Ron Paul

[frostbitmic]

He is the only one running willing to significantly cut and limit government. The problem is he needs a reality check in regards to his foreign policy.

Foreign policy is easy. If you're a country that accepts a yearly stipend from the United States, you're on our payroll, do as you're told.

 

Forget the middle east. They're entirely capable of annihilating themselves without our help. Let them.

 

Tariffs. If you charge 25% on American imports, we charge 25% on crap that comes here from your country.

 

If you attack our country, yours will cease to exist.

[OCinBuffalo]

Hmmmm...

 

1. Ron Paul is popular because he is a constitutional originalist. He is a textualist. He believes that the Constitution is a contract and that we are obliged to abide by it. He doesn't believe that the expansive role of government is substantiated by the 4 corners of that 200+ year old covenant. He probably stays awake at night lamenting Wickard v. Filburn even 70 years later.

 

If you feel differently than Paul with respect to constitutional interpretation, then I'd love to also hear your *historical* view of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. As an aside, for whatever reason it's usually the neo-conservative types who reconcile 21st century U.S. manifest destiny as being constitutionally palatable; however during the same meal, the same entree, the same bite, articulate a textualist argument with respect to the 2nd Amendment. Again I sigh....hmmmm......

The problem is: I'm not a neo-conservative. I was never a liberal, and I really just don't care that much about Israel. So, swing and a miss. Starting to become a habit with you, isn't it?

 

I am in merely in business. Some people even refer to me as a business expert, and pay me accordingly, and I know you can't sell stuff in South America, Asia and Africa without a Navy, because you f'ing can't. That requires no Constitutional substantiation, that's just common business sense.

 

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with keeping the North Koreans from stealing our stuff. Here's a hint: business people rarely base what we do on some assclown's irrelevant interpretation of the constitution.

2. Also, wouldn't the free market, by it's very definition, address "tinpot dictatorships," and "theocracies" with either inclusion or avoidance based on the level of transparency? So if a regime is sour to free market principles, doesn't the show just go on? The free market will either bring goods and services or not and the citizenry will either acquiesce or rebel accordingly; "acquiesce" evidencing a lacking market, "rebel" evidencing a growth market.

 

Isn't that was is happening in Iran? The free market sentiment is slowly freeing the market there. And isn't that the essence of the free market economy?

If we are trying to buy oil in Saudi Arabia, and sell computer stuff, how the F do we "avoid" the threat of a tac nuke attached to a missile from Iran taking out the carrier group assigned to protect our tankers? They may not ever do it, but the threat creates or thickens the barrier to entry, inflates prices, and increases costs exponentially for that market, as well as all the dependent markets. The insurance alone....means the market cannot "avoid" these things. It is a market, after all, and comes complete with the people who make money on it failing as well as succeeding.

 

You are showing you don't know how markets work, and how we make business decisions. Been in DC too long? Or have you never known how markets work?

3. Do you believe in an imposition of free market principles by military intervention? Are you convinced that there are many in the Pashtun region of Pakistan who might enjoy beenie babies if they knew about them and that there is no better way to bring attention to cuddly blue, pink and purple toys then through coercion and threat of precision bombing campaigns? The funny thing is, if you do feel this way, then you may be correct. There are probably millions who would love Western Civilization if they were exposed to Western civilization.

 

But if you really appreciate free market sentiment, I mean *really* appreciate it, then why not allow the free market to free the market - notwithstanding the incredibly slow gestation period.

No. I believe what is true: markets exists no matter what. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the plastic dog schit market already existed. Markets are like gravity, they exist long before someone "discovers" them.

 

Therefore, your premise is DC-retarded. You don't "impose" something that already exists.

 

The reality is that markets can only be suppressed. And, the only way to keep them from being suppressed is the military, police, etc., and hopefully some useful diplomacy-->or else why do we pay you people? We cannot do business if somebody is preventing it or stealing from us. The Phoenicians learned this 3.5k years ago. Why haven't you learned it yet? The funny part is the scarf-wearing grad students who spend 10 years in college? Yeah, they haven't learned this either.

4. But all of the above is likely just an over-simplification by scarf-wearing, Starbucks drinking, RINO-liberal-!@#$s, who simply don't understand the golbal political landscape in a nuanced enough way (I anticipate a "you said it, not me" response to this sentence).

Nope. Rather, it's a mostly idiotic demonstration that you really don't know how business works. There's no nuance here...just silliness.

Edited November 11, 2011 by OCinBuffalo

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

He appeals to simpletons.

One of the mods of this board use to say he [AD] generally checked his website for answers to questions on politics. I'm sure he will not admit to that now.

[OCinBuffalo]

One of the mods of this board use to say he [AD] generally checked his website for answers to questions on politics. I'm sure he will not admit to that now.

Yeah, antagonize Darin....great plan.

 

But go right ahead, there's bound to be more humor in him going after you for your stupidity, than me for ripping on Ron Paul.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

Yeah, antagonize Darin....great plan.

 

But go right ahead, there's bound to be more humor in him going after you for your stupidity, than me for ripping on Ron Paul.

Me??? I'm not the one that pointed out he was a simpleton, that was Tom

[Rob's House]

A lot of what Ron Paul says is dead on. Some of the foreign policy measures may be overstated, and the idea that he supports gold backing of the dollar has been misrepresented in the media.

 

He appeals to simpletons for the same reason Ralph Nader does, he allows them an easy exit from the mainstream without having to be able to articulate a position. Where he differs from Nader is that his positions actually have substance which is why in addition to the simpletons he has also amassed a strong backing of well reasoned supporters.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

A lot of what Ron Paul says is dead on. Some of the foreign policy measures may be overstated, and the idea that he supports gold backing of the dollar has been misrepresented in the media.

 

He appeals to simpletons for the same reason Ralph Nader does, he allows them an easy exit from the mainstream without having to be able to articulate a position. Where he differs from Nader is that his positions actually have substance which is why in addition to the simpletons he has also amassed a strong backing of well reasoned supporters.

Paul is a complete jackass. He's still crying the sky is falling because of the massive inflation we are suppose to be living through

 

Go back on the gold standard? Ok sure.

 

He's just the "ugh, government bad" guy, and right wing simpletons everywhere cheer that and then go and collect Medicare

[Jauronimo]

Paul is a complete jackass. He's still crying the sky is falling because of the massive inflation we are suppose to be living through

 

Go back on the gold standard? Ok sure.

 

He's just the "ugh, government bad" guy, and right wing simpletons everywhere cheer that and then go and collect Medicare

While you are the "YAY, more government. Big government is inherently efficient and good," guy and support wealth re-distribution. How does that make you any better than a Paul supporter?

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

While you are the "YAY, more government. Big government is inherently efficient and good," guy and support wealth re-distribution. How does that make you any better than a Paul supporter?

Straw man much? Big government isn't perfect, but it is a positive good.

 

As to why I very much support wealth redistribution, it's simply because I understand how the world works, I understand how the economy works and I understand consumers need money to spend in order for a consumer driven economy to work. And since the government makes the money everyone should get some of it mate.

[Chef Jim]

One of the mods of this board use to say he [AD] generally checked his website for answers to questions on politics. I'm sure he will not admit to that now.

 

If you had more than a peanut between your ears you'd realize that Tom's reply was a bash on Pete.

[Dave_In_Norfolk]

If you had more than a peanut between your ears you'd realize that Tom's reply was a bash on Pete.

Oh brother

[Jauronimo]

Straw man much? Big government isn't perfect, but it is a positive good.

 

As to why I very much support wealth redistribution, it's simply because I understand how the world works, I understand how the economy works and I understand consumers need money to spend in order for a consumer driven economy to work. And since the government makes the money everyone should get some of it mate.

So we've established you don't know what Strawman means, as you went on to blindly support big government, lets move on. First off, please define positive good and explain how it differs from negative good. Next, how is big government inherently good?

 

If you really understood the first thing about the economy and human nature you would know that re-distribution of wealth is stifling at best and catastrophic at worst. Great upside. Everyone would have more money, mate, if your big government wasn't taking so much of it to fund their inefficiencies. But that concept seems beyond your comprehension. Just for kicks, please share with me your views on aggregate demand and the demand pull argument again.

[3rdnlng]

Straw man much? Big government isn't perfect, but it is a positive good.

 

As to why I very much support wealth redistribution, it's simply because I understand how the world works, I understand how the economy works and I understand consumers need money to spend in order for a consumer driven economy to work. And since the government makes the money everyone should get some of it mate.

 

I nominate this poster for a Conner Award based on this post alone. I'd refute your post but how do you get an Ramoerba to understand anything?

Edited November 11, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[GG]

Straw man much? Big government isn't perfect, but it is a positive good.

 

As to why I very much support wealth redistribution, it's simply because I understand how the world works, I understand how the economy works and I understand consumers need money to spend in order for a consumer driven economy to work. And since the government makes the money everyone should get some of it mate.

 

Let's just say that the statement above cements the view that you have absolutely no idea how the econimy works.

[DaveinElma]

Let's just say that the statement above cements the view that you have absolutely no idea how the econimy works.

 

He doesn't know that but at least he knows how to spell economy.

 

[GG]

He doesn't know that but at least he knows how to spell economy.

 

 

And I'd rather understand it than know how to spell it.

[DaveinElma]

And I'd rather understand it than know how to spell it.

 

You understand it more than him but that's not saying much. You still have a ways to go.

[Juror#8]

The problem is: I'm not a neo-conservative. I was never a liberal, and I really just don't care that much about Israel. So, swing and a miss. Starting to become a habit with you, isn't it?

 

When did I call you a neo-conservative. This is your problem, you mischaracterize someone's words, and then argue the point that you made up yourself and attributed to someone else. When you successfully argue the bastardized point, you claim some sense of victory. But the only thing that you've achieved is arguing against a point that you created. You were arguing with yourself. And you won!

 

My opinion: YOU WILL NOT ACKNOWEDGE THIS POINT. You will quote everything else that I write because you can't acknowledge when you're wrong. But it's on record. I never called you a neo-conservative. I even mentioned "as an aside" to take the conversation off course momentarily.

 

 

I am in merely in business. Some people even refer to me as a business expert, and pay me accordingly, and I know you can't sell stuff in South America, Asia and Africa without a Navy, because you f'ing can't. That requires no Constitutional substantiation, that's just common business sense.

 

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with keeping the North Koreans from stealing our stuff. Here's a hint: business people rarely base what we do on some assclown's irrelevant interpretation of the constitution.

 

My comment about the constitution was to make an ideological point. Most people usually don't realzie that their constitutional ideologies conflict. Just trying to see if your's does. It was completely off topic and irrelevant to the discussion.

 

My opinion though: You're a 2nd Amendment originalist which presents an interesting dilemma. Another conversation, another thread though, my friend.

 

If we are trying to buy oil in Saudi Arabia, and sell computer stuff, how the F do we "avoid" the threat of a tac nuke attached to a missile from Iran taking out the carrier group assigned to protect our tankers? They may not ever do it, but the threat creates or thickens the barrier to entry, inflates prices, and increases costs exponentially for that market, as well as all the dependent markets. The insurance alone....means the market cannot "avoid" these things. It is a market, after all, and comes complete with the people who make money on it failing as well as succeeding.

 

You are showing you don't know how markets work, and how we make business decisions. Been in DC too long? Or have you never known how markets work?

 

No. I believe what is true: markets exists no matter what. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the plastic dog schit market already existed. Markets are like gravity, they exist long before someone "discovers" them.

 

Therefore, your premise is DC-retarded. You don't "impose" something that already exists.

 

The reality is that markets can only be suppressed. And, the only way to keep them from being suppressed is the military, police, etc., and hopefully some useful diplomacy-->or else why do we pay you people? We cannot do business if somebody is preventing it or stealing from us. The Phoenicians learned this 3.5k years ago. Why haven't you learned it yet? The funny part is the scarf-wearing grad students who spend 10 years in college? Yeah, they haven't learned this either.

 

Nope. Rather, it's a mostly idiotic demonstration that you really don't know how business works. There's no nuance here...just silliness.

 

All your insults, deflection, and defensive-mechanisms aside, you make some good points here. I don't think that you understand my point (perhaps you evaded it) about access to the marketplace happening organically. I don't think that you understood my point that if a region or state actor is antithetical to the free market, then the market itself dictates it's inclusion. In brief, either the impetus is strong enough to counter-act or circumvent the oppositional force, or it's not. that's letting the market dictate the "freeness" of the market.

 

I think that that makes the most sense. I believe that Ron Paul does too. It's a little more constitutionally palatable. But consistutional palatability is not the end all, be all.

 

You ignored my references/examples, yet addressed my entire post with some generalizations, Econ 101, and a couple of, "under duress business cannot operate" or variation thereof, declaratives. In short, you said the same thing that you said in your first post but you changed the examples around and consulted a text book for a couple of economic principles to sprinkle in for...presumably, veracity.

 

Overall, I respect your opinion - even though you offered it by *attempting* to insult me. It would be cool if you didn't personalize the debate and could point/counter-point without the "moron, retard(ed)," et cetera language. But if that is how you communicate best in your native environment, then have at it friend.

 

Have a good weekend.

[DC Tom]

Straw man much? Big government isn't perfect, but it is a positive good.

 

As to why I very much support wealth redistribution, it's simply because I understand how the world works, I understand how the economy works and I understand consumers need money to spend in order for a consumer driven economy to work. And since the government makes the money everyone should get some of it mate.

 

What the !@#$? Did you just say the economy is the government giving people money so they can buy ****?

[IDBillzFan]

What the !@#$? Did you just say the economy is the government giving people money so they can buy ****?

I think it's pretty safe to say that Dave's goal for today is to post as much randomly stupid stuff as humanly possible in hopes of getting the most number of people to call him a dumbass before the weekend begins.