Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Ron Paul announces presidential bid.


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 1,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

He's got my vote


TheWhiteknife wrote:
He's got my vote

I'll probably vote for him.


I'll campaign for him.

Andoran

Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber

I will campaign for him as well!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And he has my axe!

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

He's got my vote, but the problem is I live in Massachusetts ...yeah, that place.


pres man wrote:
And he has my axe!

:)


Ron Paul 2012: Don't Go to War So Carelessly


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Ron Paul 2012: Don't Go to War So Carelessly

Interesting video, even a bit inspiring but he totally dodges the hard question. In fact he explicitly plays both sides of the isle here.

Over and over the video indicates a policy along the lines of "we need a strong military but we need to keep it home to defend our own borders".

B%&!+*!@.

Your two neighbors have practically zero capability to meaningfully invade you - Literally we could be stopped by a volunteer system where American volunteers agreed to be 'Minute Men' to form up in times of war and take their guns to fight the invader. Neither Mexico or Canada have the military strength to deal with even that - we quite simply don't have the manpower in our military's, even if we formed some unholy 'Conquer America' Alliance. Seriously - if such a fantasy where to happen we'd roll in conquer one or maybe two states at the most and both of our military's would be drained of offensive units as we just tried to garrison all these cities. Quite simply your neighbors are not strong enough to pose a threat to you even if they wanted to (and they don't they want to trade with you - that is where the money is).

Ipso Facto there is no need 'for a strong military' for defense. Its a useless waste of money unless you plan to use it to move to various grid points around the world and use it as a weapon of offense to exert American policy globally.

Its the military industrial complex itself that is likely dragging you into these wars in part to justify itself and a budget that ranks surprisingly well when placed alongside total military spending of every other nation on earth. It may not even be a case of shadowy men saying 'lets conquer her or lets conquer there'. The very fact that you have on hand the toys needed to engage in wild military adventures on other continents is a phenomenal temptation to use them. Eliminate the capability to invade some state on the other side of the world with two weeks notice and you won't be involved in such adventurism.

I'd like to see a US politician get up there and say 'I will save billions and billions of dollars by demobilizing the army and implementing a force capable of realistically repelling an invasion of the United States by Canada.

No other nation poses a threat...really they don't...go count up how many military transports they have to bring their army across the ocean...no one can transport more then a couple of divisions at the very best and imagine what they would need to maintain the supply line over a whole bloody ocean. America with a volunteer system of defense by patriotic citizens and a handful of arsenals full of some percentage of the weapons you already have is unbeatable by any nation in the world. Literally unconquerable...and this has been true since day one.

By the time you guys won your revolution you have been unbeatable - your too big and too far away to conquer. The most miniscule army was able to keep even the power of the mighty British Empire at bay...even when you fell into war with Britain (in 1812) the British did not believe they could conquer America...only maybe get a peace treaty that gave them rights in Florida or the west. Actual conquest by the most powerful empire in the world at that time was already seen as impossible...and there is no empire like that around today. The most capable nations in terms of pulling this off (The UK, France) would not try it in any case - their democracy precludes going to war with their cousins the Americans.

Ron Paul is talking big ideas but he is studiously ignoring the elephant in the middle of the room.


I believe the idea is to retain enough projectable military power to launch counterattacks at need, but to drastically reduce the scope and cost of the US military. We can maintain a strong military from this perspective at a fraction of our current unsustainable cost.

I don't see where he implies Canada is going to invade. That seems like kind of a straw man. I don't think it's logical to infer that the idea is to maintain our military at any where near its current level to protect us from Canada and Mexico.

We spend absurd amounts of money to project power around the world. I think the US should be out of the "world police" business.

Does that help clarify?


Ron Paul was great in Bruno!

NH recently passed some of the "Right-to-Work" garbage (I mean legislation) that his son was promoting; that led to mass destruction of Ron Paul bumper stickers in the parking lot at work.

I admire his record and stance on American military interventionism around the globe, and I'm down with all that Libertarian individual freedom (smoke weed! visit brothels! gamble away my weekly earnings! yay!).

Not down with all that free market jazz, though, so no vote from me.

EDIT: "I always win." Ron Paul is the new Charlie Sheen!


I thought the title said "RUE Paul" and was all excited about that presidential campaign. However, I think both of them on a dual ticket (P/VP) would do well. I'd vote that ticket.


And you didn't start a farce thread for that?


Not my thing. Feel free to use it for a nominal fee.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Ron Paul 2012: Don't Go to War So Carelessly

PREACH IT, BROTHER PAUL!

:)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.

Andoran

Urizen wrote:
One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.

+1

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Studpuffin wrote:
Urizen wrote:
One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.
+1

I'm not sure why his personal beliefs would matter. I personally think ID is hooey, but I won't change my vote over that. Most presidential candidates paint themselves as avid churchgoers and fervent Christians, including the present one. Paul has stated more than once he is not out to run anyone's life, and I'm sure that would include curricula.


Patrick Curtin wrote:
Studpuffin wrote:
Urizen wrote:
One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.
+1
I'm not sure why his personal beliefs would matter. I personally think ID is hooey, but I won't change my vote over that. Most presidential candidates paint themselves as avid churchgoers and fervent Christians, including the present one. Paul has stated more than once he is not out to run anyone's life, and I'm sure that would include curricula.

I don't disagree; I believe the majority of the candidates pander to the religious right for the votes and aren't as feverent as they'd like one to believe. But it's something that has been on the back of my mind when he attempted to run in '08.

As for being sure or assume what a candidate may or may not do based on their statements -- you and I both know they tend to change once they're elected in; party be damned. :P

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Urizen wrote:

As for being sure or assume what a candidate may or may not do based on their statements -- you and I both know they tend to change once they're elected in; party be damned. :P

Well, with that criteria, who is left to vote for? =P Cetainly not the incumbent.

*cough*

Spoiler:
patriot act
*cough*
Spoiler:
Gitmo
*cough*
Spoiler:
Declarations of war

Shadow Lodge

Urizen wrote:
One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.

I guess it depends on how actively he would push this policy.

I suspect he would leave the decision about what to teach on the local levels so his personal policy wouldn't make a lot of difference.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

I believe the idea is to retain enough projectable military power to launch counterattacks at need, but to drastically reduce the scope and cost of the US military. We can maintain a strong military from this perspective at a fraction of our current unsustainable cost.

I don't see where he implies Canada is going to invade. That seems like kind of a straw man. I don't think it's logical to infer that the idea is to maintain our military at any where near its current level to protect us from Canada and Mexico.

We spend absurd amounts of money to project power around the world. I think the US should be out of the "world police" business.

Does that help clarify?

It clarifies your position but not Ron Paul's. I really don't believe this is a straw man at all. No where in that video, which is meant to put out his platform, do you see anything substantial about cuts to military spending. He bangs on the drum of not being the worlds police man and he certianly goes on about the need to cut spending but at the parts where one would expect to hear about how one can cut military spending we instead hear about maintaining a strong military for 'defense'.

I honestly think he's basically starting from day one by essentially promising the military supporters that he won't touch their precious budgets because a 'strong' military is needed for defense. In fact every time he says this line he is straight out lying - a really, really, weak military will serve you perfectly well for defense. Heck no military at all beyond some unpaid volunteers and a handful of people to maintain arsenals would actually be fine. There is no enemy out there that can actually invade you - it can't be done. We have already discounted Mexico and Canada and every other nation needs to cross an Ocean to pull this off. The two states that are closest to that capability are the UK and France. Russia's Carrier Battle Group is currently based on rational realpolitik and therefore based in the Black Sea to provide air support against enemies in the Caucus. China does not have any Carrier Battle Groups and probably won't really have one that can do significant power projection for 20-30 years. Its something like 15 years if they made it a priority and started building today.

Want some power projection? Two regiments of fighter bombers, 1 marine division and 3 carrier battle groups and your all set. This is a small fraction, very small, of current US military power.

I mean the sheer size of the American military almost dwarfs comprehension...seriously...did you know that if there was a naval war between the USA and every single other nation on earth you would probably win? Not only that but the only real competition comes from western states like Britain and France. I mean the premier naval weapon of the world is the Carrier Battle Group, America has what? 14 Carrier Battle Groups (Been a while since I last counted but I bet this is close)? France has 2-3 depending on if your counting their helicopter Carrier, Britain 2-3 as well, Russia 1-2 if you count their helicopter Carrier. India 1 based on a really old carrier with out dated planes, Brazil is the same as is Italy and Spain and I think that is it - even this overplays the rest of the worlds strength. American Carriers are really big and have lots of really good really modern fighters on them. If you actually counted how many planes the carriers can put into the air I think America outnumbers the rest of the planet by 2 or 3 to 1 and American planes are as good as and sometimes a lot better then the the planes of the rest of the planet.

My point really is that the US military is not just the biggest and the best out there - its ahead by an absolutely huge margin. Current American military doctrine keeps in place an army that is supposed to be able to actually get out their and conquer 2 or even 3 other nations at the same time even in widely different parts of the world (actually pacifying them once conquered is of course a much bigger problem). If your not being policeman to the world there is no need for a force even 15% this size. 10% or even 5% would do fine.


If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here's a little on his thoughts on military spending:

>Paul on military cuts<

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:

If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

So we should elect someone with no job experience and that will work? Oh yeah ...


0gre wrote:
Urizen wrote:
One thing that concerns me - while it may be a minor thing for some - is his position supporting intelligent design over the theory of evolution. With regard to teaching sciences and critical thinking in the schools, it's a big deal for me.

I guess it depends on how actively he would push this policy.

I suspect he would leave the decision about what to teach on the local levels so his personal policy wouldn't make a lot of difference.

I sure hope so. :)


Patrick Curtin wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

So we should elect someone with no job experience and that will work? Oh yeah ...

Some of the best presidents have had no experience in the job before: consider George Washington.

Besides how much experience can you have for the position of president of the USA anyways when you only get two terms?

"experience" in this case is BS regardless of who is involved beyond the incumbent.

All I'm really wanting to say though is this:

21 years and nothing to show for it to date isn't exactly vote inspiring.

HOWEVER:

HE is in a better position in my book than Sarah Palin is -- so he has that going for him (admittedly not much).

The republican "dream team" ticket to me would have the following:
John McCain, Colin Powell, with secretary of treasurer being Dave Ramsey, and Cal Thomas as public relations.

I don't really like Cal -- but I can at least follow his thoughts, and he strings words together well. Even though I regularly don't agree with his position at least they are reasoned positions -- and I can respect that.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:

All I'm really wanting to say though is this:

21 years and nothing to show for it to date isn't exactly vote inspiring.

I like this little article about that:

Bearing an empty pot


I've been watching him get interviewed by "liberals" and he keeps saying something that they never respond to.

Liberal interviewer goes after him about his not liking the welfare state. He responds by pointing out how all of these programs really are benefitting the super-wealthy (banks and auto manufacturers in the bailouts, mortgage companies and realtors in the housing bubble burst, student loans money, etc.) and then the working poor-to-"middle class" get hit with more taxes and less services.

Of course, the liberal interviewer just stares blankly or races to attack on another front.

I don't agree with his solutions, but I think his diagnosis is right on: Democrats and Republicans pretty much agree on the same things, one of which is that the United States of America has some God-given right to rule the world and do whatever we want, and the other is that they both serve the interest of the wealthy elite.

It might look like I'm trolling, but I'm not.

Qadira

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
It might look like I'm trolling, but I'm not.

No I believe you. And there is a lot of truth that viewpoint. But there is also the other side where voters have been conditioned to vote for the best pork bringers, or as they like to style themselves, 'the reps who have accomplished the most'. Both major parties have very similar outlooks on the 'core' stuff, once you strip the window dressing away. But paradigm change is coming, whether folks want to acknowlege it or not.


Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
I don't agree with his solutions, but I think his diagnosis is right on: Democrats and Republicans pretty much agree on the same things, one of which is that the United States of America has some God-given right to rule the world and do whatever we want, and the other is that they both serve the interest of the wealthy elite.

I'll generally agree that this is the end effect.

The problem is that we keep lying to ourselves.

The first lie that somehow we don't have socialized medicine already.

The next lie is that somehow capitalism will grow a conscious and self regulate for a better tomorrow -- that's not how capitalism works -- it rewards the greediest, and rewards them for using the most tricks they can to get even more. This is part of why it works so well -- it is build upon baser desires and therefore is easy to motivate people with.

As Robert Heinlein said, "Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

The third lie is that government doesn't work.

Followed by the another lie that private sector does everything better.

Not to leave the liberals out of this:

1. Somehow appealing to greed is bad -- look again, as Heinlein said -- use what works.

2. Somehow we all need a lot of education. Yes we need a basic level, but lets actually look at those euro systems -- they stop after a certain level for most people.

3. That everyone must have a safety net no matter what -- look some people need to be allowed to fail -- and fail hard after their millionth time in the merry go round.

4. That gun control means gun banning. Gun control works best through self control. We need to teach responsibility in the class room -- not that violence is bad.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

It clarifies your position but not Ron Paul's. I really don't believe this is a straw man at all. No where in that video, which is meant to put out his platform, do you see anything substantial about cuts to military spending. He bangs on the drum of not being the worlds police man and he certianly goes on about the need to cut spending but at the parts where one would expect to hear about how one can cut military spending we instead hear about maintaining a strong military for 'defense'.

I honestly think he's basically starting from day one by essentially promising the military supporters that he won't touch their precious budgets because a 'strong' military is needed for defense. In fact every time he says this line he is straight out lying - a really, really, weak military will serve you perfectly well for defense. Heck no military at all beyond some unpaid volunteers and a handful of people to maintain arsenals would actually be fine. There is no enemy out there that can actually invade you - it can't be done. We have already discounted Mexico and Canada and every other nation needs to cross an Ocean to pull this off. The two states that are closest to that capability are the UK and France. Russia's Carrier Battle Group is currently based on rational realpolitik and therefore based in the Black Sea to provide air support against enemies in the Caucus. China does not have any Carrier Battle Groups and probably won't really have one that can do significant power projection for 20-30 years. Its something like 15 years if they made it a priority and started building today.

Want some power projection? Two regiments of fighter bombers, 1 marine division and 3 carrier battle groups and your all set. This is a small fraction, very small, of current US military power.

I mean the sheer size of the American military almost dwarfs comprehension...seriously...did you know that if there was a naval war between the USA and every single other nation on earth you would probably win? Not only that but the only real competition comes from western states like Britain and France. I mean the premier naval weapon of the world is the Carrier Battle Group, America has what? 14 Carrier Battle Groups (Been a while since I last counted but I bet this is close)? France has 2-3 depending on if your counting their helicopter Carrier, Britain 2-3 as well, Russia 1-2 if you count their helicopter Carrier. India 1 based on a really old carrier with out dated planes, Brazil is the same as is Italy and Spain and I think that is it - even this overplays the rest of the worlds strength. American Carriers are really big and have lots of really good really modern fighters on them. If you actually counted how many planes the carriers can put into the air I think America outnumbers the rest of the planet by 2 or 3 to 1 and American planes are as good as and sometimes a lot better then the the planes of the rest of the planet.

My point really is that the US military is not just the biggest and the best out there - its ahead by an absolutely huge margin. Current American military doctrine keeps in place an army that is supposed to be able to actually get out their and conquer 2 or even 3 other nations at the same time even in widely different parts of the world (actually pacifying them once conquered is of course a much bigger problem). If your not being policeman to the world there is no need for a force even 15% this size. 10% or even 5% would do fine.

I tend to agree with your assessment; I very aware of how massive and expensive our military is. I think we can have a far more economical military and still have a strong military for defense. I just think your inference that "strong military" translates into not seriously cutting the military is not accurate.

I'll see what I can find to cite.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

So we should elect someone with no job experience and that will work? Oh yeah ...

Some of the best presidents have had no experience in the job before: consider George Washington.

Besides how much experience can you have for the position of president of the USA anyways when you only get two terms?

"experience" in this case is BS regardless of who is involved beyond the incumbent.

All I'm really wanting to say though is this:

21 years and nothing to show for it to date isn't exactly vote inspiring.

HOWEVER:

HE is in a better position in my book than Sarah Palin is -- so he has that going for him (admittedly not much).

The republican "dream team" ticket to me would have the following:
John McCain, Colin Powell, with secretary of treasurer being Dave Ramsey, and Cal Thomas as public relations.

I don't really like Cal -- but I can at least follow his thoughts, and he strings words together well. Even though I regularly don't agree with his position at least they are reasoned positions -- and I can respect that.

I'm at the other end of the party. I have no use for big government neo cons like McCain or Romney or Bush. I didn't vote for McCain, and I can't imagine that I would vote for Romney. Bush set real constitutional conservative republicans back by a decade with his reckless and inane policies. If the Republican party continues to be "Democrats lite" the party will simply become irrelevant. If I wanted expanding entitlements, unbalanced budgets, larger more intrusive government, and endless wars and nation building I would have voted for some Democrat.

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

I don't see McCain, Romney, or Obama getting any of that done.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

Robert Heinlein wrote:


You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

Andoran

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Patrick Curtin wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:

If Ron Paul is such a great leader why hasn't he managed anything in his time in office already?

Normally when you spend 21 years on a job you expect to have something to show for it.

So we should elect someone with no job experience and that will work? Oh yeah ...

Some of the best presidents have had no experience in the job before: consider George Washington.

Besides how much experience can you have for the position of president of the USA anyways when you only get two terms?

"experience" in this case is BS regardless of who is involved beyond the incumbent.

All I'm really wanting to say though is this:

21 years and nothing to show for it to date isn't exactly vote inspiring.

HOWEVER:

HE is in a better position in my book than Sarah Palin is -- so he has that going for him (admittedly not much).

The republican "dream team" ticket to me would have the following:
John McCain, Colin Powell, with secretary of treasurer being Dave Ramsey, and Cal Thomas as public relations.

I don't really like Cal -- but I can at least follow his thoughts, and he strings words together well. Even though I regularly don't agree with his position at least they are reasoned positions -- and I can respect that.

I'm at the other end of the party. I have no use for big government neo cons like McCain or Romney or Bush. I didn't vote for McCain, and I can't imagine that I would vote for Romney. Bush set real constitutional conservative republicans back by a decade with his reckless and inane policies. If the Republican party continues to be "Democrats lite" the party will simply become irrelevant. If I wanted expanding entitlements, unbalanced budgets, larger more intrusive government, and endless wars and nation building I would have voted for some Democrat.

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

I don't see McCain, Romney, or Obama...

+1


Abraham spalding wrote:
Doodlebug Anklebiter wrote:
I don't agree with his solutions, but I think his diagnosis is right on: Democrats and Republicans pretty much agree on the same things, one of which is that the United States of America has some God-given right to rule the world and do whatever we want, and the other is that they both serve the interest of the wealthy elite.

I'll generally agree that this is the end effect.

The problem is that we keep lying to ourselves.

The first lie that somehow we don't have socialized medicine already.

The next lie is that somehow capitalism will grow a conscious and self regulate for a better tomorrow -- that's not how capitalism works -- it rewards the greediest, and rewards them for using the most tricks they can to get even more. This is part of why it works so well -- it is build upon baser desires and therefore is easy to motivate people with.

As Robert Heinlein said, "Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage."

The third lie is that government doesn't work.

Followed by the another lie that private sector does everything better.

Not to leave the liberals out of this:

1. Somehow appealing to greed is bad -- look again, as Heinlein said -- use what works.

2. Somehow we all need a lot of education. Yes we need a basic level, but lets actually look at those euro systems -- they stop after a certain level for most people.

3. That everyone must have a safety net no matter what -- look some people need to be allowed to fail -- and fail hard after their millionth time in the merry go round.

4. That gun control means gun banning. Gun control works best through self control. We need to teach responsibility in the class room -- not that violence is bad.

I hardly think conservatives labor under the misconception that medicine in the US isn't heavily socialized.

Capitalism may not have a heart, but I still argue that the role of government is to punish theft and fraud not pick winners and losers.

I think our government is wasteful, corrupt, incompetent and doesn't work well. I think rewarding that same corruption and incompetence with more power and money is just insane.

What do think the government does better than the private sector besides kill people and blow things up?


Abraham spalding wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

Robert Heinlein wrote:


You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

I don't think we need to spend something like 700 billion dollars a year and maintain hundreds of bases all over the world to protect our freedom.

I think our own government and our own policies are by far the biggest threats to our continued existence and what few freedoms we have left.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
I think our government is wasteful, corrupt, incompetent and doesn't work well.

Of course you are right -- but it still works better than anything else out there (supposedly).

Yes the republicans do labor under the misconception that medicine in the USA isn't heavily socialize (or rather that it wasn't to begin with) -- it has always been heavily socialized.

Before Obamacare (as they like to call it) if you went to the hospital and couldn't pay you still got service. So who pays for that service? Everyone else. A text book case of socialized medicine and one that the republicans want to stick too.

Medicare actually runs cheaper than any other insurance company out there. Also government does a good job of requlating -- when allowed to.

It is also much better at building bridges, damns, and other mandatory infrastructure than the private sector is.

The problem has been that it hasn't been allowed to do what it is good at because of the monopoly of power by both parties. Neither can let the other side 'win' anything and therefore the whole country rots.

The government works -- the parties do not.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

Robert Heinlein wrote:


You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

I don't think we need to spend something like 700 billion dollars a year and maintain hundreds of bases all over the world to protect our freedom.

I think our own government and our own policies are by far the biggest threats to our continued existence and what few freedoms we have left.

Are you suggesting I said we could continue spending lots of money on the military at any point? Why bring it up when talking to me? That was never a position I've even come to -- it's almost like you are parroting talking points at random when you do that -- quit it.

Humanity is its own biggest threat. We all know that -- so come up with something that matters. Instead of spouting off about the guberment.

Besides how is Ron Paul any different than any other 21 year politician?

Really he's just more of the same laughing as he fools you.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
The next lie is that somehow capitalism will grow a conscious and self regulate for a better tomorrow -- that's not how capitalism works -- it rewards the greediest, and rewards them for using the most tricks they can to get even more. This is part of why it works so well -- it is build upon baser desires and therefore is easy to motivate people with.

Capitalism is a market mechanism that sets prices, nothing more, nothing less. It 'rewards' people who do things well, greed is an insignificant part of the equation. For example Steve Jobs and Steve Ballmer are equally greedy but one of them is being 'rewarded' with a highly successful growing company, while the other is running a decadent failing corporate empire.

Fascism and Communism do a much better job at rewarding greed since it's far easier influence a few government officials with bribery or threats than it is to influence millions of consumers.


0gre wrote:


Capitalism is a market mechanism that sets prices, nothing more, nothing less. It 'rewards' people who do things well, greed is an insignificant part of the equation.

This is not true -- Capitalism rewards those with the most -- the more you have the more you can have, the more you can force others to give.

Now Communism starts at a better point -- but that doesn't mean it stays there... after all as you pointed out people are involved.

All economics are force and non-physical violence though -- no matter what system you use no matter what you are taking from one and giving to another in some form or fashion.

Andoran

Abraham spalding wrote:
0gre wrote:


Capitalism is a market mechanism that sets prices, nothing more, nothing less. It 'rewards' people who do things well, greed is an insignificant part of the equation.

This is not true -- Capitalism rewards those with the most -- the more you have the more you can have, the more you can force others to give.

Now Communism starts at a better point -- but that doesn't mean it stays there... after all as you pointed out people are involved.

All economics are force and non-physical violence though -- no matter what system you use no matter what you are taking from one and giving to another in some form or fashion.

What scares me is that you actually believe this.

Andoran

Unless I am a romantic fool, I thought that the early hospitals in America were all paid for by charities and churches. I remember several hospitals in the state I was raised in that were established by the Archdiocese, and they provided medical care to anyone that needed it.

Shadow Lodge

Abraham spalding wrote:
0gre wrote:


Capitalism is a market mechanism that sets prices, nothing more, nothing less. It 'rewards' people who do things well, greed is an insignificant part of the equation.
This is not true -- Capitalism rewards those with the most -- the more you have the more you can have, the more you can force others to give.

The guys who created Google had "The most" and forced Microsoft out of the search business?

Apple (Which was nearly out of business not too long ago) had the "most"?

Microsoft had more than IBM?

Amazon was created by Billionaires?

Warren Buffet was always a billionaire?

40 years ago Walmart was the biggest retailer?

Your statement is true to some extent in certain industries which are dominated by limited resources that are expensive to explore and develop (Oil, rail, power) but those businesses are not Capitalist in the US (or in most places. All of those industries are massively regulated and are not free markets, here or in most countries.

Capitalism is *easier* when you have lots, but no amount of dirty tricks works forever.

Quote:
Now Communism starts at a better point -- but that doesn't mean it stays there... after all as you pointed out people are involved.

It doesn't even start at a better point. It starts with the mistaken assumption that a few people have the capability to have perfect knowledge over the entire infrastructure of a country. It's ridiculous.

Quote:
All economics are force and non-physical violence though -- no matter what system you use no matter what you are taking from one and giving to another in some form or fashion.

What? Apple is forcing people to buy their products? People are forced to use Google? Give me a break.

Paizo Employee Developer

OT

stardust wrote:
Unless I am a romantic fool, I thought that the early hospitals in America were all paid for by charities and churches. I remember several hospitals in the state I was raised in that were established by the Archdiocese, and they provided medical care to anyone that needed it.

When I was 20, I was hospitalized for 21 days. I worked as a line cook, didn't have medical insurance, and ran up a $47K bill. A Catholic charity, Sisters of Mercy, paid 90% of my bill, so yeah...lots of medical costs get paid for by charities and churches, and I thank them for it. (Also, I was never once asked anything about my religious views.)

/OT


Abraham spalding wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

I want peace, trade, fiscal sanity, and most of all individual liberty.

Robert Heinlein wrote:


You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.

I don't think we need to spend something like 700 billion dollars a year and maintain hundreds of bases all over the world to protect our freedom.

I think our own government and our own policies are by far the biggest threats to our continued existence and what few freedoms we have left.

Are you suggesting I said we could continue spending lots of money on the military at any point? Why bring it up when talking to me? That was never a position I've even come to -- it's almost like you are parroting talking points at random when you do that -- quit it.

Humanity is its own biggest threat. We all know that -- so come up with something that matters. Instead of spouting off about the guberment.

Besides how is Ron Paul any different than any other 21 year politician?

Really he's just more of the same laughing as he fools you.

I'm disagreeing with the Heinlein quote that seems to imply peace and freedom have a hard time existing concurrently. I'm not suggesting anything about how much military spending you want because I have no idea. I'm simply stating my preference for a far smaller and cheaper military whose mission is not to police the world.

You seem to think that government is a tool for good. I view the government as a necessary evil at best. We have a fundamentally different view of the role of government. You can call that spouting off if you wish, but I view it as the heart of the debate.

Paul has been in DC a long time, and I'm sure I don't agree with every vote or position he has taken, but he stands in sharp contrast to the rest of the Republican field on a number of issues like military adventurism, civil liberties, taxes, monetary policy, the scope and role of the government, human rights, corporate welfare, socialized medicine, the war on drugs, and so forth. His policies closely resemble my own, so I will campaign for him and try to move the party in a more libertarian direction. If my party nominates another candidate I can't stomach I'll take my vote elsewhere again, but I find it a pleasant change to have a candidate whose policies I agree with as opposed to a candidate I despise a bit less than the other.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

US House panel OKs $690,000,000,000 in 2012 military spending

It seems to me that this is the cost of running an empire more than defending our freedom. I think we can't afford an empire.


Jeremy,

Barney Frank, Ron Paul and 55 others advocate for defense cuts

PDF of letter

Debt,Deficits, and Defense A Way Forward[url]

[url=http://i55.tinypic.com/zwb11w.gif]2009 Discretionary budget chart

I'm not sure how representative the last 2 are of Paul's position, but I found them interesting. I'll try to add some more.

EDIT:

$100,000,000,000 a year is a start

Ron Paul says U.S. spends $1 trillion on foreign policy


I'm thoroughly convinced that Paizo has the smartest, most civil messageboards in the whole web. BT, I agree with you pretty much 100%. Abraham Spalding, May I ask what your ideal canidate would be like? Not being snarky or facetious or anything, just curious, because I think you do make some very good points.

We need some more (strong) political parties. Seriously, we do.

Paizo Employee Developer

TheWhiteknife wrote:

I'm thoroughly convinced that Paizo has the smartest, most civil messageboards in the whole web. BT, I agree with you pretty much 100%. Abraham Spalding, May I ask what your ideal canidate would be like? Not being snarky or facetious or anything, just curious, because I think you do make some very good points.

We need some more (strong) political parties. Seriously, we do.

That might be a good starter for a new, truly civil, thread.

I'm the kinda guy who'd love to see more than a two-party system and I'm always interested in hearing other people's thoughts.

1 to 50 of 1,385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Ron Paul announces presidential bid. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.