Warming can be mitigated by some of the same technologies that will help us past Peak Oil. I am not that worried about the present crop of candidates, after all, George Bush has probably been the worst president in US history, has handed us the biggest strategic defeat in our history, has expanded the size of the welfare state astronomically, I mean, you name it, he screwed it up. And yet, the world continues to turn and we continue to get up every morning and drive to work in our gas guzzlers. So as important as the position is, America and the rest of the world is pretty robust. I think the right person could be a tremendous force for good, and I hope that person gets in. But even if our next president were Tom Tancredo I think most of us would survive.

[Alien65]

President of the U.S. is probably the most important and responsible job on the face of the earth. Forget God, gays, choice and guns, the near future presents life and death challenges for the planet. You would think the standard for qualification should be extremely high. I will not speak for Republicans but as a Democrat, I see 2 qualified candidates: Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. Because of our media entertainment driven society, the least qualified are in the forefront. Not that I wouldn't want Bill back in the Whitehouse but Hillary is not qualified and probably wouldn't get elected. I don't know what else to say except "there has to be a better way".

I can understand your consternation. Could you elaborate on the near future life and death challenges for the planet? Compared to the height of the Cold War, I'm not sure that anything we are facing now is that big of a deal. Terrorism is overblown (no pun intended...), Peak Oil can be dealt with, and Global Warming can be mitigated by some of the same technologies that will help us past Peak Oil. I am not that worried about the present crop of candidates, after all, George Bush has probably been the worst president in US history, has handed us the biggest strategic defeat in our history, has expanded the size of the welfare state astronomically, I mean, you name it, he screwed it up. And yet, the world continues to turn and we continue to get up every morning and drive to work in our gas guzzlers. So as important as the position is, America and the rest of the world is pretty robust. I think the right person could be a tremendous force for good, and I hope that person gets in. But even if our next president were Tom Tancredo I think most of us would survive.

I was in Air Force Intelligence during the Cuban missle crisis. We came incredibly close to annihilation of most life on earth. Back then, nuclear bombs were big and dirty and radiation would have killed everything except the cock roaches. We would have destroyed 80% of the Soviet Unions population in the first 30 minutes. The U.S. would have lost 20% and everyone else would wish they were dead. That was 45 years ago. Imagine what is in the world today.
Both the U.S. and Russia have over 10,000 deliverable weapons. China has a significant nuclear arsenal and delivery systems as does Israel. And then there's Pakistan and Indian. Now enter Iran who may already have an untested nuclear weapon. The concept of M.A.D. saved us during the cold war but isn't going to work with the religious nuts.
There are so many dooms day scenarios in the world environment today. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of fundamentalists someone would have to turn it into a parking lot. It might be India, Israel or the U.S.. If Iran tests or admits to a nuclear weapon, Israel would react immediately for it's own survival.
Our relationship with Russia has deteriorated and they still have thousands of missles pointed in our direction. The neo-cons have probably exaggerated the terrorism threat to our soil but one nuclear bomb in Manhattan could ruin our whole day.
The world is far more dangerous than most people realize. I could not believe my ears when I heard G.W.'s press secretary was uninformed about the Cuban missle crisis. (How quickly we forget).
I personally believe that someone, somewhere in the near future is going to get nuked. The clash of civilizations has begun. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are going to fall apart and there will be a major war in the middle east. The next president will be making decisions that determine whether this war is contained or consumes us all.
And then there's global climate change but I don't think we'll care much.
Sorry to be such a pessimist.

More thoughts
http://www.imminst.o...rt=#entry217378

Edited by Alien65, 06 January 2008 - 05:55 PM.

[RighteousReason]

hah, i win

Edited by Savage, 06 January 2008 - 03:03 PM.

[jackinbox]

I was in Air Force Intelligence during the Cuban missle crisis. We came incredibly close to annihilation of most life on earth. Back then, nuclear bombs were big and dirty and radiation would have killed everything except the cock roaches. We would have destroyed 80% of the Soviet Unions population in the first 30 minutes. The U.S. would have lost 20% and everyone else would wish they were dead. That was 45 years ago. Imagine what is in the world today.
Both the U.S. and Russia have over 10,000 deliverable weapons. China has a significant nuclear arsenal and delivery systems as does Israel. And then there's Pakistan and Indian. Now enter Iran who may already have an untested nuclear weapon. The concept of M.A.D. saved us during the cold war but isn't going to work with the religious nuts.
There are so many dooms day scenarios in the world environment today. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of fundamentalists someone would have to turn it into a parking lot. It might be India, Israel or the U.S.. If Iran tests or admits to a nuclear weapon, Israel would react immediately for it's own survival.
Our relationship with Russia has deteriorated and they still have thousands of missles pointed in our direction. The neo-cons have probably exaggerated the terrorism threat to our soil but one nuclear bomb in Manhattan could ruin our whole day.
The world is far more dangerous than most people realize. I could not believe my ears when I heard G.W.'s press secretary was uninformed about the Cuban missle crisis. (How quickly we forget).
I personally believe that someone, somewhere in the near future is going to get nuked. The clash of civilizations has begun. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are going to fall apart and there will be a major war in the middle east. The next president will be making decisions that determine whether this war is contained or consumes us all.
And then there's global climate change but I don't think we'll care much.
Sorry to be such a pessimist.

More thoughts
http://www.imminst.o...rt=#entry217378

Are you supporting the idea of preemptive war? If you do, did you really take the time to think about it? Preemptive war is a terribly dangerous idea. It might be the idea that will doom us all. The concept of M.A.D. can no longer save us if we think that preemptive war can unless we are ready to wipe out the rest of the world from the map. The preemptive war concept assumes that we have more right to exist than they have. It assumes that absolute destruction of one party is innevitable then we should be the party that prevail. I consider americans supporting preemptive war to be as dangerous as middle-east religious fanatics. It's the same discourse on both side.

If Israel use the nuclear bomb once, their will no longer be able to protect their little promised land from the muslim world. They are lucky so far the the muslims are quite divided but such event could well unite them behind the goal of destroying Israel. I hope they will not be stupid enough to strike first with nuclear weapons but at the same time I have the feelling that the odds are high that they will eventually. They have a proven history of using excessive force and being somewhat impulsive.

I must agree with you that religious fanatics could well be quite trigger-happy when with a nuclear bomb in their hands. Meanwhile, religious fanatics are not limited to the muslims world. I worry too that rapture-believers evangelists are in position of power in the U.S.

[Alien65]

I was in Air Force Intelligence during the Cuban missle crisis. We came incredibly close to annihilation of most life on earth. Back then, nuclear bombs were big and dirty and radiation would have killed everything except the cock roaches. We would have destroyed 80% of the Soviet Unions population in the first 30 minutes. The U.S. would have lost 20% and everyone else would wish they were dead. That was 45 years ago. Imagine what is in the world today.
Both the U.S. and Russia have over 10,000 deliverable weapons. China has a significant nuclear arsenal and delivery systems as does Israel. And then there's Pakistan and Indian. Now enter Iran who may already have an untested nuclear weapon. The concept of M.A.D. saved us during the cold war but isn't going to work with the religious nuts.
There are so many dooms day scenarios in the world environment today. If Pakistan were to fall into the hands of fundamentalists someone would have to turn it into a parking lot. It might be India, Israel or the U.S.. If Iran tests or admits to a nuclear weapon, Israel would react immediately for it's own survival.
Our relationship with Russia has deteriorated and they still have thousands of missles pointed in our direction. The neo-cons have probably exaggerated the terrorism threat to our soil but one nuclear bomb in Manhattan could ruin our whole day.
The world is far more dangerous than most people realize. I could not believe my ears when I heard G.W.'s press secretary was uninformed about the Cuban missle crisis. (How quickly we forget).
I personally believe that someone, somewhere in the near future is going to get nuked. The clash of civilizations has begun. Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq are going to fall apart and there will be a major war in the middle east. The next president will be making decisions that determine whether this war is contained or consumes us all.
And then there's global climate change but I don't think we'll care much.
Sorry to be such a pessimist.

More thoughts
http://www.imminst.o...rt=#entry217378

Are you supporting the idea of preemptive war? If you do, did you really take the time to think about it? Preemptive war is a terribly dangerous idea. It might be the idea that will doom us all. The concept of M.A.D. can no longer save us if we think that preemptive war can unless we are ready to wipe out the rest of the world from the map. The preemptive war concept assumes that we have more right to exist than they have. It assumes that absolute destruction of one party is innevitable then we should be the party that prevail. I consider americans supporting preemptive war to be as dangerous as middle-east religious fanatics. It's the same discourse on both side.

If Israel use the nuclear bomb once, their will no longer be able to protect their little promised land from the muslim world. They are lucky so far the the muslims are quite divided but such event could well unite them behind the goal of destroying Israel. I hope they will not be stupid enough to strike first with nuclear weapons but at the same time I have the feelling that the odds are high that they will eventually. They have a proven history of using excessive force and being somewhat impulsive.

I must agree with you that religious fanatics could well be quite trigger-happy when with a nuclear bomb in their hands. Meanwhile, religious fanatics are not limited to the muslims world. I worry too that rapture-believers evangelists are in position of power in the U.S.

I certainly agree with most of your post. I am not supporting the idea of preemptive war but am afraid it will be a seriously considered option should Islamic fundamentalists gain access to nuclear weapons. My original point is that I want a President who is rational, agnostic, intelligent, peace loving, respected in the world community and can figure out a way to get us out of this mess. Space alien maybe?

Edited by Alien65, 06 January 2008 - 06:35 PM.

[Cyberbrain]

The following is a general guideline to the candidates' positions on some of the top issues:

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

I think the table is pretty helpful

[gavrilov]

The following is a general guideline to the candidates' positions on some of the top issues:

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

I think the table is pretty helpful

Yes, very useful table, thank you.
Would like to see a "life extension" question there too

Also recently I was struck to see "The Hillary Nutcracker" toy:
http://tinyurl.com/2ozzvm
Is it really funny?

[dannov]

I would like Ron Paul to have a chance, but figure it will be Barack or Hillary--I'd rather Barack win, but I'll be voting whichever Democrat has the ticket, since the numbers will be there to support their win.

It has a chance! I invite you to join his campain! He need your help!

no problems there, here in Austin he is quite possible, many advocate for him at my church, and he by far has the most signs around the city on lawns...

Austin is by no means typical for the Lone Star State - basically the Berkeley of Texas from what I can tell...'cept without the furries. As for Ron Paul, he has some simple answers for complex problems and people like to hear that - especially during troubled times - but nationally I don't think Ron Paul has a chance. At best he will be a spoiler for the Republican ticket. Honestly, I like some of the things he says but his attractiveness to conspiracy nuts, holocaust deniers, white supremicists, and pretty much every other wacko group out there, gives me pause.

His appeal to those groups is due to the fact that freedom doesn't discriminate nor give special rights to any particular group. White supremacism exists partly due to special favors that certain races get while Ron wishes to restore Constitutional liberty to every individual so that we're all treated equally, holocaust deniers exist because there is a lot of misleading facts about the holocaust that they wish to find the truth out about (nobody denies it for the record, it's moreso revisionism aka, don't believe everything you've learned as a kid and do your own research), conspiracy "nuts" know that Paul wouldn't allow special interests to influence his presidential bid. Freedom is popular in all groups.

Also, Niner, why not link to the advantages section of the gold standard as well? Nothing is perfect, but anything is better than fiat where you depend on the government instead of the people to regulate the monetary value of currency. As Greenspan stated:

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

Consider that in 1913 the dollar was worth 1/20 of an ounce of gold, and now it's worth about 1/900 (and actually a lot less due to CPI fudging). Commodity-backed currency allows for solid economic progression at a slow rate, rather than random busts and booms due to poor human errors and government intervention in the markets.

Edited by dannov, 13 February 2008 - 04:35 PM.

[niner]

Also, Niner, why not link to the advantages section of the gold standard as well? Nothing is perfect, but anything is better than fiat where you depend on the government instead of the people to regulate the monetary value of currency. As Greenspan stated:

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

Consider that in 1913 the dollar was worth 1/20 of an ounce of gold, and now it's worth about 1/900 (and actually a lot less due to CPI fudging). Commodity-backed currency allows for solid economic progression at a slow rate, rather than random busts and booms due to poor human errors and government intervention in the markets.

The positives of the Gold Standard have been covered by Paul and others; I wanted to point out the problems. With the rest of the world using fiat currency, we couldn't go back on the gold standard without being whipsawed by forex traders as the volatile gold market bounced around. Random booms and busts are pretty much assured with the Gold Standard. I'm no friend of the irresponsible Greenspan Fed, believe me. He's made a colossal mess of things, and Bernanke's between a rock and a hard place now. I can't believe he has the gall to say what you've quoted above, after his unleashing of a tidal wave of liquidity.

[dannov]

Also, Niner, why not link to the advantages section of the gold standard as well? Nothing is perfect, but anything is better than fiat where you depend on the government instead of the people to regulate the monetary value of currency. As Greenspan stated:

"under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth... The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit... In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

Consider that in 1913 the dollar was worth 1/20 of an ounce of gold, and now it's worth about 1/900 (and actually a lot less due to CPI fudging). Commodity-backed currency allows for solid economic progression at a slow rate, rather than random busts and booms due to poor human errors and government intervention in the markets.

The positives of the Gold Standard have been covered by Paul and others; I wanted to point out the problems. With the rest of the world using fiat currency, we couldn't go back on the gold standard without being whipsawed by forex traders as the volatile gold market bounced around. Random booms and busts are pretty much assured with the Gold Standard. I'm no friend of the irresponsible Greenspan Fed, believe me. He's made a colossal mess of things, and Bernanke's between a rock and a hard place now. I can't believe he has the gall to say what you've quoted above, after his unleashing of a tidal wave of liquidity.

That quote of Greenspan's was before his time in the Fed, when he was a bit more sensible you can argue. My understanding of the Standard is that Gold prevents major booms and busts because it curtails the Fed from artificially intervening in the economy and its interest rates. I have no doubt in my mind it'd be tough to get back on the standard, but I think in the long-term it'd be pretty beneficial. I'm pretty worried, as I can see you are, of what the Fed is currently up to. At the very least, if they legalized gold and silver bullion as legal tender so that things were priced in gold/silver and fiat currency in America, the Fed would be forced to be more fiscally responsible so that people didn't switch to gold/silver altogether.