Ron Paul has got to be the most honest candidate in the election

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

YeahYes

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

I would tend to disagree.

Simple US history. One of the worst economic periods in the US was at the end of the 19th century when we had almost no middle class, most people were poor, and guess what, they called it laissez faire capitalism when the US government just sat and watched busnessmen screw the working class and trash our economy. But we figured out that letting the system just run doesn't work, which is why we have anti monopoly and trust laws. We tried to let banks just do their thing. Remember what happened on Black Tusday, 1929? There was a run on the banks and they had loaned out too much money so millions of people lost all the money they had put in banks to say (which is why today you hear the little disclaimer at the end of bank commercials saying they are part of the FTC). In fact, if you haven't been paying attention for the last 20 years, I suggest you wake up because Allan Greenspan has been trying to keep the US economy stable for that long, and he was doing a pretty good job till we went back to a laissez faire mentality with Bush and his cronies. We ignored money lenders and what resulted, a small loan crisis, just in the last few years.

So do you get it. Every time we pretend that the system will just work, it fails, but if we get involved in the mess and at least try to keep things under control, the economy usually does pretty well. But if you have some evidence to refute me, I'm all ears.

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

YeahYes

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

As has been said, he is not an isolationalist. Just because he doesn't want to start wars and try and control/police the rest of the world doesn't make him so. I think if this were 60-100 years ago he would be a pure isolationalist, but he (along with everyone else I hope) knows that isolationalism is dead. Its been tried, and with the way the world is it doesn't work.Gokuja

Nobody here is saying his view on the war is what defines him as an isolationist. It's his goal of terminating every formal agreement with the rest of the world that reeks of isolation.

Anyway, as far as Paul statements about wanting to pull out of these groups, and get rid of all these depts., I agree, but thats only if he can provide bills or alternatives that are better or save money.Gokuja

But Ron Paul has expressed no desire in fixing the existing treaties with something better. He only wishes to abolish them. He IS an isolationist.

People want an honest president, people want a president that sounds like they are Jesus, people want a president that knows what they are doing.

This is a great way to come into power and take over when they least expect it.

I'm just saying its a good recipe.

[QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

bman784

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

The Fed caused the depression, and the New Deal didn't get us out of it. World War Two did.

FDR is a fraud

all of this talk of globalized economies and such is beginning to startle me... what ever happened to national sovereignty? it's like you guys really want a one world government headed by the U.N or something.proctorsurf

No, the US needs to stay the US, but we need to compete in the global economy, otherwise we will find that suddenly 15+ other countries aren't just ahead of us in standard of living, health care, value of currency, etc. (as is already the case, just look at much of Europe) but ahead of us technologically, economically, and militarily. Personally, so many people hate us right now, I think that would be the quickest way to bring about the end of this great land.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

YeahYes

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

The Fed caused the depression, and the New Deal didn't get us out of it. World War Two did.

FDR is a fraud

[QUOTE="NoRemorse13"]

I DID answer your question, maybe not directly, but in a different response. I said that Paul wants the U.S. to trade and get along with different countries, esp. our enemies. Isolationism, as refered to not getting a given military envolved in other countries problems, perhaps exchanging goods and services with our allies. You bought up NATO, UN and all those other organizations. I was aking why do you feel that those organizations serves a purpose? Please?

Insane00

Wait, are you serious? Did you just ask what purpose international peacekeeping agencies serve? I will admit that perhaps NATO is an unnecessary agency no that we realize communism isn't the huge demon we thought it was, but the UN? How about this, the purpose of the UN is to make sure that no countries dicide to try to conquor the world like Germany, Japan, and generally the axis nations of WW2 did. The idea is that if anyone steps out of line the countries of the UN have the power to boycott countries, refuse to trade with them, and if the stuff really hits the fan, band together and create a strong enough military force to stop them.

And when you are arguably the most powerful nation on the planet in a globalized world you DO NOT tell the rest of the world and it's problems to f off, cause then they all think you're the bad guy. Personally I think we have trashed our international reputation enough for one president.

There's the theory that two democracies won't go to war with each other. Seems somewhat plausible; how many wars have there been that involved two true democracies?

One could also argue that sanctions and boycots do more harm than good. They can really devestate a nation's economy, which can lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent lives. Iraq after the American Persian Gulf War is the first example to come to mind. Also, WWII was started by something similar on Germany. It was the economic strife within Germany resulting from the restrictions, aka sanctions, that ultimately led to the Nazi Party's rise.

And in serving it's purpose, it surely has failed at that. Both Persian Gulf Wars, the Iraq War, Vietnam, all of the wars part of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

YeahYes

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

The Fed caused the depression, and the New Deal didn't get us out of it. World War Two did.

FDR is a fraud

God Bless RON PAUL!!! :D

[QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

bman784

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

The Fed caused the depression, and the New Deal didn't get us out of it. World War Two did.

FDR is a fraud

You got taught Keynesian economics in college. Cute.

[QUOTE="bman784"][QUOTE="YeahYes"][QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="SunofVich"]

He is a supporter of the constitution. That means no direct taxes. The supreme court has ruled the IRS unconstitutional in 4 cases yet for some reason it still exists.

Who would shed a tear if the IRS building got demolished?

YeahYes

OK, and how do you propose we fund a 10 billion dollar a month war, pay all our federal employees, keep all our federal organizations (such as NASA, CIA, FCC, Federal Trade Commission, National Science Foundation, etc.) and all the rest of the system that keeps this nation running. It may have worked 100 years ago, but we have developed far too much as a nation to just ditch everything now. Unless of course you want to see unemployment go through the roof and watch a depression hit this country.

Depression is going to hit the country because of government meddling in the economy. when you're standing in a bread line you'll think about Ron

The Fed caused the depression, and the New Deal didn't get us out of it. World War Two did.

FDR is a fraud

No, you are wrong. What caused the depression was a number of factors that hit the country all at once.

A) too much money had been loaned to people for the sake of investments. Ever head the term "I got a bridge in Florida to sell you." Well it comes from people investing without knowing what they were doing so a ton of people, aside from buying stocks on borrowed money, were buying worthless land in the Everglades. Thus when the market crashed, all the loaned money was lost, people couldn't pay banks back, the people that owned worthless land coulnd't sell it. Things went to hell.

B) Dust Bowl combined with the fact that all the agricultural land was being bought up by large coorporations. As a result a great number of farmers were out of work and home. They couldn't work where they had been cause the soil had gone to crud and they didn't need the out of work empoyees because large tractors could now do the work of many families. Thus the great migration to California. Read Grapes of Wrath.

Yet, while I would agree that WW2 was the bump that got us out of the depression completely, the NEw deal did take huge steps and had done a lot to help the economy. FDR created the CCC that got a lot of young people out making some money. He created huge federal projects that created more jobs, and he worked to fix the problems that had started the crisis. The bump to manufacturing that was WW2 ended the depression completely, but by 1939 this country wasn't nearly in the mess it had been in in 1931.

Ignorance is painful.

You got taught Keynesian economics in college. Cute.

YeahYes

[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="NoRemorse13"]

I DID answer your question, maybe not directly, but in a different response. I said that Paul wants the U.S. to trade and get along with different countries, esp. our enemies. Isolationism, as refered to not getting a given military envolved in other countries problems, perhaps exchanging goods and services with our allies. You bought up NATO, UN and all those other organizations. I was aking why do you feel that those organizations serves a purpose? Please?

Osafune24

Wait, are you serious? Did you just ask what purpose international peacekeeping agencies serve? I will admit that perhaps NATO is an unnecessary agency no that we realize communism isn't the huge demon we thought it was, but the UN? How about this, the purpose of the UN is to make sure that no countries dicide to try to conquor the world like Germany, Japan, and generally the axis nations of WW2 did. The idea is that if anyone steps out of line the countries of the UN have the power to boycott countries, refuse to trade with them, and if the stuff really hits the fan, band together and create a strong enough military force to stop them.

And when you are arguably the most powerful nation on the planet in a globalized world you DO NOT tell the rest of the world and it's problems to f off, cause then they all think you're the bad guy. Personally I think we have trashed our international reputation enough for one president.

There's the theory that two democracies won't go to war with each other. Seems somewhat plausible; how many wars have there been that involved two true democracies?

One could also argue that sanctions and boycots do more harm than good. They can really devestate a nation's economy, which can lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent lives. Iraq after the American Persian Gulf War is the first example to come to mind. Also, WWII was started by something similar on Germany. It was the economic strife within Germany resulting from the restrictions, aka sanctions, that ultimately led to the Nazi Party's rise.

And in serving it's purpose, it surely has failed at that. Both Persian Gulf Wars, the Iraq War, Vietnam, all of the wars part of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

One could say that, but all the situations you are citing have more going on. The Middle East conflict is the result of a waring tribal based society trying to make it in a modern world with modern weapons. Over there, Muslims kill christians, muslims kill muslims, muslims kill jews, jews kill muslims, christians kill muslims, heck it's only since 1945 that christians killing jews isn't a common occurence. The leaders there are so radical that they won't even begin to listen to one another. And they've been killing one another for 5000 years, so how can you blame that on sanctions.

Germany shouldn't have been boycotted, and if the original League of Nations had been what W. Wilson imagined, WW1 would probably have ended much more similarly to WW2, with us helping to rebuild the war torn nations (that was a UN project by the way). Similarly the UN has helped to stop genocides in Yogoslavia and kept Milosevich in check. Further, Vietnam was a BS war started for economic gain. North Vietnam was never a threat to the US and our excuse for getting involved (the Gulf of Tonkin incident) probably never happened.

Personally while I did mention sanctions, the ability for the UN to get most of the nations of the world together to talk, find common causes, etc. does more to keep world stability than anything else. For us to go out on our own and ignore the rest of the world is dumb, cause it's like telling everyone that we know better than them.

There is way to much Ron Paul talk on here.darksword1123

[QUOTE="darksword1123"]There is way to much Ron Paul talk on here.B05T0N

He's not racist and YES he will win if people get out and vote for the ONLY man who is capable of helping America get out of debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWbh4Cpy8pc&feature=related

Atleast some people see the truth.

He's not racist and YES he will win if people get out and vote for the ONLY man who is capable of helping America get out of debt.

SentryGunner411

Snowball's chance in hell is about where I'd place the odds of Ron Paul landing in the White House.

[QUOTE="B05T0N"][QUOTE="darksword1123"]There is way to much Ron Paul talk on here.SentryGunner411

He's not racist and YES he will win if people get out and vote for the ONLY man who is capable of helping America get out of debt.