Thread: Perry's Ponzi scheme comment(s)

Originally Posted by ericams2786

If after actually studying this guy's history and record you can still say with a straight face that he is conservative - so be it, but your definition of conservative must basically be moderate democrat, because that is about all I'm seeing.

I know you think that Ron Paul is as pure as the wind driven snow. But he has only gotten as far as he has because as a single Representative and lone voice in the wilderness, his policies have no chance of being enacted and can enjoy the perpetual state of being the greener grass on the other side of the fence. Domestically, pushing responsibility for policies that no government can properly implement down to the states without fundamentally defeating the entitlement culture will only result in chaos and backlash far worse than what we suffer under now that will take at least a generation to peel back to where we started. The Federal government much take the lead in implementing sound policies, and abolishing bad ones, otherwise the bad ones will fester in the states and reappear in the absence of sound ones. I appreciate the libertarian ideal that he champions, that we were founded on. But that is a largely personal conviction of conduct, that unfortunately was largely breed out of us over the last century, and can not be legislated back into existence. It will take time, education, and service, to community and nation that probably won't look very libertarian. And overseas, there is simply no way that such a wide scale retreat as Paul proposes will not result a 2nd Caliphate a few years down the road, and World War 3 few years after that. It also won't do anything to contain China (WW4?). You'd think that Dr. Paul would understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. To whom much is given, much is expected, and standing idle by while tyranny ripens on the vine will cost us far more dearly in the long run.

Pauls heart is in the right place, but this is 2011, not 1811. There is no place to get away from it all. We can't shirk our responsibilities and expect to prosper.

The full faith and credit excuse was always baloney. First, liberals don't even really believe it. It's just a useful lie to be discarded at the first sign of adversity. When Republicans pushed a bill during the debt ceiling negotiations to pay our creditors first, Democrats demagogued it as a "Pay China first" bill. What that tells the world is that Democrats believe our debt is a lower priority than other spending, and if Democrats are in charge, our credit cannot be relied upon. Second, regardless of how good your own debt is, investing in your own debt is not an asset. Social Security should be invested in other nations' debt and grade AA or better corporate debt. Then it wouldn't be taxpayers' problem. Because that's what happened. The money got spent, Treasuries were put into the fund, and who pays to redeem the Treasuries? Taxpayers!

Full faith and credit is not a childlike belief in the ability of the US to pay its debts. It is a real world principle that no matter what, even if we had to starve seniors and children, our debts would be paid first. If we don't believe that, then our credit is not good. It is subject to economic conditions.

Originally Posted by Commodore

We didn't. Nor do we intend to.

And yet those pesky Eastern Hemisphereian conflicts seem to keep spilling over into our hemisphere anyway.

2.1 million American men turn 18 every year. We ain't going to run out.

Ok, where would Ron Paul put the roads?

Oh, dear.

You've fallen for the faux approval of the left, haven't you.

1. They spill over here because we continue to interfere. Our CIA has a long history of interfering in other countries, mostly due to the Cold War. There are tons of books out there that list and showcase a lot of these interventions - both military interventions and CIA. If we were self-reliant in our energy needs (totally doable) and quit interferring all over the place, we might very well have a different outcome. But of course one can't possibly prove that unless you change the policy - as is we just keep doing the same thing expecting a different result (decrease in terrorism) - what is the definition of insanity again? Also, terrorism in Iraq for instance has increase by a giganic magnitude since we've been over there as compared to suicide bombings, etc. before we invade in 2003, this is historical and statistical fact. Had we not invaded, that huge increase in terrorist attacks would not have occurred.

2. Maybe we won't, but since we have a volunteer army, we are in fact strapped because of our deployments all over the place. With a draft, no we wouldn't run out, as is, we apparently have, that or no one has the common sense to deploy them to the damn border. Bush didn't when he had the chance and the third coming of Bush won't either, especially not someone who signed the Texas version of the DREAM Act and proposed a "bi-national" healthcare plan with Mexico (yes that really happened).

3. What do you mean where will Paul put the roads? Building roads is up to the States and communities not the Federal government. I don't see shit in Article 2 giving the President the power to build roads. But, even putting that aside, using Eminent Domain to steal millions of acres of private land to build an international highway is wrong, period. You simply cannot reasonably defend Perry on this if you value American sovereignty and property rights.

4. Nope, I haven't fallen for shit. The Democrats I've talked to are actively changing their party to vote in the primaries for Paul. Groups like the Blue Republicans and "Democrats for Paul" are springing up all over the place. Even if the support is fake and they are just doing it to help Obama's chances, I don't give a shit because the votes help him in the primaries. And considering that a Gallup poll conducted about two week ago had Obama at 39% and Paul at 38% in a head-to-head match-up (polled better than anyother Republican in the poll relative to Obama), they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. Plus, as the only anti-war candidate in the field, a lot of disaffected Democrats and Independents will be looking for someone to vote for...

Originally Posted by adaher

The full faith and credit excuse was always baloney. First, liberals don't even really believe it. It's just a useful lie to be discarded at the first sign of adversity. When Republicans pushed a bill during the debt ceiling negotiations to pay our creditors first, Democrats demagogued it as a "Pay China first" bill. What that tells the world is that Democrats believe our debt is a lower priority than other spending, and if Democrats are in charge, our credit cannot be relied upon. Second, regardless of how good your own debt is, investing in your own debt is not an asset. Social Security should be invested in other nations' debt and grade AA or better corporate debt. Then it wouldn't be taxpayers' problem. Because that's what happened. The money got spent, Treasuries were put into the fund, and who pays to redeem the Treasuries? Taxpayers!

Full faith and credit is not a childlike belief in the ability of the US to pay its debts. It is a real world principle that no matter what, even if we had to starve seniors and children, our debts would be paid first. If we don't believe that, then our credit is not good. It is subject to economic conditions.

I actually dont think it means that at all. It sole purpose was to ensure to the states that the money printed by the new govt was credible, so they wouldnt print their own. Its not about debt.

Originally Posted by Commodore

I know you think that Ron Paul is as pure as the wind driven snow. But he has only gotten as far as he has because as a single Representative and lone voice in the wilderness, his policies have no chance of being enacted and can enjoy the perpetual state of being the greener grass on the other side of the fence. Domestically, pushing responsibility for policies that no government can properly implement down to the states without fundamentally defeating the entitlement culture will only result in chaos and backlash far worse than what we suffer under now that will take at least a generation to peel back to where we started. The Federal government much take the lead in implementing sound policies, and abolishing bad ones, otherwise the bad ones will fester in the states and reappear in the absence of sound ones. I appreciate the libertarian ideal that he champions, that we were founded on. But that is a largely personal conviction of conduct, that unfortunately was largely breed out of us over the last century, and can not be legislated back into existence. It will take time, education, and service, to community and nation that probably won't look very libertarian. And overseas, there is simply no way that such a wide scale retreat as Paul proposes will not result a 2nd Caliphate a few years down the road, and World War 3 few years after that. It also won't do anything to contain China (WW4?). You'd think that Dr. Paul would understand that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. To whom much is given, much is expected, and standing idle by while tyranny ripens on the vine will cost us far more dearly in the long run.

Pauls heart is in the right place, but this is 2011, not 1811. There is no place to get away from it all. We can't shirk our responsibilities and expect to prosper.

I don't think he is pure - I know he is pure - at least as far as a conservative voting record and Constitutional voting record are concerned. The guy has literally never voted for a budget with a deficit and never voted to raise taxes - literally not once. Compare that to Mr. Perry who actually held office as a Democrat and did raise taxes and increase debt - then as a Republican increased taxes, increased spending, and massively increased debt (actually look at the Texas numbers if you don't believe me). Paul is literally the most conservative Congressmen in the Congress today:

Is John Kerry A Liberal?

-look at the bottom of the page (that is the conservative end of the scale), notice who is the very last named mentioned with the highest conservative rating. Out of 3320 people in Congress since 1937, Paul has the most conservative voting record of any of them. Looking for a true conservative, here you go, it definitely isn't Perry. Want a RINO, go with Perry.

As far as the Muslim Caliphate and the two World Wars you are expecting to happen, you cannot in anyway prove that withdrawing from all these wars overseas and defending ourselves here will lead to a Muslim Caliphate and WW3 and 4. That is like Obama saying that without the Stimulus Bill, unemployment would have been at 20% and we would have had a depression. You can neither prove or disprove your statement. What I find amazing is that ONCE AGAIN, our own CIA and the former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, Michael Sheuer says the same thing Paul says with regard to our foreign policy and 9/11 and yet everyone dismisses it with nothing more than their opinion about a possible Caliphate. I also find it rather strange that by an overwhelming majority, the soldiers with actual boots on the ground in all these foreign wars want to come home and end the wars AND Ron Paul receives more money from ACTIVE military personnel than all other Republican candidates and Obama COMBINED. U.S. Rep. Ron Paul receives more military donations than Obama

So I have two questions for you:

1. How is it that the majority of the military men and women fighting on the ground want to end the wars and donate most of their money overwhelmingly to the only anti-war candidate in the race (Ron Paul), along with the fact that the CIA agrees with Pauls assessment of our foreign policy, if Paul is wrong on foreign policy? I mean seriously, why the hell would military personnel support Paul with campaign donations if he "hates the military".

2. Why the hell do these Muslim Caliphate jihadists not attack Switzerland or Argentina or Chile? They are relatively free and rich? They never get attacked. What about Canada? They never do either. So why is it we are targeted and not them? What makes us different from these other countries?

Finally, you may think Paul is living in 1811 and his ideas won't work (even if they should slowly be implemented), but isn't it better to vote on principle (not just on the flavor of the month), if you truly believe in individual liberty and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which you profess to believe in? Why wouldn't you go with the guy with the damn near flawless Constitutional voting record and the guy with the right ideas (or who has his heart in the right place as you put it), instead of the guy who flip flops all over the damn place like Perry. Why not vote for the guy who has been saying the same thing for 30 years (youtube any speech of his literally since 1980) and has PREDICTED two recessions (including the Housing collapse of 2008), using nothing but the same common sense and logic he was using in 1980, instead of a guy like Perry who has not said anything about the Fed in his entire career until the last year (Paul has been saying end the Fed since he first ran for office in the 1970's)?