Ron Paul in respect to founding fathers

[Top Cat]

Here is what im talking about. How can grown up people live with this?

You do realize Jon Stewart is a comedian right? Never mind. That was rhetorical. Ignoring Ron Paul because he's irrelevant? Imagine that.

 

[Zyphlin]

Most are arguing that defense is the largest budget item. How many Paulbot topics with federal budget pie charts do you want me to point you to? They will drag out a federal budget pie chart, and in the same breath say how "duh founding fathers wouldn't do this."

Yes, its the biggest budget item. They point to that. They do so because you can't get the budget under control without cutting at least a part of the military spending when that's the largest on budget, and second largest total expenditure, item we have. Even if you cut every other budgetary item but military and defense spending we'd still be running a deficit.

In fact sometimes those early budgets were nothing but military spending.

Indeed they were. That said the proportion of the amount placed into those early budgetes for military spending in reference to the amount of revenue the government took in and the GDP of the nation would likely not be a close equivilent to what we see today.

 

[Cromfel]

You do realize Jon Stewart is a comedian right? Never mind. That was rhetorical. Ignoring Ron Paul because he's irrelevant? Imagine that.

All fun and games right?

 

[Baralis]

I am a firm believer that having the strongest military in the world is the best way to not be invaded. Money well spent.

Our current military spending is much like me purchasing a M1 Abrams to keep my neighbors off my lawn, a simple rifle would do.

 

[Higgins86]

Actually the country's national defense in its early years was a militia, and the prospect of a strong navy and a standing army was controversial at the time.

yes but this was before aerial warfare, the whole concept of total war and of course Nukes. You cant listen to the founding fathers on everything, different time.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Say it. C'mon Paulbots, Libertarians, Anarchists. SAY!! Admit it!

Say it, "I am an isolationist." SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT SAY IT!

YOU CAN'T SAY IT! You know why these Paulbot/Libertarian/Anarchists cannot say it, because Anarcho-capitalists are not Isolationists, they are interventionists. Whenever someone threatens their precious international trade they will slice their own children's necks.

Say it with me folks "Not wanting to be the world's policeman is not isolationism."

Reducing defense spending and commitments abroad, being more judicious in our use of force, realizing that nation-building is usually arrogant and ineffective, and allowing free trade and diplomacy to bring nations closer together instead of forcing them to do what we want is not retreating away from the rest of the world. It is simply a rejection of the claim that America can and should bend other countries to its will.

 

[ARealConservative]

yes but this was before aerial warfare, the whole concept of total war and of course Nukes. You cant listen to the founding fathers on everything, different time.

Hogwash. Free people having the ability to defend themselves remains the best way to prevent an occupation. The cost of occupying is too great when the population at large is privately armed and against such an occupation.

Nukes have changed this somewhat, but standing armies are basically powerless in preventing the detonation of a nuke anyway, so it didn’t change it that much.

 

[Cromfel]

it seems that there was SOMe media time for the veterans:



Host makes valid point along lines... "if it was other candidate/previous elections it would have been all over the news"

Also if someone could explain this:

580 views
497 likes
2 doesnt like

How come these numbers never correspond the ones on the media? Like, OK, its internet and all. But somehow the numbers doesnt just add up on any media.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

yes but this was before aerial warfare, the whole concept of total war and of course Nukes. You cant listen to the founding fathers on everything, different time.

I agree that a standing army, nuclear deterrence, and a strong navy are all good things to have, but let's keep this in perspective. Geopolitics and international relations can change over time, but if anything we are in a much better spot than in 1789. Back then, America was surrounded on three sides by the most important European colonial powers which were interested in influencing the young country, Indian attacks occurred all over the frontier, and a rebellion had just been put down in Massachusetts. Today, America spends nearly half of the world's defense dollars, has many allies, and is in most respects the center of the world economy. The Founders could not have dreamed that we would be at the point we are at today.

 

[Higgins86]

Hogwash. Free people having the ability to defend themselves remains the best way to prevent an occupation. The cost of occupying is too great when the population at large is privately armed and against such an occupation.

Nukes have changed this somewhat, but standing armies are basically powerless in preventing the detonation of a nuke anyway, so it didn’t change it that much.

You mean like the Free people of Poland, France, Holland, Belgium, etc? They did a great job of freeing themselves didnt they. What the napoleonic wars, it was standing armies that stopped him running riot! Look through all of man kinds history and you will see that all empires that have ruled have had a very strong military.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

You mean like the Free people of Poland, France, Holland, Belgium, etc? They did a great job of freeing themselves didnt they. What the napoleonic wars, it was standing armies that stopped him running riot! Look through all of man kinds history and you will see that all empires that have ruled have had a very strong military.

Operative word: empire. Is that how we want posterity to think of the United States?

 

[Fiddytree]

Anyone ringing bell?

im Sorry, I dont live in US. I just dont understand how this can be happening in your country.

Ron Paul surging in online polls? Color me surprised that the internet, the safe haven for Paulites, has him in the lead. :lol:

Good God people on the internet are so damned self-centered.

 

[ARealConservative]

You mean like the Free people of Poland, France, Holland, Belgium, etc? They did a great job of freeing themselves didnt they. What the napoleonic wars, it was standing armies that stopped him running riot! Look through all of man kinds history and you will see that all empires that have ruled have had a very strong military.

I am talking about free societies, not empires. These terms are mutually exclusive in my book.

The people of France made the occupation a living hell for Germans. Never really considered these people free, at least by American standards.

 

[Higgins86]

I am talking about free societies, not empires. These terms are mutually exclusive in my book.

The people of France made the occupation a living hell for Germans. Never really considered these people free, at least by American standards.

American standards? Get over youself, America is an empire no matter how you cut it.

 

[Hatuey]

Our current military spending is much like me purchasing a M1 Abrams to keep my neighbors off my lawn, a simple rifle would do.

It is my understanding that most of our military spending actually goes towards research, paying personnel and construction projects. Not necessarily buying M1 Abrams.

 

[Gina]

I saw tape today of Dr. Paul answering the question, "Do you see yourself in the Oval Office?".

His answer. Not really.

Ron Paul Asked If He Sees Himself In Oval Office: "Not Really" | RealClearPolitics

 

[ARealConservative]

American standards? Get over youself, America is an empire no matter how you cut it.

now we are sure. We are also not anywhere near a free society.

 

[Cromfel]

I saw tape today of Dr. Paul answering the question, "Do you see yourself in the Oval Office?".

His answer. Not really.

Ron Paul Asked If He Sees Himself In Oval Office: "Not Really" | RealClearPolitics

Terry Moran, ABC News: "When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?"

Ron Paul: “Not really."

Ron Paul went on to say that he’s not blind to the odds, but they are “not as slim as they were 25 years ago.”

Twist it as you like

 

[Higgins86]

now we are sure. We are also not anywhere near a free society.

depends how you define free.

 

[ARealConservative]

depends how you define free.

the type of freedom as outlined in the declaration of independence is what I have in mind as a truly free society.

 

[Oberon]

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the 'Founding Fathers'. There were 85 to 215 or so of them, and they all had different beliefs and ideas, so the whole idea of 'being true to the Founders' is just hubris and hyperbole. Many of them were also just pirates and swindlers, so in real life, it doesn't matter one wit what they thought, since few of them had any principles they would actually practice if it cost them money out of their own pockets, so why should anybody care what they thought? None of them even thought the Constitution was going to be a permanent thing, and it was merely something to be finagled around and ignored as it suited them. Jefferson, for instance, ran pretty much a military dictatorship his second term. So much for his real views on the practicality of 'freedom'.

 

[Matt Foley]

the type of freedom as outlined in the declaration of independence is what I have in mind as a truly free society.

This declaration of independence? Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

...is not an outline for a "truly free society", it's a list of grievances against the British Crown in the 17th century. I think I'll go with the alt-right theory that Libertarianism is a cover for caucasian-identity politics, subconsciously or consciously it doesn't matter.

From what I've seen its mostly subconscious.

 

[Matt Foley]

Say it with me folks "Not wanting to be the world's policeman is not isolationism."

Whenever international trade is threatened you anarcho-capitalists will start a war on a dime.

The only difference between neocons and Libertarians are fat sophists and a tooth rotted Soviet immigrant.

 

[Matt Foley]

Indeed they were. That said the proportion of the amount placed into those early budgetes for military spending in reference to the amount of revenue the government took in and the GDP of the nation would likely not be a close equivilent to what we see today.

That's because those early budgets were almost entirely derived from Tariffs, and if you raise Tariffs too high you get zero revenue. See Tariffs actually follow the Laffer Curve, income taxes do not, the gubment hating Anarcho-Capitalists shot themselves in the foot.

 

[Cromfel]

Ron Paul has nothing in common with the 'Founding Fathers'. There were 85 to 215 or so of them, and they all had different beliefs and ideas, so the whole idea of 'being true to the Founders' is just hubris and hyperbole.

Being true to the synthesis of "founding fathers" mixed ideas of what country should be in the form of constitution has little to do with individuals behind per se. Good principles are good principles no matter who wrote them if they allow one to get out of this kind of miserable state. And its even quite funny how 1:1 the protection against european "players" back the time map to current bankers and fed. if you study history you see it repeat. How is this different? I say not at all. Different faces, background is the same. Feel free to live in denial my friend, objectivity on this kind of matters is really a devil? Aight?