You’ll notice
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
The campaign just ended a three day fund raising drive specifically for raising money for television ads in the primary states. The 3 day quest was to reach $430K and at the midnight hour we were at $402,369.00. Not bad for a third tear candidate! Also, interestingly there is talk of the constitutionalist party as well as the libertarian parties coming together to financially support Dr. Paul as well as vote for him, this could shake things up quiet a bit. The one to watch is the New Hampshire primaries as the “Live free or die” state has a huge Ron Paul following. If the corporations buy out the vote then remember that there is always:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=49495
The man says what he means and means what he says, so rare in a politician these days. I think it was put best by a supporter quoted by the Washington Post:
—————————————————–
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401329_pf.html
“Have you ever heard the expression, ‘What’s wrong is right and what’s right is wrong?’ ” Aitken, the retired art teacher, asks. “We’ve been doing things that are so wrong for so long that the right thing for some might feel freaky. Sometimes you have to stop and think, ‘Okay, this is my conviction.’ ”
And guess what, the main stream is scared! Very scared of what Dr. Paul is doing.
http://ronpaulmeetupvideos.com/2007/10/12/truck-signs-not-allowed-in-florida/
He can either take the White House or votes cast for him will send Hillary directly to the oval office. So I guess what republicans are left with is an option after the New Hampshire debates (and a huge victory for Ron Paul) to go Paul or accept a Hillary defeat. That is, Vote for Ron Paul and put him office, or vote for another Republican and put Hillary in the White House.
Most republican neo cons want to blame Ron Paul supporters of this very thing, saying that if you vote Ron Paul and all the other elitist vote for Romney, McCain, Rudy, or Thompson then the Ron Paul crowd will skew the numbers and ensure a win for Hillary. I would like to take a stand and challenge that train of thought, as I feel it is just the opposite. If the so called “main stream” candidates get votes then it will hamper Ron Paul’s chances and ensure a democratic victory. The reasons are as follows:
1. There is not another candidate in the Republican race that wants us out of Iraq, in this issue we just as well have 4 more years of Bush. People say that this is disrespectful to our troops, but it is strange that Dr. Paul has received more donations from men and women in uniform than any candidate on either side.
2. Out of the top GOP candidates there is not one Thompson, McCain, Romney, or
3. Rudy that could beat Hillary in the general election, much less a debate.
4. While Rudy takes your guns, and Romney consults his lawyers on whether to continue the war, and Thompson falls asleep (or puts everyone to sleep in his state of the union address), or McCain crawls in bed with big business and allows amnesty for illegal aliens, then one would assume against the money machine of Hillary Clinton they do not stand a chance. One single debate with Ron Paul Vs. Hillary Clinton would end with her showing her true socialist agenda, and it would be over for her.
5. The people that support Dr. Paul and are ready for change, and it is comming.
People will call his supporters loons, and the RonPaulites or what ever colorful name they can think of, and honestly if anyone wants to call me a name for my beliefs in Freedom, Democracy, Liberty, and Justice, then so be it, I am that guy!
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Being libertarian is not a suicide pact, and that is what ronpaul2008.com wants us to agree to. The president’s primary duty is commander in chief, and ronpaul2008.com has done nothing to show me that he is even competent for the position, much less a good choice.
And Hillary would make him look like a complete buffoon. Her Politico-fu is strong. His is weak.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
I support Ron Paul because he takes his oath of office seriously to support and defend the Constitution AND ALL of the Bill of Rights according to the meaning of words in the context of English grammar.
One thing I really like is that Paul rightly acknowledges that all Federal gun laws against citizens RKBA are unconstitutional and that he would disband the BATF. Then we could move those agents and let’em defend our border instead.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Ron Paul? No thanks. I wonder what his stance is on marijuana.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm
The President’s primary duty is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”. Bush has called the Constitution ” a G..d… piece of paper”. He is allowing our nation to be invaded when he says wer’re in a “war on terorism”—without even being able or willing to NAME THE ENEMY!!! That’s a direct violation of Article IV, Section “to protect the States against invasion” and since it allows enemies which use terrorism easy access, that’s giving them “aid and comfort” which is “treason” according to Article III, Section 3.
Hilalry Clinton and all the Democrats would continue that as would most all the Republicans—NONE of them has raised it as an issue– excepting Tancredo, Hunter and Paul. Most of the two-party candidates are UNFIT for office!!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I’m surprised that took four posts.
And that, ladies and germs, is why freedom (at least on a national scale) is just so much tilting at windmills.
“But what about my pet prohibition? Does that mean I don’t get to tell anyone what to do, either?”
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Ron Paul does not use marijuana, but thinks that each state needs to develop their own laws pertaining to the subject for medical use, with no federal push one way or the other as the constitution states. Unfortunately in the US the feds play money politics with the states so not to question their authority. Do it our way or loose tons of funding for your most important project, this is political control from the top down.
Phelps,
No matter how Hillary spins it, when a constitutionalist from a free society goes up against a true socialist, the constitutionalist will win the support of a free people EVERY time.
Hillary is good at spinning and lying, Ron Paul is good at the truth. Hillary will try to sell you the farm and all the while Ron has the deed.
To hear Ron speak about a topic and give his ideas on how to fix them is amazing as Hillary to date has dodged most direct answers for her “how to fix it” ideas, as have most of the other candidates with Barrack coming in second to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul would certainly dominate her every word with support from the constitution, something Hillary knows NOTHING about. I have stopped trying to convert people to Paulism, but the one tale that can not be ignored is the New Hampshire elections scheduled for 1/22, and it will be a huge eye opener to the people that feel the same old same old is doing them right.
Lets imaging hypothetically that this campaign (unlike all others) brings out the 18-25 year olds to the polls(which represent a large number of his online support), as well as the libertarian support, and constitutionalists, suddenly a new demographic is created that was not tallied before in previous elections. Not to mention the Republicans and Democrats that lean towards the middle. The candidates on either side lean towards the extreme end of their respective party lines. The one thing the main stream media is terrified to admit is that the majority of Americans do not vote at all (due to being impassionate about any candidate), so the minority has been in control over the political landscape for so long their pride and arrogance may be the death of their two party system. I will leave it at that until the New Hampshire primaries are over and we see who the peoples candidate is. If the youth, the four respective parties (Republican, Constitutionalists, Libertarian, and Democrat) send some support Ron’s way it could be a landslide victory. But as anything else these are opinions like yours and we wont know the truth of it all until the final buzzer sounds!!!
GO NEW HAMPSHIRE, GO RON PAUL 08
Sorry Uncle for the lengthy posts, but ya knew Id see the header… hehe…
BT
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
[…] Say Uncle announces that he has accepted advertising from Ron Paul. Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Gun Owners for Ron Paul
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Being a “good” commander in chief doesn’t consist of running around the world tearing down and rebuilding nations.
Ron Paul is correct when he says that we should have been more committed to Afghanistan and catching Bin Laden instead of fooling around in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 and was neither stockpiling nor developing WMDs. Bin Laden still hasn’t been caught 6 years later.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:36 pm
I’d probably up for a Paul candidacy if it wasn’t for his foreign policy ideas. Plus, his supporters scare the hell out of me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Lastly I would like to add that the folks who say that Ron Paul does not stand a chance constantly remind me of something that puts a smile on my face every time I think about it. I am reminded of the same propaganda from my friend and yours Sean Hannity whom over the last 6 months has tried everything within his corporate media power to silence, belittle, and minimize Ron Paul and his followers.
I am too old to be a youtube junky, and I do not randomly watch individual youtube clips, but this is the tried and true reality of how the media is responding to RP, and will go down in history regardless the outcome, and to be honest it should be an eye opener to the American people. There is no denying what the corporate mission is in regards to Dr. Paul and Liberty.
He has gone through such lengths to minimize his following that he has stated that all polls are falsified through internet spamming, and after the Florida debate when the results were clear, he was so bold to say that Ron Paul did not win, and during the interview Dr. Paul embarrassed him when Ron stated that “obviously all Fox polls were incorrect” since Sean said that the polls were rigged, falsely adjusted, and every other excuse he could lie to himself about. The problem with this is that the American people are smarter than this half wit. Don’t beat yourself up, you are simply a victim of the true spin zone of Fox news, as ABC learned that lying to the public can get you into hot water as was displayed by their apologizing for taking the poll down that Ron Paul DOMINATED, and went so far as to state that after investigating the poll they found no such tampering evident (and if there was tampering I can assure you this would have been front page news). Polls are polls, skewed one way or the other by the most motivated party or distributor. On the Fox news website if a poll went up today asking whether people were going to vote democrat or republican, who do you think would win? In the clip you can hear Dr. Paul defend himself as to why he is not fairing well in the national polls “My name has not been included” – democracy at its finest!
The largest hurdle Ron Paul faces is delegates that will pull for him, but if you don’t think that they are presently recruiting those followers then you are out of touch with the so called Ron Paul fanatics.
In closing, if you think the Bush policy of fear tactics, “terrorist threats”, and fear mongering is so valid, then ask yourself why our military is not on the Southern boarder… While the Liberals in New York City laid down their rights of unjust search and seizure by being searched in the subways for “Public safety against terrorists” the Southern border was sitting wide open for foreigners from many Middle Eastern Countries to come across, and cross they did and still are. Never in history do the words of Benjamin Franklin ring in so loudly:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
So be sure and vote against Ron Paul, it will be a vote against Liberty, Justice, and the true American way, and remember ignorance breeds ignorance.
BT
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Heh
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:13 pm
youtube tags did not carry over, I will add links here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDwDIj5ahuY
and here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZ4IW0Y_7WY
Sebastian,
Don’t feel bad. Ron Paul fans fear war mongrels, corporate welfare supporters, Bible thumping snake handlers, amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, eminent domain, getting tazed by fascists, taxation without representation, just to name a few.
In every party there are the fair share of loons on the left and right, but most Paul supporters are misrepresented like each party when “those” types get involved.
Don’t be scared of the foreign policy, unless of course you own a company with a chance for a giant contract, as there is not one single reason for us to be there now if we were not prepping the country for American corporations to move in and attempt to further bastardize the center of the Middle East. I have lived a life as a proud republican supporter, Christian, family man with two car loans, a mortgage, two mini me’s running around the house in their underwear, but never in my life have I felt so left out in the cold as I have in the last 6 years, and I for one am ready to get my party, and country back in line. This is not a time to fear big change, as we as Americans are capable of anything, but not while being oppressed. One ideal we do share is fear, I fear that there are those that want the same old same old, and I fear special interest groups from both sides that lobby votes that do not represent me or benefit my family in any way, but never do they fear demanding more tax dollars from my labors. Don’t fear liberty…….
BT
Yu-Ain,
Not sure what the link or comment was for, but surely you can find a better Google search than that to attempt to smear Dr. Paul. Bah, never mind, I would only debate about an issue, not a ridiculous reference from 332B.C., but here is a date that you can Google, wont find any negatives about Ron Paul there, unless your communist… July 4th 1776 — The 4th of July, you remember, the day off of work where you can get smashed at the lake… that’s it, the warm holiday…
BT
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Refusing to participate in “foreign adventures”, and restrictng the military to protecting home soil and vessels in transit does not make one an isolationist.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
i’ve voted republican my entire life and I knew when wolf blitzer was doing the equivalent of cheerleader cartwheels on the invasion of Iraq that we were making a mistake. I will vote for ron paul with a clear conscience that I am voting for the best man.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 pm
Good thing Ron Paul isn’t an isolationist.
October 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 pm
See, this is exactly what I mean about his supporters scaring me. Guys, I’ve always had a soft spot for Ron Paul, because the man is principled, and I like a lot of libertarian ideas. But he also doesn’t have a snowballs chance in hell of winning, and he, and others like him, are a big part of the reason libertarian ideals get absolutely no traction in the political mainstream.
I say this as someone who used to vote Libertarian, but the I got frustrated with it, because I’d like to see at least some libertarian ideas win. Paul has it right in that he’s going through a major political party, instead of the LP, but he’s not going to win the nomination. He’s not, in fact, even going to come close. I hope for the sake of libertarian values in the Republican Party, he makes at least a respectable showing, but I’ve long given up on Paul, and those like him, on carrying libertarian ideas forward politically.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:09 pm
I hope for the sake of libertarian values in the Republican Party, he makes at least a respectable showing, but I’ve long given up on Paul, and those like him, on carrying libertarian ideas forward politically.
I don’t completely write him off on carrying the ideas forward. However, it won’t be by running for president. (Although I think his fundraising numbers are freaking the establishment out a bit.) If Paul would practice what he preaches (*cough*earmarks*cough*), and people really started calling on their own Congresscritters to behave more like him, the ideas would be more likely to move forward one at a time.
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Sebastian,
Do you not feel that win or loose that this is a turning point? The effect that a huge turnout would have in local like minded elections would be monumental.
BT
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:42 pm
I’d probably up for a Paul candidacy if it wasn’t for his foreign policy ideas. Plus, his supporters scare the hell out of me.
Defending the Constitution means defending the country.
Is there any question about this?
October 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I’ll still vote for Ron Paul. I agree with him on his “wild-eyed, radical” desire to downsize and trim back intrusive government run amok, and therefore, I will vote for him, even if no one else does. The establishment on both sides, including Sean “Status Quo” Hannity, has a vested interest in things remaining as they are. Paul would end the Fed, the ATF, and the IRS, just for starters. This freaks the HELL out of people who aren’t used to more than one major national-level change per year.
I’ll vote for him, even if I have to use a write-in ballot. The polls show what tons of people really want, and what the people in charge are afraid to give them – real, honest-to-god, not-since-1899 freedom in the USA.
Is it a pipe dream? Sure, maybe. But I’m done voting for the lesser of two evils. I’m going to vote my concience this year, and feel clean about it afterwards.
ColtCCO
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Do you not feel that win or loose that this is a turning point?
No, not really. I’ve heard too many promises from libertarian candidates in this regard to believe it. Don’t get me wrong, I think libertarian ideas can win, but the reason they don’t has a lot to do with libertarians not really wanting to build a winning political movement.
The main thing Paul has done is show that the political parties need to find inspiring candidates that can mobilize a lot of support on the internet, because you can raise a lot of money that way. Money helps, but it doesn’t win elections.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Defending the Constitution means defending the country
True, but that’ll be an academic exercise if we don’t defend our interests abroad. Without middle east oil, our economy starved to death. You’ll find in that circumstance, not many people will give a shit about the constitution. Remember what gave FDR the mandate to take the commerce clause and make it mean whatever was convenient for him.
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I guess what I’m saying is that this whole edifice we know as western civilization is going to come crashing down around us if we retreat from the world stage. We could afford a Ron Paul style foreign policy when we had two oceans protected by the Royal Navy between us and all other worldly concerns, but that world ended in a hail of Maxim machine gun fire at the early part of this century. Whether we like it or not, we inherited the mess that was created by the collapse of the European empires. It sucks, but that’s the world we live in. There isn’t really any going back at this point.
October 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 pm
As I understand it, trading in the Middle East would not stop with Dr. Paul in office. The oil would still be coming in, but if the saber rattling started then our purchase of that oil would decrease as a punishment. Iran depends on our purchase of their oil and could not survive themselves without US demand, where am I going wrong?
I can’t help but think Dr. Paul is being looked at as more than a Libertarian candidate by many more supporters than would support a Libertarian. I just can’t imagine almost 1000 meet up groups disappearing as opposed to organizing for local area elections, and with the popularity of his message that local politicians run on some of the same ideals. The problem is by the time they make it to Washington the money is too hard to pass up and hence the corruption starts and any remembrance of the American people are put on the back burner for sound bites and disaster dog and pony shows….
October 24th, 2007 at 1:05 am
I like much of Ron Paul’s platform though I can not agree with him on his insistence of immediate withdraw from Iraq. Say what you like about the war but the fact remains that there has been no terrorist attack on American soil since we started our mission there.
I fear that Ron Paul will seek an independent endorsement when he (inevitably) loses the primary as he hinted at towards the end of the Michigan debate. I hope that there are enough conservative voters out there who remember the hard lesson we learned from Ross Perot. The third party dark horse in that race began the Clinton administration. Lord knows, we don’t need a repeat of that fiasco.
As hardcore Second Ammendment advocates, I think Fred is our best hope. The press has not been kind to him, but the people I talk to in my day to day travels are still pretty enamored of him.
That being said, I miss the old days when I came to Say Uncle and there was only a very pretty girl looking at me with a smile on the left side of the page. Now I have to contend with Don Imus and Ron Paul looking at me, too. I told my wife, “Look, there’s something for the ladies now, too!” She just walked away…
October 24th, 2007 at 2:54 am
In the voice of Matt Damon in Team America World Police:
Ron Paul.
Ron Paul.
More seriously, as tangentially touched upon by Tam way up there: Universal Suffrage is the SINGLE biggest mistake in American history.
In the vernacular: If you can vote on it, you ain’t free.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:07 am
I have liked Ron Paul for a long time. Hell, I still like him, but not as much.
I don’t want a man for president who says we earned and deserved 9/11. Period.
He said it. I heard him. Argue all you want about it, I heard him and I don’t want him for president. And that’s a first time for me in a long time that I can say that.
I would not now vote for him if he could prove he was the Messiah.
October 24th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Straightarrow,
Please post a link to this new found data. Short of Dr. Paul quoting the 9/11 commission report on CIA blowback(the only official investigation), I have not heard him state that we earned and deserved 9/11? I think that if there is new information on this issue we all deserve to hear him say we “earned and deserved” the attacks, as this would certainly change my opinion as well.
BT
October 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
As I understand it, trading in the Middle East would not stop with Dr. Paul in office. The oil would still be coming in, but if the saber rattling started then our purchase of that oil would decrease as a punishment. Iran depends on our purchase of their oil and could not survive themselves without US demand, where am I going wrong?
The US is not the only country that buys oil. The Chinese are buying a lot of it, along with the Indians (big reason price is so high right now). The Europeans are also very dependent on middle east oil. Iran may be willing to sell us oil, but absent our presence in the middle east, either one of two things is going to happen… Iran gets nukes and uses that as cover for seizing a lot of middle east oil production, and charges monopoly prices for it. Iran gets nukes, and ends up pushing Israel too far, and we lose the supply of oil because the only thing that can live there are cockroaches.
We don’t live in the world Ron Paul wants to return to anymore.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:10 am
BT,
The point is that you can’t just “build a wall” physically or metaphorically and be safe in today’s world. You couldn’t do it then and you can’t do it now. A lot has changed in 2000+ years. Human nature isn’t one of them.
As for dates: For this conversation 7-4-1776 is a red herring. The Revolutionary war isn’t the only legitamate war analogy.
Even the Founders themselves didn’t think that. They even fought a psuedo-war against France without a declaration of war.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Yu-Ain,
Ahhh, you are speaking of the illegal invasion…. I didn’t understand the link, or the post once I got there about the wall. I don’t think that illegals will ever stop coming across the border, nor do I think that terrorists would stop if there was a wall, but the one thing I feel is that a wall would certainly slow down the massive migration, and perhaps allow those that would do us harm better chances at getting caught. Nothing will completely stop the border invasion short of an armed man every 100 yards… Sounds crazy, but probably cheaper than the fence.
One thing I would certainly like to understand better is the link you added took me to a website where I spent maybe 2 hours reading last night. I was trying to get a feel for the “military” opinion to see if I had been shot straight about the reports of military Ron Paul supporters. After much reading I am still undecided, because the blogs that people run that are back in the world (home and not in a war zone) as well as in the field are still divided. I noticed that many of them spoke about not voting at all and I started wondering if this was true or if they were under such pressure that most tried to keep their mouths shut about political issues for fear of reprisal. What’s your take??
BT
October 24th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
[…] I’m not voting for Ron Paul because he didn’t buy a damn ad here. […]
October 24th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Blounttruth, I can’t post a link. I didn’t read it. I heard him say it on television. I can’t remember exactly where it was, if it was an interview or if it was a statement he made in conjunction with one of the so-called debates.
Since then I have basically ignored him. Wish I could tell you more, but I can’t. I do remember what I heard. However, if you are not comfortable with my recollection and no reason you should be,especially, just try to catch him when he speaks somewhere on foreign relations. When I heard him say it, it sounded like it was a matter of faith with him, so I expect he will say it again.
October 24th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Oh and the words “earned” and “deserved” are mine. I don’t recall him actually saying those words, but the words he did say meant that.
October 24th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Straightarrow,
I believe this is the clip you watched
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpUZiud98lE
where you felt Dr. Paul was trying to say that we invited the attacks, this was a clip of the first Fox news debate that got so much press the next day when Ron Paul……
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZGHey7anhI
He did this to show Rudy that his comments and opinions were derived from the only known research and investigation and most complete of any that were available, the 9/11 commission report.
The only report in existence is the one Dr. Paul quoted to Rudy. “Have you ever read why they attacked us” and the next day came out at the press club to give Rudy a reading assignment so he understood where he got his information.
I think it was an ingenious way to get Rudy to say, and I quote “As someone who lived through the 9/11 attacks” as this is Rudy’s marketing strategy and has been from the start, use 9/11 for his platform.
The only question I have from that debate is if an individual puts his campaign on the shoulders of 9/11, one would think that an intelligent individual would have followed up at least to the point of reading the final report and the information it contained if not attending the commission report hearings (for that matter TIVO).
The host however did try to get Dr. Paul to say that he felt that we invited the attacks, and Dr. Paul did not take the bait.
The 9/11 commission report did edit out a few points that occurred during the hearings. These hearings should have been top priority for all US politicians to help better protect the people, but they were censoring the facts, and Dr. Paul’s opinions are based on the entire trial, not just the released portion. The following YouTube video I have never watched until searching for the hearings….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
Censor out what you like, it is the same censoring they are giving the good doctor in the MSM, unless of course he butts heads with Rudy…
BT
October 24th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Also remember GW when campaigning in his first presidential election ran on non intervention and used Bill Clintons assistance with Bosnia as a campaign ploy, we’ve come along way since GW was preaching peace…
Just keep in mind that while the candidates are debating they say what they think you want to hear, but you’ll note in this final video that the only one that can be trusted is the one with the most honest record, but this is not the case. Dr. Paul will never be given a fair shake and the US will continue to spend too much, stay at war, allow amnesty to illegal aliens, raise gas prices, just to name a few, for their profit, and all the time putting you and your families interests on in the “T” file for trash, along side the constitution.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:46 am
ColtCCO:
Paul would end the Fed, the ATF, and the IRS, just for starters. This freaks the HELL out of people who aren’t used to more than one major national-level change per year.
I realize that he says he will, and most of his “supporters” are wild-eyed enough and not particularly interested in the mechanics of the situation, but how, exactly, will he “end” them, considering the structure is mandated by Congressional law, and budget items are specified for them?
Not to mention those pesky Civil Service Protections.
October 25th, 2007 at 12:52 am
blounttruth:
As I understand it, trading in the Middle East would not stop with Dr. Paul in office. The oil would still be coming in, but if the saber rattling started then our purchase of that oil would decrease as a punishment. Iran depends on our purchase of their oil and could not survive themselves without US demand, where am I going wrong?
Well, one, you don’t understand it.
Secondly, oil is a commodity. If you’ve had a Econ course, they covered that. Iran’s oil is Iraq’s oil is AWNR oil. Mostly. There are issues with differing grades and the refining thereof, but it’s a small fraction of the total cost. Which really gets back to you don’t understand the problem with Paul’s proposed plan, and what the obvious reactions to that would be.
October 25th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Unix,
Please, by all means edumakate me…
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Now, if you could enlighten us on “Paul’s plan” and further explain the obvious reactions…. I for one would love to know how these ideas would NOT work.
—————
From: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
During that time, Congressman Paul served on the House Banking committee, where he was a strong advocate for sound monetary policy and an outspoken critic of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary measures. He was an unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values. Dr. Paul consistently voted to lower or abolish federal taxes, spending and regulation, and used his House seat to actively promote the return of government to its proper constitutional levels. In 1984, he voluntarily relinquished his House seat and returned to his medical practice. Paul returned to Congress in 1997 to represent the 14th congressional district of Texas. He presently serves on the House Committee on Financial Services and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He continues to advocate a dramatic reduction in the size of the federal government and a return to constitutional principles.
—————
Perhaps you would be an asset to the campaign, as I am sure the good doctor could use your Econ course knowledge on foreign affairs to help us on trade. The bottom line is that Dr. Paul has done his time, he is no fool. I also do not think that the policies that we live under now are working, with the fall of the dollar, inflation at all time highs, a war with no exit strategy, and proposing another war that would do nothing but inflate the afore mentioned issues.
It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory. ~W. Edwards Deming
October 25th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Blounttruth:
Please, by all means edumakate me…
Not possible if the student is only interested in disrupting the class.
Nothing in your link, for instance, deals at all with what I said. No, it’s just an excuse for another shill for Paul. No real thinking involved, just seizing on a keyword and then pasting.
October 25th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I think the problem is I didn’t understand what you said. You first said that I didn’t understand economics(your opinion), then you said oil was a commodity (in which I agree), then you said that there are many grades of oil (again I agree), then you stated that: Iran’s oil is Iraq’s oil is AWNR oil ( not sure about that, but I think you mean ANWR, and you forgot to mention OPEC), you then said that refining is a small cost (per gallon of gas you are correct, the refinement doesn’t really cost that much per barrel), and you ended your post with: Which really gets back to you don’t understand the problem with Paul’s proposed plan, and what the obvious reactions to that would be.
So again I agree, I do not understand the problem with Paul’s proposed plan, and what the reactions would be. Simply I will again ask the same question I asked last time, What is the problem with Paul’s proposed plan???
October 25th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Blounttruth:
I don’t mean to hijack Uncle’s threads too much. Doing too much of that over at Kevin B’s place.
But essentially, oil is a commodity. It’s the same, same, same. The differences come primarily in the refining. Light Sweet Crude is a lot easier to deal with than lower grades, sure. But the refineries can fix a lot of that. The cost of refineries isn’t what I was talking about, directly, but the delta of the difference between higher and lower grades of crude once they get to the refineries.
So “Iran’s oil” is decently meaningless. The price of oil on the world stage might be affected, but Iran “deciding not to sell us oil” would be largely meaningless.
Paul’s “proposed plan”, and I say that in quotes, because he alone as President wouldn’t be able to completely enact it suffers from major defects.
We can pull back to Fortress America, and live nicely – for a while. But inside of 10 years, there would be open warfare over the easily-reached oil reserves and oilfields. Which would drive the price skyward, as oilfields became strategic assets for the militaries/countrys occupying them, and the destruction that would come with the warfare. Hell, I’d expect France to re-aquire some colonial desires (for “National Security”, dontchaknow), and seize those fields.
That’s the problem with the plan – pulling the US forces back means everything changes, it’s not going to stay status quo for more than a week. Once the US isn’t there – it’s damn easy for even small military forces to punch far above their weight class.
October 25th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Unix,
I see what you are getting at, I am not sure I agree that all countries in the world (including the US under a Paul administration) would allow the oil fields to be decimated as this would again fall back on Congressional declaration of war. This would also effect not only the US but all European countries as well, as they themselves (for once) would not rely on the US to send our military over to resolve every conflict so they can sit back and point fingers at us and say we are the bad guys. I think that the idea that Dr. Paul would attempt to create an isolationist movement would be impossible as Congress could and would declare war, and if the approval was there I can see Dr. Paul sending our military in harms way, I would only hope that if he did the Humvee’s would not be sent unarmored and we would have leeway to go in and do what we do best and get out.
I will certainly be looking into this, and I wanted to say thanks for the civil discussion on the matter as well as the explanation. It is always good to hear other opinions, and I for one accept those and from them make my own assumptions.
The thing I think about most is that if the US had their own refineries and also their own source of local oil (Gulf coast, Alaska, Texas, California) and we could refine it here at home (by building more refineries), then with the US buying a considerably less amount from OPEC, wouldn’t this in fact drive prices down due to a large surplus? As well as the fact that if we did not have to pay such a high tax on fuel here at home then fuel would drop to possible record lows? This is what I thought Dr. Paul was saying about providing for ourselves.
I went to the site you linked in your first post to me and read for about 2 hours last night to try and get a feel from the militaries opinion on Dr. Paul. After reading (and I must say there were some topics that I read that took me far away from my goal) I am still unsure. I read the posts where they had the information that Dr. Paul had received the most military support financially and it seemed that they were confused, there was a comment that stated “I didn’t know anyone in the military sent money to a campaign” so it really made me think that one of three things were going on. One is that the men and women in the military do not usually send money in, and the amount Dr. Paul received was small, but more than any other candidate.
Two, that it was a flat lie and the information was bad,
or three that there are many that contribute to campaigns, but while in the military the issue of politics is not discussed so openly that a soldier would mention a contribution for fear of reprisal? What’s your take?
BT
October 25th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Oh, boy.
Sorry, Unc.
I am not sure I agree that all countries in the world (including the US under a Paul administration) would allow the oil fields to be decimated
First, I Formally Eject You As A Member of the Ninety Percenters. Decimate = reduce by 10%.
I think you mean “demolish”. But it’s irrelevant, once you start hedging like that, it shows that well, you see the problem. “Would allow the oil fields”… No, they’d go grab what they could. Right now, three countries can project a fair amount of force outside their immediate geography.
The United States, England, and France.
The area minor superpowers, however, would be able to act. Libya, Iran, portions of Iraq, Syria…. Since President Paul would (according to his platform) pull back all the US forces (and with that, remove a large portion of the UK’s support capability)…. That leaves France as the most likely to “secure” the area. “For everyone’s good, that is”.
This would also effect not only the US but all European countries as well, as they themselves (for once) would not rely on the US to send our military over to resolve every conflict so they can sit back and point fingers at us and say we are the bad guys.
That’s really nice! I agree! Except… They’ve got atrophied militaries and capabilities. That won’t change for at least – bare minimum – 5 years. Presuming they do a economic crash start (ripping money out of the public-pleasing social programs and handouts) and start pouring everything into military buildups. (Historically… is there any precedent for this? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?)
I think that the idea that Dr. Paul would attempt to create an isolationist movement would be impossible
I suggest you have a serious talk with Dr. Paul and his speechwriters, then.
I would only hope that if he did the Humvee’s would not be sent unarmored
You’d prefer to send them out top-heavy and cause massive injuries and deaths due to rollovers? Humvees were built to be fast, light, general purpose vehicles. Yes, as the situation in Iraq changed to ambush warfare, they were up-armored. That’s not a failure of the original design, and if you took that modified design and put it into another mission, it would fail miserably, until they ripped all the armor back out.
and we would have leeway to go in and do what we do best and get out.
Right! Run away! Run away! Our enemies won’t learn anything from that! Bang Bang! Time to Run Away again! As sad and irritating as it is, often there isn’t a “short term” solution. Last time we tried that, we bombed a bunch of Serbian wood dummies, and killed a lot of Serbian cows. It wasn’t until we sent in forces on the ground on a 1 year mission (now in it’s 9th? year?) that we were able to effect a change. (Also note this was next door to the militaries you’re talking about beefing up – and only the Germans had the potential to possibly put forces in place – and that without the logistics that would be needed.
The thing I think about most is that if the US had their own refineries and also their own source of local oil (Gulf coast, Alaska, Texas, California) and we could refine it here at home (by building more refineries), then with the US buying a considerably less amount from OPEC, wouldn’t this in fact drive prices down due to a large surplus?
Possibly, not guaranteed. We do have refineries. It’s more economical to bring the crude over and refine it here, so almost all our fuel is refined here. Which is a large part of the problem, as well as the EPA’s restrictions on refineries. New ones would alleviate the problem. But the biggest problem are emissions restrictions in cities, the refineries have to produce “boutique” fuels, only usable in one (or a few) areas, and not storable or transferrable. (Plus, with the ethanol insanity, it has to be trucked, not pipelined.)
As well as the fact that if we did not have to pay such a high tax on fuel here at home then fuel would drop to possible record lows?
Oh, sure. I’m not saying I’m against everything Paul is saying. Hell, I’ve got a lot of affinity for his positions. They’re just not practical in the here and now. (And I’m hoping Sebastian from SiH isn’t reading this, I’ll catch hell.)
I went to the site you linked in your first post to me
Err.. I didn’t link… anywhere?