Ron Paul 2008 Presidential bid...

[Osborn F Enready]

Ghook said: Maybe in theory, but when it comes to the presidential elections there are in all reality only 2 parties.

Only in the minds of the sheeple Ghook.

[GHook93]

Quote by: The Decider Paul's individual donations success has not translated into support in the national and statewide primary polls. Without Republican voter support, what good are the donations? WH2008: Republicans

Ron Paul is tied with Tommie Thompson! Those numbers have to be mind-numbing to Ron Paul supporters.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Sean I know I am going to get nailed for this comment, but I cannot imagine, as corrupt as our system is, how much worse it would get if these corporations had even less government in their way of totally enslaving this society/democracy. Ron Paul is an intelligent and principalled candidate that I just do not agree with at all heh.

Wow Sean is still around. I have mentioned this is a huge problem I have with the Libertarian philosophy, but guys like Osborne will tell you that you don't understand what libertarianism is about. :rolleyes:

In reality, is a weak central US government a good thing?
Is minimum taxations even plausible?
What is worst: (1) Government over-regulating business (big government) or (2) Government under regulating business (big business exploiting the people to shrink the middle)?

Glad you asked though.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Reducing the role of government, would reduce the role these corporations play. The corporations need government to be subsidizing and representing their interests. As Ron Paul said in his daily show interview (paraphrased): There is a difference between successful corporations and corportism. Corportism is when people pay money to influence government and that is evil. But I see no harm with successful business men like Bill Gates who provide a service which we buy.

Man that is naïve. I have worked at enough big business to know that the government hinders big business a hell of a lot more than it helps it. Reducing government would INCREASE the role of the corporations. The ones who would be effected the most would be the small business and middle class.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Only in the minds of the sheeple Ghook.

Too bad the sheeple is who votes! :rolleyes:
I personally wish there was a viable 3rd party. 3 choices is always better than 2. That was very apparent last year.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: GHook93 Wow Sean is still around. I have mentioned this is a huge problem I have with the Libertarian philosophy, but guys like Osborne will tell you that you don't understand what libertarianism is about. :rolleyes:

Osborn is correct. You don't seem to have learned anything during your time here.

In reality, is a weak central US government a good thing? Is minimum taxations even plausible? What is worst: (1) Government over-regulating business (big government) or (2) Government under regulating business (big business exploiting the people to shrink the middle)? Glad you asked though.

False dichotomy. Also question-begging -- does big business in fact exploit people? All the time or only sometimes? Etc...

I won't bring up the argument that any and all "classes" are arbitrary divisions. Oops, maybe I already did.

- Rob

[Captain Cardio]

Quote by: GHook93 Man that is naïve.

- This is a personal attack and an opinion that does nothing to advance your argument.

Quote by: GHook93 I have worked at enough big business to know that

Stating your credentials, even in a vague way like this, doesn't make you right. If you'd like to show how my initial statement is wrong, you need to provide some evidence.

Quote by: GHook93 the government hinders big business a hell of a lot more than it helps it

Fact: America goes to war over oil interests.
Fact: America heavily subsidizes farmers.
Fact: In these two cases alone, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money is going to businesses annually, that the free market has not supported.

They may be biased over which companies they help or hinder, but they go out of their way to help big businesses in major ways. If Ron Paul was elected and stuck to his word, and he has demonstrated he would (ten terms as a congressman who has never changed his stance), this would no longer be the case.

What reason do you have to believe that companies like microsoft, at&t, google etc, that are not engaged in politics, have been doing things that are harmful to America?

I concede that you may have a good reason for believing this, but you haven't put it forward. All you have stated so far is unbacked opinion.

Quote by: GHook93 Reducing government would INCREASE the role of the corporations. The ones who would be effected the most would be the small business and middle class.

Why? You just said the opposite of what I said, again, without backing it up. You need to give us some substance to work with if you want us to consider your stance seriously.

This is a debate forum sir, we are not interested your emotion, feeling, or opinion, unless you can provide the reasons for them, the facts, or at least a logical theorum.

[Sean]

Quote by: Autolykos Let the nailing begin... Explain how corporations are "enslaving this society/democracy" now. Do you think that, because I choose to buy a quarter-pounder at McDonald's, I have somehow become enslaved by them? - Rob

The quality of the products that control my life (food, water, shelter) and the overall treatment of people who do not have money in a world where corporations have even more power is indeed a world approaching slavery. I do not want the needs of shareholders superceding everything else in the world because our government is too week to stop injustice. It is already a a corrupt system and there is some regulation.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Sean The quality of the products that control my life (food, water, shelter) and the overall treatment of people who do not have money in a world where corporations have even more power is indeed a world approaching slavery.

With all due respect, I think you need to explain how this is so.

I do not want the needs of shareholders superceding everything else in the world because our government is too week to stop injustice. It is already a a corrupt system and there is some regulation.

Okay. How do you think corporations make money? Do you think they force us to buy their goods and services? Or do we choose to buy them?

Also, I fail to see how "the needs of shareholders" necessarily leads to "injustice". At this point, I won't ask you what your idea of "(in)justice" is.

- Rob

[Sean]

Quote by: Autolykos With all due respect, I think you need to explain how this is so.

Companies controlling basic life-requirements and having less regulation increases the potential for abuse, fueled by the dividend requirements of shareholders outweighing our quality of life.

Okay. How do you think corporations make money? Do you think they force us to buy their goods and services? Or do we choose to buy them?

Yes we buy them, and these companies work within an enforced set of guidlines and regulations to protect the consumers.

[Autolykos]

Quote by: Sean Companies controlling basic life-requirements and having less regulation increases the potential for abuse, fueled by the dividend requirements of shareholders outweighing our quality of life.

"Controlling"? Do you mean organizations that take it upon themselves to provide us with things that, they believe, we desire, including "basic life-requirements" (whatever you mean by that), and for which they ask for compensation? Or do you mean organizations whose monopoly privileges over "basic life-requirements" are backed by the violent power of the state, which is still viewed by the majority of people as legitimate?

Also, how do you (personally) measure "quality of life"?

Yes we buy them, and these companies work within an enforced set of guidlines and regulations to protect the consumers.

If those guidelines and regulations did not exist, do you think would we somehow be forced to buy their goods and services?

- Rob

[GHook93]

Quote by: Captain Cardio - This is a personal attack and an opinion that does nothing to advance your argument. .

That was a personal attack that was a statement.

Fact: America goes to war over oil interests.

Nice left-wing assumption! Do you also believe that the US government is responsible for 9/11?

Fact: America heavily subsidizes farmers.

And, that is one industry and its an essential industry. Should the American government sit by and let the industry die? Food is an essential resource and its production should be protect. The last thing you would want is the farm industry taking too many health harzardous short-cuts.

As a matter of fact I believe the farmers subsidization is inadequate. I think it should be increased.

Fact: In these two cases alone, hundreds of billions of dollars of tax payer money is going to businesses annually, that the free market has not supported.

Take your own advice and PROVE IT! A lot of the money goes to small business to start up. Taking that aways hurts the small business!

They may be biased over which companies they help or hinder, but they go out of their way to help big businesses in major ways. If Ron Paul was elected and stuck to his word, and he has demonstrated he would (ten terms as a congressman who has never changed his stance), this would no longer be the case. What reason do you have to believe that companies like microsoft, at&t, google etc, that are not engaged in politics, have been doing things that are harmful to America?

Business have 1 goal, which is to make as much money as possible! The government has multiple goals and its to serve the people.


Socialism and communism are not a good things in the long run. They work counter-productive in most cases. However, at the other end of the spectrum is pure capitalism. Which is just as dangerous in a different way. What there needs to be in a happy median between socialism and capitalism. For example, healthcare should be socialized!


Here is an example of Big Business getting negatively effected by the government. No Federal stepping butting in, then the merger would have materialized!

Whole Foods: Niche player or giant? - MSN Money

Whole Foods Market can't get a break. First, it's a small fish, and the sharks at grocery chains such as Safeway (SWY, news, msgs) and Kroger (KR, news, msgs) start stealing Whole Foods' (WFMI, news, msgs) business by adding natural-foods sections to their stores. Investor fears about this competition have helped knock 40% off Whole Foods stock since last fall. Then, it's a budding monopoly, or so says the Federal Trade Commission, which contends Whole Foods doesn't face that much competition from the mainstream grocery stores. The FTC made that case in saying Whole Foods shouldn't be allowed to buy Wild Oats Markets (OATS, news, msgs), another organic-grocery player, because that would give Whole Foods too much power in this little corner of the retail world.

[brien]

Ghook said: Maybe in theory, but when it comes to the presidential elections there are in all reality only 2 parties

.

It seems obvious to me that Ghook doesn't even look at the ballot when he votes.

[Captain Cardio]

That was a personal attack that was a statement.

Agreed, but that statement was insulting and does nothing for your argument. If you believe your argument is sound, there is no need to name-call the argument of somebody disagreeing with you.

If you start a discussion with somebody by calling their viewpoint naive, and expect them to not be critical of an opposite opinion that you don't state the reasons for, then I don't know what to tell you.

Nice left-wing assumption!

There are sound reasons to believe the US went to war for oil. There were no WMDs, or Al-Qaeda. The states had no reason to invade Iraq or liberate the country, anymore than they would with another of the numerous dictatorships. The states had no reason to start liberating random countries at a time when they needed to deal with terrorism. (If they did have a reason, why would they insist on exploiting the belief of Americans that Iraq was related to 9/11, rather than simply saying, "America has a moral obligation to help our fellow man in Iraq, who is under oppression and tyranny." - before the war began.) The only motivation that has been presented for the war, that has not had a significant amount of well-publicized evidence against it, to date, is the oil. (Try typing "Iraq oil" into a search engine sometime, and see if there aren't enough links to suggest that america going to war for oil is more than an 'assumption')

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link (Self-explanatory link)
Quotes from this article:
"We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks - President Bush ."
"The comments - among his most explicit so far on the issue - come after a recent opinion poll found that nearly 70% of Americans believed the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks."

If you see the film "Why we fight", there is video footage of George Bush before the iraq invasion, saying with certainty that Saddam Hussein and Iraq are linked to 9/11. The next video clip is a couple years later, where he says there he never said that, and that there never was any link.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com) (Self-explanatory link)
Quote from this article:
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq."

There were no WMDs in Iraq. I'm not going to prove this on the principal that you should know it.

And, that is one industry and its an essential industry. Should the American government sit by and let the industry die? Food is an essential resource and its production should be protect. The last thing you would want is the farm industry taking too many health harzardous short-cuts. As a matter of fact I believe the farmers subsidization is inadequate. I think it should be increased.

If American farms didn't receive subsidies, people wouldn't need to be taxed as much. Produce would go up in price,(*If the trade barriers stayed the same) but everybody would have more money to pay for it with because of smaller taxes. It is an unnecessary government involvement, that ends up wasting money in a bureaucracy. If people need food, they will buy it, and the industry will be supported. People don't need the government to intervene with money, just safety and health standards.

(*If the states cut the subsidies and just got rid of unfair international trade practices, American grocers could purchase produce from developing countries and sell it with with no difference in profit, for a cheaper price than it is today. By insisting on subsidies and unfair trade practices, US citizens lose by paying more for food, and 3rd world citizens really lose, because they cannot bring themselves out of poverty as they would if they could sell their produce internationally. - This is a summary of a very complicated issue that I've found it difficult to pin point in search engines. On wikipedia one of the list causes of poverty (in a global sense) is:

"Lacking free trade. In particular, the very high subsidies to and protective tariffs for agriculture in the developed world. For example, almost half of the budget of the European Union goes to agricultural subsidies, mainly to large farmers and agribusinesses, which form a powerful lobby.[34] Japan gave 47 billion dollars in 2005 in subsidies to its agricultural sector,[35] nearly four times the amount it gave in total foreign aid.[36] The US gives 3.9 billion dollars each year in subsidies to its cotton sector, including 25,000 growers, three times more in subsidies than the entire USAID budget for Africa’s 500 million people.[37] This drains the taxed money and increases the prices for the consumers in developed world; decreases competition and efficiency; prevents exports by more competitive agricultural and other sectors in the developed world due to retaliatory trade barriers; and undermines the very type of industry in which the developing countries do have comparative advantages"

Do you also believe that the US government is responsible for 9/11?

That is irrelevant. That wouldn't change what the American government has done that gives us a strong case for believing that they were acting in support of oil interests when they went to Iraq.

Take your own advice and PROVE IT! A lot of the money goes to small business to start up. Taking that aways hurts the small business!

I didn't think those facts needed proof, but so be it:

National Priorities Project Cost of Iraq War Notes and Sources - Cost of Iraq war.
Cost of War - National Priorities Project Cost of Iraq war.

Why U.S. Farm Subsidies Are Bad for the World Discussion about how billion dollar farm subsidies are harmful to US citizens.

Another Year at the Federal Trough: Farm Subsidies for the Rich, Famous, and Elected Jumped Again in 2002

Quote from this article:
"Perhaps worst of all, farm subsidies are not distributed to the small, struggling family farmers whom lawmakers typically mention when defending these policies. Rather, most farm subsidies are distributed to large farms, agribusinesses, politicians, and celebrity "hobby farmers." "

Unfair trade policies damaging growth prospects in Developing Countries: UN Human Development Report

Quote from this article:
"The United States has an even more skewed pattern of distribution. Only 40% of farmers receive any subsidy. Within this group, the richest 5% get over half, or about $470,000 each."

I didn't have to look hard for any of those links, they were the first and second things that popped up on google.

Business have 1 goal, which is to make as much money as possible! The government has multiple goals and its to serve the people.

Thats a fair statement. But business offering their products for sale, doesn't harm us. As long as they don't go about earning their money in ways that exploit Americans, there is no problem.

Ron Paul would not be suggesting to completely elimate the role of government, just a reduction of its role in certain sectors. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard anything to date that suggests that Ron Paul's policies would result in businesses being any more capable of exploitation than they are today.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Captain Cardio Ron Paul would not be suggesting to completely elimate the role of government, just a reduction of its role in certain sectors. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard anything to date that suggests that Ron Paul's policies would result in businesses being any more capable of exploitation than they are today.

A vast reduction in the government is needed. The government does need to stop the big brothering. However, to drastic reductions to the government will be counter-productive.

[GHook93]

Quote by: brien . It seems obvious to me that Ghook doesn't even look at the ballot when he votes.

Name the last 3rd party that came close? Teddy Roosevelt in 1912m which is nearly a 100 years ago and this was mainly because it was the former President Teddy Roosevelt. Therefore we have a de facto 2 party system, regardless of what it says on the ballots.

[Captain Cardio]

A vast reduction in the government is needed. The government does need to stop the big brothering. However, to drastic reductions to the government will be counter-productive.

I agree, but I don't think Ron Paul is going to reduce anything in a way that would be counter-productive.

[Milton Bradley]

Ron Paul looked good on the Colbert Report, and clearly, Stephen did not jump all over him.


Should we read something into that?

[Autolykos]

Have any other Republican candidates been on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report?

- Rob

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Autolykos Have any other Republican candidates been on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report? - Rob

Sure have. McCain, and Guiliani have both made appearances, but they both took major flak from the crowd.


Ron Paul got only applause.