Originally posted by Darth Jello
Well, he linked political forum which is basically just a place where conservatives and racists gather to jerk each other off.
I had no idea what http://www.breitbart.com/ was about, then I scanned through the front page. LoL.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Well he already opposes them as a congressman. Basically unabiding by the constitution is something he sees to impose. Mainly war and fiscal policies.
thats sort of my point. not only does paul challenge modern republicans, there has been no time in history that the republicans stood for the same things he did.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
The organization itself isnt corrupt because it takes people to make up that organization. You should know this. Not every republican is swaying from the constitutional background.
I actually don't agree with that at all. sure, not every candidate is part of some corporatist elite, but I find it hard to believe that the Republican brand would mean much after Paul strips it of its corporatist values and theocracy. Like, lets pretend he is successful, his specific goals on things like personal liberty and foreign policy make him so different from the people who are generally represented by his party that he would destroy its foundation. The Tea Party would almost assuredly become a much more successful new political institution more than happy to serve corporate overlords.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Opposing the vietnam war for one and I feel a little lazy to gather up my information to make a pointless point.
ok, but this is the same era where the Republican party opposed inter-racial marriage...
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Yeah, media exposure haermm
do you believe Paul would have more media exposure if he didn't run as a Republican?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Massive increase in funding? Explain. Is massive even the right word? Lol
greater exposure in the media translates to greater funding
Originally posted by Mairuzu
This is basically what you're saying."Theres bad republicans in the republican party who turn away from constitutional policies and this makes ALL republicans look bad so why the heck is Paul running as a republican? SO WEIRD"
nonono, I'm saying the problems with the Republican party go to the roots of party based democratic systems in capitalist economies. I definately think there are reasonable solutions that might get us out of this situation, but I hardly think radical libertarianism is the way to do it. To be more on point, I think the corruption in the Republican party is so endemic that one would either have to conform to the corruption, or change the party so much that it would be incapable of competing in a modern democratic election.
Basically, in this latter scenario, Paul is exactly as I described, attempting to bail water out of the sinking Titanic.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Why not? What does that have to do with what he stands for and the constitutional policies he wants put in place?
well, sure, we can talk about his policies, but why are you so hesitant to talk about this issue? you remind me of Mitt Romney flipping out over a reporter asking him about medical pot.
Originally posted by inimalist
thats sort of my point. not only does paul challenge modern republicans, there has been no time in history that the republicans stood for the same things he did.
That's not really true. Old School republicans wanted a gold backed standard, heavy excise taxes (not income taxes), and a free-market. Some Industrial Age Republicans were also isolationists (Paul is not an isolationist but parallels can be drawn). Probably the biggest differene between Paul and old school republicans is how liberal Paul is about personal freedoms. But, yes, Paul is very much like many of the nascent republicans (they were liberals, mang...LIBERALS!).
Originally posted by dadudemon
heavy excise taxes (not income taxes), and a free-market.
Protectionism is generally viewed as strongly opposed to the free market. How did they (and Paul) justify both?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Some Industrial Age Republicans were also isolationists (Paul is not an isolationist but parallels can be drawn).
Of Romney, Obama, and Paul, Paul is by far the most isolationist. "Globalism" as a by-word for evil is a large part of his rhetoric and the conspiracy theorists who follow him.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Protectionism is generally viewed as strongly opposed to the free market. How did they (and Paul) justify both?
I believe you are assuming excise taxes are only interstate applicable when they were and are internationally applicable.
Excise taxes can actually create a "freer"market: if you view it from a domestic perspective. The country that has tariffs on foreign goods makes domestic goods more economically viable. The oppression of foreign markets onto the domestic one can be controlled with tariffs...or that's how part of the theory of international trade goes, at least.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Of Romney, Obama, and Paul, Paul is by far the most isolationist. "Globalism" as a by-word for evil is a large part of his rhetoric and the conspiracy theorists who follow him.
Isolationist is not the correct word: Non-interventionism is more correct.
Compare and contrast isolationist and non-interventionist.
Then relate that to Ron Paul and his polices. Use direct quotes/sources from Ron Paul when relating those concepts. The report is due by Friday at 23:59.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I believe you are assuming excise taxes are only interstate applicable when they were and are internationally applicable.
I was definately refering to international excise taxes (tariffs) because I didn't know there was such a thing as interstate excise taxes.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The oppression of foreign markets onto the domestic one can be controlled with tariffs...or that's how part of the theory of international trade goes, at least.
"Oppression" by people who make goods better and/or more cheaply than you can strikes me as an integral part of the free market.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Isolationist is not the correct word: Non-interventionism is more correct.
The idea that there is a difference (except perhaps in extremes) is purely an invention of Libertarianism, evidently based on dictates Paul has handed down to his acolytes.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was definately refering to international excise taxes (tariffs) because I didn't know there was such a thing as interstate excise taxes.
Interstate excise taxes are prohibited by the constitution but did occur before the current constitution (not a major player but part of why the Articles of Confederation failed).
There are plenty of ways to enact "tariffs" against other states through-roundabout means. We can go all the way back to the tarriff Hamilton pushed that functioned as an indirect interstate tariff: it negatively impacted the south's ability to make/sell goods and benefitted the north.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"Oppression" by people who make goods better and/or more cheaply than you can strikes me as an integral part of the free market.
You look at the "free-market" from the perspective that the "market" is the entirety of the global market. In the context of this discussion, that is not the correct perspective. It is a "our market" vs. "all other markets".
Let's reel it back into the original point:
Old School Republicans.
Now why in the world (lol, pun) would any Republican, old or new, want a free market for the globe at the detriment of domestic market? Exactly. "Free market" is quite specific to the US market being free.
I believe economists have a different label for the whole world being a free-market:
anarcho-capitalism
In order to have a "free-market" the government actually has to intervene to ensure it happens. lol
I believe the failure of the free-market to create the idealistic system of "perfection" is called a market failure. Foreign tariffs seek to correct some of that.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The idea that there is a difference (except perhaps in extremes) is purely an invention of Libertarianism, evidently based on dictates Paul has handed down to his acolytes.
There is no difference between isolationism and non-interventionism?
This is news to me. So why do we have two different labels for them?
Rather, what are the textbook definitions of each of those labels?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I was definately refering to international excise taxes (tariffs) because I didn't know there was such a thing as interstate excise taxes."Oppression" by people who make goods better and/or more cheaply than you can strikes me as an integral part of the free market.
The idea that there is a difference (except perhaps in extremes) is purely an invention of Libertarianism, evidently based on dictates Paul has handed down to his acolytes.
Wanting to open trades with cuba is isolationism? Wanting to trade with countries instead of bombing them is isolationism? Wut
Isn't bombing countries bad for trading? Sounds pretty isolationist to me. Sitting in the white house giving orders to bomb people with remote drones. eeeesh
Originally posted by Bardock42
Do you think Ron Paul will win the Republican nomination, Mairuzu?
It's a possibility but its people with money vs people without. Paul has a lot of civilian support but Romney has a lot of money and even the RNC is bending over for him, its clear the GOP have him favored. Even Obamas goldman sach buddies got Romney backed up. Weird
The media also plays a huge roll in the mix. You know, the channels where most Americans get their information from because they are stupid lazy shits.
Ignore Paul, but if you can't then talk some shit. Ask him when hes dropping out or whatever. Or just ask when hes going to endorse Romney. Ask him why hasnt he won a single state.
Even tho he won Iowa afterall.
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Wanting to open trades with cuba is isolationism? Wanting to trade with countries instead of bombing them is isolationism? WutIsn't bombing countries bad for trading? Sounds pretty isolationist to me. Sitting in the white house giving orders to bomb people with remote drones. eeeesh
Ron Paul is conflating language when he attempts to say he's not isolationist by advocating free trade. I think the word in this context has a diplomatic-military connotation, not an economic one.
He's too far in the opposite direction from the current policy, going from too much intervention to too little.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Mairuzu, who will be better for the USA; Romney or Obama?If Ron Paul runs as an independent, then Obama will be elected. I do hope you realize that.
I dont think hes running as an independant.
Romney or Obama, its a lose lose regardless. I hope you realize that. Romney isnt going to beat obama regardless if paul runs independent or not.
It's not as if the USA didn't trade with other countries during its period of isolationism. It just didn't want to lift a finger when Fascism and Stalinism were on the rise in Europe and only half-heartedly kept up its defenses in the Pacific while Japan saber rattled.Ron Paul is conflating language when he attempts to say he's not isolationist by advocating free trade. I think the word in this context has a diplomatic-military connotation, not an economic one.
He's too far in the opposite direction from the current policy, going from too much intervention to too little.
So you're using your own personal term of what isolationism means?
Originally posted by Mairuzu
I dont think hes running as an independant.Romney or Obama, its a lose lose regardless. I hope you realize that. Romney isnt going to beat obama regardless if paul runs independent or not.
So you're using your own personal term of what isolationism means?
So if Ron Paul is all for trade with Cuba it doesn't mean he isn't an isolationist.
The main issue with anyone who would want to stop American interventionism cold turkey isn't that our "enemies" would gain a second wind and take the fight to us, it's that if America left the UN, NATO, all the other security blocs, and broke defense agreements with so many nations at once (don't get me wrong, I would be happy if we stopped giving weapons and money to countries like Saudi Arabia) the backlash and resentment would make the reaction to the Iraq War look like a polite disagreement.