If Ron Paul Gets the Nod

[Shane Tuttle]

He would like to introduce a grandstanding bill now and then but wasn't serious about pushing them, would never talk to anyone or try to advance them. All talk, no action. There's just no there there.

That's been my other question. In the years he's been a Texas congressman, what items has he pushed to intruduce and was there very many that actually got passed into law? One thing to stand up for what you believe in while in office, another to convince your fellow politicians to get the bill passed/repealed...

 

[LightningJoe]

Ron Paul has exactly as much chance of receiving the Republican Party nomination as Sonny Bono has. And Sonny Bono's no deader than Paul's presidential ambitions. Just silly.

 

[miboso]

Why do the Ron Paul supporters imagine he would be so great.

I might ask why you think any of the others are so great? I am a single issue voter and Paul supports that issue through word and deed. That issue is the constitution. None of the others ever mention how what they want to do fits within the constitution. And mostly what they want to do does not fit within the constitution.

In short, he may not be that great, but the rest really .... disappoint (to keep this "high road").

 

[Wildalaska]

I am a single issue voter and Paul supports that issue through word and deed.

I would assume therefore that we would have along list of legislation he proposed to demonstrate his constitutional deeds.

WildmoreimportantlywhyamievenonthisthreadnotetoselfstartantabuseregimenAlaska TM

 

[SpectreBlofeld]

No, Christians have not been saying that.
But I will humor you... if you can name two or three mainstream Christians in leadership positions who believe that the world will for certain end in their lifetimes.

How about Jesus Christ?

Jesus tells his disciples that he will return before they can "go over the cities of Israel."

Well, his disciples went over the cities of Israel and then died waiting for the "return of the Lord." (Matthew 10:23). Now, nearly 2000 years later, and long after the gospel had been preached throughout the world, his followers still wait.

Matthew 16:28:

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 23:36:

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Mark 9:1:

And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.

More from Matthew:

24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: "The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven."
24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
"They shall see the Son of Man."
24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

There's more, but what's the point.

Which country is it, again, that stockpiles nuclear weapons and has leaders that believe the end times are perpetually around the corner?

Just look at all the stupid bumper stickers that say something to the effect of "in case of rapture, this car will be unmanned."

 

[SpectreBlofeld]

Why do the Ron Paul supporters imagine he would be so great. When I worked in the House, Ron Paul did absolutely NOTHING. He would like to introduce a grandstanding bill now and then but wasn't serious about pushing them, would never talk to anyone or try to advance them. All talk, no action. There's just no there there.

Ron Paul believes the government which governs best, governs least. His colleagues and the media gave him the nickname "Dr. No" for his history of voting against almost any and every bill that increases federal funding, taxpayer spending, or raising taxes in any way. When a bill came around to mint commemorative gold medals for dead do-gooders, he was the sole dissenter; he pulled out his OWN wallet and suggested that Congressmen pay for the useless tokens from their own pockets. It if course passed, because, in his words, it's SO easy to spend someone else's money. He also gives away most of his congressional salary and does not accept his congressional pension.

I think he's a friggin' hero.

 

[SpectreBlofeld]

I would assume therefore that we would have along list of legislation he proposed to demonstrate his constitutional deeds.

He doesn't have to. The legislation is already there. It's called the Constitution. What he does is oppose any measure that would circumvent it.

He feels we pretty much have drafted all the new legislation we need.

I suggest you check out his voting record.

He veto power and implementation of supreme court justices would be invaluable.

 

[ConfuseUs]

I doubt RP can get the nomination, both because he takes positions that many Republicans don't support and because the image he projects isn't very presidential (petty, I know. Important nevertheless.) Considering the kinds of judges that the current crop of Democratic candidates will nominate to the SCOTUS given (shudder) the chance, if RP got the Republican nomination I would support him over any Dem.

 

[publius42]

If we're not talking to Iran, does that mean we need to invade them (and every other country which is ruled by a nut and has or might get nukes)?

I'm just wondering what the war math will be.

We have over 150,000 troops engaged in the occupation of Iraq, trying to fashion a nation out of three tribes. I think the price tag is around half a trillion dollars so far.

Iran has 3 times the population. I'm guessing we'll need 450,000 troops and 1.5 trillion for the occupation/nation building phase of that invasion.

Korea has a population about equal to Iraq, so there we will need another 150,000 troops and half a trillion dollars.

A trillion here, a trillion and a half there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Can we afford to be the world's policeman?

 

[Epyon]

ForksLaPush...

How about you? Have you talked to all muslims in this country, or are you just hoping that the more civilized ones are representative, or somehow going to stop the islamicists they fled from?

I was born in a Muslim country and raised that way for quite some time, even once I moved here. Question is though, do you really think that a small group of religious fanatics sets the standard of what Islam is? Jihad doesn't mean kill every "infidel" and non-believer. It means struggle, usually within. Even Muslim countries have problems with Al Qaeda, such as Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Malaysia. The problem is, these nutcases spin religion and use it as a tool to justify their acts, while the American media keeps putting the spotlight on it as if this is what Islam is about.


Epyon

 

[Unregistered]

Publius,

Do you think its OK for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

 

[ForksLaPush]

Question is though, do you really think that a small group of religious fanatics sets the standard of what Islam is?

Yes, wahibis. Like it or not, the others are drowned out, regardless of their intentions.

 

[publius42]

Do you think its OK for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

No, and I don't think it's OK for Pakistan, India, or North Korea to have them, among others.

The solution to the threat that Saddam's Iraq might develop nukes was an invasion followed by the current nation-building occupation. I'm just pointing out that nation-building is expensive and I'm not sure we can apply the same solution worldwide. If we topple every dangerous regime and occupy all those countries, I am not convinced that will stop terrorists from getting their hands on nukes.

You did not answer my two questions. If we are not supposed to talk to Iran, does that mean we must invade them? Can we afford to be the world's policeman?

 

[publius42]

On the money thing...

With the Bush administration drawing to a close and 2008 budget projections in the books, it is now possible to examine the growth in government spending under the Clinton and Bush administrations.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/eop/index.html

From 1993 to 2000, total spending grew from $1,409,500,000,000 to $1,789,200,000,000, and increase of about $380 billion. Total spending fell from 21.4% of GDP to 18.4% during that same time.

From 2001 to 2008 (if we are to believe the estimate) total spending will have grown from $1,863,200,000,000 to $2,901,900,000,000, an increase of a little over a trillion dollars. Total spending went from 18.5% of GDP in 2001 to an estimated 20% in 2008.

Out of that trillion dollar annual increase, about 300 billion was the result of increased defense spending.

 

[Unregistered]

If we are not supposed to talk to Iran, does that mean we must invade them? Can we afford to be the world's policeman

Not invade. We can probably destroy their ability to make nukes via air strikes against their facilities. Israel took out Saddam's nuclear capability in a similar fashion. If we cannot take them out from the air, then yes I think we should use any and all means necessary including invasion to keep nukes out of the hands of their insane President.

As for being the world's policemen, I certainly do not think we should be. But this is not about being the world's policemen. This is about keeping nukes from detonating in NYC.

I also agree that nation building is not a good idea. It certainly isnt working well for us in Iraq. We don't need to nation build, and I don't see why we should feel obligated to do so.

Iran is a real threat. The fact that we fought the wrong war in the wrong place does not mean we should not deal with Iran.

It is much easier to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians in the first place, than to try and deal with a nuclear Iran after the fact. I agree India, Pakistan, and and North Korea shouldnt have them either, but that cat is out of the bag. Neither of those countries, including N Korea, have been as vocal as Iran about wiping our allies from the face of the earth.

 

[publius42]

We don't need to nation build, and I don't see why we should feel obligated to do so.

Perhaps we should not, but leaving a power vacuum may not be a good idea, and as Huckabee told Paul, "we broke it, we bought it." There's something to that.

 

[grymster2007]

There will be no power vacuum. If we’re not the world’s policeman, the Russians and Chinese will be happy to try and fill the role. If we allow that to happen, pretty soon they’ll be policing us.

That does not mean we need to indiscriminately invade other countries. Air power would work in many cases and where a ground invasion is required, it should serve only to punish or remove a particular regime and never have the goal of re-building a country. Leave that to the inhabitants.

 

[publius42]

But the inhabitants already wound up with a government so dangerous we had to invade. That won't happen again?

I didn't support the Iraq war because I figured that molding a nation out of those three tribes would be an impossible task, and attempting it might make matters worse.

I still think that was true, but now we HAVE attempted it, and the danger that we will make matters worse is very real, but leaving it to the inhabitants is also likely to make matters worse. We grabbed a tiger by the tail. We'll have to tame it to let go, and it might get ugly in the meanwhile.

 

[Jkwas]

I'm sorry to say I agree. I saw this as a "poor move" from the beginning, and that we should have thought out some alternative strategies that might have required less resources on our part, but It's done and you can't undo it.
We have to stick it out and work out a stable situation. I just don't know where the manpower is going to come from, and that we can get it done without going broke. I'm reminded that Great Britain went belly up as a result of fighting WWII, not that they had a choice. Cracks me up the people that say wars are good for the economy. Anything that wastes resources on that large a scale can't be good for anyone.

 

[Unregistered]

If the Russians or Chinese try to fill the role of nation building, then they will fail just as badly as we have. Actually, they will even do worse, because their economies can support a long, protracted troop deployment and rebuilding process.