## Ron Paul's candidacy

 Quote by lpetrich What do you mean by "anti-American"? What's the difference? Why is that notion "anti-American"? Although I will concede that it's incorrect, that does not make it anti-American, just that the North was not as good as we might have wanted it to be. In any case, the Confederate politicians had been very big on protecting slavery. You might find this analysis of the Confederate Constitution an eye-opener: Constitution of the Confederate States of America- what was changed? Most of it is cribbed from the US Constitution. It's not very big on states' rights -- it adds a few and it substracts a few, but it has no changes in the more contentious parts of the Constitution, like the Commerce Clause. But it was big on defending slavery. While the US Constitution's writers avoided mentioning slaves and slavery explicitly, the Confederate Constitution's writers were explicit, like where they stated "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Yes, it forbids outlawing slavery. They didn't found 13 separate nations, that's for sure. Wimpy government has been tried, and it's a failure. Look at Somalia. Also look at Poland in the 17th and 18th cys. They had a reform in their parliament called the Liberum Veto, where any MP could veto some proposal. Yes, only one was necessary. That made it easy to obstruct the parliament's business, and in the late 18th cy., Austria, Prussia, and Russia divided Poland up between them. In 1795, Poland disappeared from the map. I've never understood the "republic not a democracy" meme. The US is clearly a representative democracy, not some oligarchic republic where the vote and public office are restricted to a small elite. Some republic like the Roman Republic or the Republic of Venice. Again, being mistaken != being anti-American. A lot of racists hid behind states' rights during the civil-rights struggle. It's the Constitution that's legally binding, not the DoI. Are the numerous "conservative" advocates of hawkish foreign policies really "anti-American"? Just for starters, that would include just about every Republican Presidential candidate but Ron Paul.
Sorry, I misspoke, I meant un-american. As I have said in my other posts, the DOI was a statement of beliefs the colonists shared, so I consider those tenets in the DOI, american. If a belief runs contrary to that document I consider it an un-american belief. Still though there are alot of un-american policies that are anti-american, as in they hurt americans.

The south was trying to protect thier legal property, it was the US government when writing the constitution that continued the princple of slaves(human beings) being property. Protecting property is one of the enumerated powers of the general government. The south added to their constitution that no other slaves may be imported. By the by, I have read their constitution before, while I was reading the rise and fall of the confederate states by Jefferson Davis.

The founders did found thirteen different colonies(countries) domestically, one unified front for foreign affairs like treaties, wars, and trade, atleast they intended to.

 We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states;
The only problem I have with the term democracy being used is we are not a democracy, that belief is the one that allows for the justification of tyrannical policies. Quite a few supreme court decisions I have read say that even though there is not a power in the constitution allowing it they feel the people want it, therefore they agree to it. The only way the will of the people overides the US Constitution, is superduper-majorities of the states ammending the constitution.

The constitution should be legally binding, however it has not proven to be so in most cases. The constitution was based on the beliefs asserted in the DOI.

Yes, every candidate except Paul is war-hawkish, including Obama.

Edit: One of the proposals voted down was the inclusion of the word nation in the constitution, they opted for united states.

 Quote by Angry Citizen I would very much like to know how, because an admittedly cursory examination of history shows this to be false. I agree regarding California, but you have to understand that the Republicans pushed through a constitutional referendum limiting the ability of the government to raise taxes. That is essentially the problem with California today. However, I think your decentralization is dangerous and precedents exist showing just how dangerous it is. Instead of fifty regulations, you would have thousands - each from a different city! Madison, for instance, eventually found the position of non-interventionism untenable during the War of 1812. Both French and British would board American vessels bound for the other's shores. Intervention comes to you from without if you do not seek it from within. The Emancipation Proclamation was a wonderful propaganda piece, but it was essentially a useless document for the purposes of freeing the slaves. The run-up to the Civil War was the growing abolitionist movement and the prohibition of the importation of foreign slaves. The Army responded to the opening shots fired by the Confederacy. No, it means that representatives are elected based on majority votes. Sounds like an attempt to maintain union to me. I used to think that. Then I realized that paying twenty cents on the dollar for everything would disproportionately harm the poor rather than the rich, not to mention the fact that the rich often use their money for items that are not sales tax worthy. A progressive income tax works. See Scandinavia. Because we tried a system without an income tax. It didn't work, not even in a time when America was an agrarian society.
Hoover was a self described progressive reformer, according to his wiki page. Hoover signed the revenue act of 32 which raised taxes to 63% on wealthy individuals. The depression only worsened. Harding in the early twenties, reduced the top tax rate from 73%, revenues increased and the forgotten depression ended, the roaring twenties began.

California's problem is not that they took too few taxes, it is that they spend too much.

Nice strawman, dont you think most locallities would make similar regulations? The city should be free to do everything relating to the individual. Like moral laws, gun laws, whatever that little group feels is in their best interest. Then the counties come along and legislates, what the cities dont have the resources to do on their own, then the state comes along and legislates whatever the counties cant do for themselves, then the feds legislate everything that the states cant do for themselves. Seems to me a simple plan, which would work better than what we have now? How does someone in Washington know the interests of the localities, 2000 miles away? I can see far more mischief coming from a one size fits all nation, than a to each its own confederacy.

I like your Madison argument, he was an interventionist because he went to war against others intervening in our affairs. The british were intervening in our trade and in our domestic affairs(supporting indians), as well as imprisoning americans to involuntary servitude in the royal navy through impressment. My point still stands, Madison was not an interventionist.

By your own definition then we were a constitutional republic until the ratification of the 17th ammendment in 1912, when the progressive era was in full swing. Is it a coincidence that those wanting to enlarge the powers of the federal government were also the ones who started refering to the US as a democracy?

See:
 We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness
. That whenever the form of government becomes destructive it is the right of the people to abolish said government. Sounds to me like the founders beilieved in seccession. I stated in my earlier post that one of the first proposals in the convention was the use of Nation, they chose united states instead.

On my proposal of a sales tax, I never included what I thought those taxes should be applied to. I think any staple needed to live like food and shelter should be tax free, and every product not needed would be taxed like cell phones, cars, computers, etc;.

If by didnt work you mean did not allow for the ever increasing size and scope of the general government, I agree, however if you meant did not provide sufficient revenue to provide the government our constitution set up I disagree. We had no income tax until Lincoln used one to pay for his war, then it came back permantly when progressives wanted to increase the size of government, coincidence?

 Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so." During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery. Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln.

Does it matter? It was centuries ago.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by MarcoD Personally, I would say that the civil war was about slavery for some, not all, and -publicly- not for Lincoln. Does it matter? It was centuries ago.
It was a blink of the eye in long-term historical terms, and practically yesterday for any Southerners who hold a grudge against the "War of Northern Aggression". Most of the  artifacts that I auctioned in my years in selling military artifacts were sold to wealthy southerners who had collections.
 Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.

 Quote by Tosh5457 Just for the fact that Ron Paul is the only candidate (including Obama) that won't do favors to corporations because of their donations, it deserves the vote more than the others. Moreover he'd end much of the corporatism by reducing the government and by ending (at least trying) the Fed.
Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.

 Quote by JasonGreat Edit: Some of the faulty (anti-american ideals)history being taught(IMO)(again not a complete list):... the civil war was fought to end slavery
I call BS. And thinking this betrays such a lack of study that no one should give you the benefit of the doubt on anything you've written about history.

The south succeeded and tried to raise a country with the EXPLICIT goal of defending slavery. Read the succession documents from the various states! Here is a choice quote from the Cornerstone Speech:

 Quote by Alexander Stephens Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition
Alexander Stephens was the vice president of the Confederacy. He was not alone in championing this "ideal",again-the South succeeded, according to its leaders explicitly to defend slavery.

And always remember- the opening act of aggression in the Civil War was South Carolina militia firing on Fort Sumter.

 Quote by Angry Citizen Do you know why the Fed is so bad? I'd really like to know, because I think most Paulites are just repeating the soundbyte.
In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue, which Greenspan put in practice and Bernanke followed. Corporations can't expect the Fed will be there to lend money when they need, there have to be other solutions, namely more regulation. Now Wall Street will go back to what it always did, certainly partly because they know there's a lender of last resort.

 Quote by Tosh5457 In principle I don't think a central bank is bad, it can reduce the volatility in GDP and inflation. I have a problem with the Fed in particular, and the influences and interests behind it (particularly the banking sector). An independent agency which controls the monetary market is prone to be influenced by special interests, that's expected. Greenspan was appointed chairman because he's a neoliberal, and the same happened with Bernanke.
Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.

 Quote by Angry Citizen Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
Just ending it and putting the gold standard monetary system back would be even better than controlling it. The gold standard brings stability and sound money. Switzerland for example, has a system close to a gold standard, since they have a lot of gold reserves.

Hmm nationalization of all banks is crazy in my opinion, the government can't and shouldn't run an entire sector. What we need is more regulation, and start by putting back the regulations that existed before, like distinguishing between commercial and savings banks.

 The gold standard brings stability and sound money.
No it doesn't. In times of economic pain, a gold standard will destroy an economy. Keynesian economics is a proven format - it's just that most nations don't bother to pay down the debt in times of plenty like J.M. Keynes advocated.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
Homework Help
Staff Emeritus
 Quote by Tosh5457 Aside from this, then there's the lender of last resort issue.
The Fed was created specifically to be a lender of last resort. It was supposed to be there to provide loans to otherwise healthy banks when there was a run on them so that they wouldn't collapse and cause a financial panic.

I think Ron Paul is nutty about wanting to go back to a gold standard, but I can understand why he has problems with the Fed. The Fed wields an incredible amount of power over the economy, and its track record has been uneven at best. Reverting to a gold standard would wrest all that power out of the hands of the interests who control it now.

 Quote by Angry Citizen Oh I fully agree on that, but Ron Paul doesn't want to bring it under control, he wants to kill it entirely. He thinks the US should not have a central bank. Personally, I favor nationalization of all banks, including the central bank.
The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?

 Quote by ParticleGrl The US central bank has done much better than the European central bank as far as these things go. Yea, nothing is perfect, but would a nationalization really be helpful? Would it be a good thing if a politician seeking reelection could create a bubble at will?
Sure it would be helpful. The private sector creates bubbles just to extract some money from people (see housing crisis). I don't think you have much to worry about as far as politicians, so long as an informed citizenry exists.

... On second thought, perhaps we need to wait until Americans become more similar to Europeans in terms of political consciousness. Given certain political realities in America today, it's obvious that Americans are pretty lacking in that department.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course) Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymou...-ron-paul.html

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Pythagorean Anybody that can comment on the legitimacy of this? (with something besides overspeculation or opinion, of course) Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis, Finds Ron Paul http://www.care2.com/causes/anonymou...-ron-paul.html
I tried to go to www.nazi-leaks.info to see the documents, and it wouldn't load... then I think I found out why. A white supremacy forum is launching a DDos attack here:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t857212/

edit:
as of this edit, the white supremacist forum has been taken out, the site is available again:
http://www.nazi-leaks.info/
 Recognitions: Gold Member most of the links in the nazi-leaks site work, but the particular damning one with the relevant e-mail is going really slow, despite being only 66MB; I have tried downloading four times now, each time I reach a different point before it gets cut off. Going to keep trying though.

 Similar discussions for: Ron Paul's candidacy Thread Forum Replies Science Textbook Discussion 12 Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics 5 General Discussion 10 Current Events 197 Current Events 1