• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why can't Republicans or Conservatives get behind Alan Keyes?

Ethereal said:
Kandahar! Very much appreciated. Now we can have a meaningful and constructive dialogue.



Countries will act in their own rational self-interest regardless of international governance. If there is a pressing problem facing multiple countries or the world entire, action will be taken with or without the existence of the UN. Countries can and will convene with one another if and only if it's in their interest to do so. The UN does not possess some sort of magical powers that allows countries to communicate and coordinate with one another. You're ascribing far more relevance to the UN framework than is necessary.



Managed trade reduces trade barriers? Oh, you mean like how your house gets colder when you turn up the heat?

Managed trade allows for abuse and cronyism on an international scale. Instead of applying free-market economics across borders (which is a meaningless distinction) managed trade allows for powerful special interest groups to edge out competition and enact favorable regulations on their behalf. International governance is no different than domestic governance. It permits corporate favoritism and eliminates competition from the market. You have to be living in a dream-world to think those organizations reduce trade barriers; they ARE by their very definition trade barriers.



Oh, really? "Slashing" you say? I wonder if that's merely hyperbole on your part or an accurate portrayal of Ron Paul's position. Let's find out, shall we?

YouTube - You Choose '08 Spotlight: Ron Paul on Healthcare

What did he say again? Transitional period? Tide people over? I'M NOT FOR CUTTING OR SLASHING THEM?

Wow! Fancy that!



Of course, look at how our economy is currently performing under the FIAT monetary system; solid as a rock! Inflating currency, spending money we don't have, creating giant asset bubbles that explode in our faces, increasing the size of the Federal government, it's a veritable paradise this FIAT system.

Anyway, debating divergent monetary systems would require its own thread. It's far too complex to simply banter back and forth over.
Click to expand...

"Man what a lunatic", Kandyhar needs to grow up. How many times did he refer to Ron Paul as a...,"man what a lunatic". I worked in Health care for 14 years...my findings are that Ron Paul is very lucid on all points concerning health care. Ron Paul is very scary to the status quo on both the right and left. Perhaps that is why both parties choose to deminish him, besmirch his wisdom and leadership qualities. Another great GOP bites the dust.
 
ARealConservative said:
Ron Paul isn't ending other branches of the military, only from having standing armies on foreign lands, so your question makes no sense.

You seem to have no ability to understand his positions, so we will go through them one by one until you get it. Then we can move on to your other erroneous comments.

So you understand this one yet or not?
Click to expand...

I will assume for the lack of reply that you have no ability to refute what was said and accept that you are wrong on this issue.

It's a positive first step. If you agree, we can move on to the next issue. :mrgreen:
 
Ethereal said:
Countries will act in their own rational self-interest regardless of international governance.
Click to expand...

Of course. But rational self-interest often involves cooperation with other nations.

Ethereal said:
If there is a pressing problem facing multiple countries or the world entire, action will be taken with or without the existence of the UN. Countries can and will convene with one another if and only if it's in their interest to do so. The UN does not possess some sort of magical powers that allows countries to communicate and coordinate with one another. You're ascribing far more relevance to the UN framework than is necessary.
Click to expand...

I don't understand your point. Countries will convene and cooperate with each other if it's in their interest to do so...so we should get rid of the main forum that makes that possible? :confused:

Ethereal said:
Managed trade reduces trade barriers? Oh, you mean like how your house gets colder when you turn up the heat?
Click to expand...

Do you deny that we have fewer trade barriers with Canada and Mexico than we had prior to NAFTA?

Ethereal said:
Managed trade allows for abuse and cronyism on an international scale. Instead of applying free-market economics across borders (which is a meaningless distinction) managed trade allows for powerful special interest groups to edge out competition and enact favorable regulations on their behalf. International governance is no different than domestic governance. It permits corporate favoritism and eliminates competition from the market. You have to be living in a dream-world to think those organizations reduce trade barriers; they ARE by their very definition trade barriers.
Click to expand...

They are steps in the right direction compared to what existed before. Legislatures are not in the habit of unilaterally reducing trade barriers. It happens occasionally, but not often enough to base our trade policy around it.

Ethereal said:
Oh, really? "Slashing" you say? I wonder if that's merely hyperbole on your part or an accurate portrayal of Ron Paul's position. Let's find out, shall we?

YouTube - You Choose '08 Spotlight: Ron Paul on Healthcare

What did he say again? Transitional period? Tide people over? I'M NOT FOR CUTTING OR SLASHING THEM?

Wow! Fancy that!
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough. Instead of eliminating medical care programs over 4 years, he wants to eliminate them over a couple decades. All of the criticisms of this system that I made still stand.

Ethereal said:
Of course, look at how our economy is currently performing under the FIAT monetary system; solid as a rock!
Click to expand...

You aren't REALLY going to use a short-term financial crisis as a justification for eliminating a policy which has been in place for DECADES, are you?

Ethereal said:
Inflating currency,
Click to expand...

I'd much rather have an economy that reliably grows at -1% to 4% per year (with rare exceptions), instead of an economy that grows 10% one year, shrinks 10% the next year, and grows 25% the year after that. Gold prices are simply too volatile to base a currency and an economy on them. Just look at a graph of the value of gold over time.

Ethereal said:
spending money we don't have, creating giant asset bubbles that explode in our faces, increasing the size of the Federal government, it's a veritable paradise this FIAT system.
Click to expand...

Those criticisms have nothing to do with monetary policy and would be just as likely to occur under a gold standard.
 
Kandahar said:
Of course. But rational self-interest often involves cooperation with other nations.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Did you even read that before you hit the "post" button?

I don't understand your point. Countries will convene and cooperate with each other if it's in their interest to do so...so we should get rid of the main forum that makes that possible? :confused:
Click to expand...
Regardless of whether or not we are a part of the UN, we will communicate and meet with nations when we feel it is pertinent to do so. That is the point Ethereal was making, that the UN is useless and unnecessary.
 
They are steps in the right direction compared to what existed before.
Click to expand...
This is far from obvious. Look at the EU! It has made trade somewhat freer in those lands under its despotic grip but it has done little for trade outside that, perhaps even done the opposite, and it has come with great negatives and abuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom