CNN Arizona Republican debate tonight at 8pm ET

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


I have heard many hours of Paul and think it's 99% rhetoric. I much prefer to look at his policies and his beliefs.

Put it another way, anyone that credits Ayn Rand as an influence will never get my vote.

I also think his reading of the constitution is fringe and many of his ideas are flat out dangerous.

I do agree with a few of his would-be policies, but overall, I find his ideology to be repulsive to my values.

I appreciate your passion, etc., and your desire to engage in dialogue... that's v cool... but I'm not ignorant. I'm a well-informed anti-Paul person.

I also think his reading of the constitution is fringe and many of his ideas are flat out dangerous.

Such as?

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


Ron Paul believes the primary purpose of the constitution is to give individuals freedom. A the time it was written they already had freedom. It's a bit of nonsense. the constitution is primarily about society. And government's role in the collective willing association therein.

To say that the driving force of the constitution, the main purpose of it, was to protect individuals from government is at best fringe. The constitution created the frame work for a government, a federal government. It's check and balances work both ways. So, the federal government does exist to limit the states and vice versa.

Paul reads the constitution like a Libertarian. That is NOT how the courts, politicians, and legal scholars have read it for... ever.

A few examples of dangerous ideas would be allowing business to be completely unregulated and to allow corporate monopolies. That'd pretty much be "game over" for democracy.

Just a few examples.

Basically, I'm with Chomsky, who thinks that US Libertarianism is pro-corporate tyranny.



Chomsky is right when he says that people like Ayn Rand (and Ron Paul) who claim that Adam Smith believed in unregulated laissez faire capitalism are being dishonest. He didn't. He, and Jefferson, and many others warned of unregulated business... THAT is the basis for Jefferson's desire to give states protection from the federal government.

Paul, if he is the scholar he claims to be, knows this. He knows that Jefferson would never have supported a system giving corporations unlimited power. Paul would.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984

 

Ron Paul believes the primary purpose of the constitution is to give individuals freedom. A the time it was written they already had freedom. It's a bit of nonsense. the constitution is primarily about society. And government's role in the collective willing association therein.

To say that the driving force of the constitution, the main purpose of it, was to protect individuals from government is at best fringe. The constitution created the frame work for a government, a federal government. It's check and balances work both ways. So, the federal government does exist to limit the states and vice versa.

Paul reads the constitution like a Libertarian. That is NOT how the courts, politicians, and legal scholars have read it for... ever.

A few examples of dangerous ideas would be allowing business to be completely unregulated and to allow corporate monopolies. That'd pretty much be "game over" for democracy.

Just a few examples.

Basically, I'm with Chomsky, who thinks that US Libertarianism is pro-corporate tyranny.

edit on 23-2-2012 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

And what exactly do we have now? A Federal Reserve and every bank under it running around unregulated able to create monopolies of their own. That sole reason for the great depression and the 2008 collapse. We have a President running around doing whatever the hell he wants without going to congress. A Government too big literally out of control swat teaming omish for selling raw milk closing down lemonade stands. A foreign policy dictated by Israel while our border is left wide open to blood thirsty drug cartels that only exist because the US Government thinks it has the right to tell people what they can and cannot put in their own bodies (after they tell them what they can and cannot do in their own bedrooms). And if we don't conform to this we're thrown in a cage.

...How exactly can this get worse?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


So which is better? Give the corporations full control or the leave the banks with full control? Do you have any idea how hard it is to start a small business in this country?

Jefferson also warned about banks.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

Patrick Henry was very influential as a founding father but he did not show up for the original discussion of what the Constitution would be because he was frustrated with some of the people that would be there. He then realized he should have made himself a part of it, as he was afraid that the Constitution would be harmful. So he insisted in getting the bill of rights put in to protect individuals from the government. You can claim whatever you want about the original constitution, but after Patrick Henry was done we had what amounted to a brand new constitution, one that was designed to protect individuals from the Government.

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


The answer is in the question. It's bad now because of business controlling as much as they do. Paul would remove all restrictions, which would amplify the problem.

We'd take a defacto corporate state and make it the desired outcome.

Put it this way, the argument your making is, "laws punishing murder don't work, we have tons of murder... the obvious solution is deregulate murder...".

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


The fact that you see these as the only two options is telling.

How about fixing democracy so that the people collectively have control, not changing from one unregulated tyranny to another.

And btw: Jefferson never said, "banks are bad, so let's deregulate business".

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


You're speaking of solutions but only leaving me with the same that I had coming into this conversation. Obama is your knight in shining armor that's going to "fix" democracy? I don't see how voting for a man that thinks he's a King is going to fix democracy.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

reply to post by The_Phantom


Ridiculous and wrong.

Bills or Rights were common enough at the time and Jefferson is known for suggesting them as a compromise to the Federalists, to encourage them to get on board with the constitution. But ... none of that negates the fact that the constitution is NOT about protecting people from government. If you don't want a federal government, don't write a constitution which creates one.

The Founding Father knew of these concerns and STILL decided to create a federal government. It took amendments to the constitution to add the bill of rights... so the claim that the constitution is primarily about protecting people from government is obliviously untrue.It that had been the case there would've been no NEED for a Bill of Rights.

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


Yes, see how he lumps banks and corporations together??

The Paul-ites only see the threat in half of what Jefferson said... In other words they ignore his warning when it suits their pro-corporate ideology.

reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984


OK, there's a few things in that post that make me think you're choosing to now be dishonest.

You claim I think Obama is saviour. I obviously and repeatedly have said things which make it clear I do not believe that. And we've discussed them so I know you know that's not true. Don't lie about my position.

Second, you claim he wants to be king. That's simply dishonest political rhetoric. This conversation will fail if you engage in these sorts of dishonest tactics.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by TheAnswerTo1984

 

Put it this way, the argument your making is, "laws punishing murder don't work, we have tons of murder... the obvious solution is deregulate murder...".

You claim to be "well informed" in a previous post, but this is obviously not the case. Not only are you confusing common law and regulation, you're making the most common fallacious argument about the justice system: that being you assume that the justice system was established to deter crime. Definition of 'justice' in this context:

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.

Laws do not prevent crime (factually and philosophically) because laws do not create a moral obligation within you. The purpose of the justice system is to determine what someone deserves for the crime they committed (reparations, etc.).

Basically, I'm with Chomsky, who thinks that US Libertarianism is pro-corporate tyranny.

Corporate tyranny huh...kind of like what we live in right now?

Originally posted by popsmayhem
I wonder if Romney the Mormon would
leave his children in the care of a catholic
church while he is away.

What the heck does that mean?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


TPTB hate Paul... Fox news this morning is acting like Dr Paul was not even there. At least aknowledge that he was there... Ron Paul is not rhetoric he has been firm on his stance for 20 + yrs, even when people believed he was crazy nut for wanting to audit the fed. He is the only candidate I actually believe. The media hates him which is a great endorsement. The media is the ones spouting the crap that he is UNELECTABLE, this is wishful thinking on their part. He has the best chance against Obama, cause he is the only one that is different from the status quo.

Originally posted by Destinyone
The only decent kids I know today...are all home schooled....Sending most kids to government sponsored schools is like sending them to get their brains sucked out.....

edit on 22-2-2012 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)

I have a non home schooled child who places in the 97-98 percentile in all subjects. My child is also very kind, considerate, respectful of elders, understands right from wrong, effort and reward, so on and so forth...

It all starts at home. Don't put all the onus on the dreaded public school system.

I would argue that most kids (and most people) are decent, even the ones who aren't home schooled.

Keep the blanket and ignorant statements to a minimum please.

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

 

TPTB hate Paul... Fox news this morning is acting like Dr Paul was not even there. At least aknowledge that he was there... Ron Paul is not rhetoric he has been firm on his stance for 20 + yrs, even when people believed he was crazy nut for wanting to audit the fed. He is the only candidate I actually believe. The media hates him which is a great endorsement. The media is the ones spouting the crap that he is UNELECTABLE, this is wishful thinking on their part. He has the best chance against Obama, cause he is the only one that is different from the status quo.

Newt won the debate last night. It wasn't even close.

Romney looked too fake. I expect Romney will lose in Michigan.

Santorum started out rattled but finished pretty well.

Ron Paul appeared naive and too old to be president of the United States.
-------

Well done Newt!

reply to post by hanyak69


Paul would have no chance against Obama. He'd attract the 12-15% he always attracts and that would be about it.

People don't want everything privatised... most people... replacing democracy with business isn't American.

reply to post by CaptainIraq


I wasn't mixing them up, I was using hyperbole to prove a point.

A law/regulation failing doesn't mean the thing it's intended to curb/punish should be legal/unregulated.

Basic stuff.

If you think Americans REALLY want to replace government with business, then you haven't been paying attention.