its a scam! - Political Forum

longdraw · 07-27-2007, 02:26 PM

both the right and left are controlled by the same group of power players ..there is no major differences when it comes to big issues...for example both are for war,big gov and open borders...yes they differ on minor sub issues like abortion,gay rights etc...there will be no change with either in charge all or jobs will continue to go over seas,our borders will stay wide open and more wars to come with either party...come on people...were being scammed by the elite...big money,power brokers give us a choice between a politician with a "r" who is bought and paid for OR a politician witha 'd" who is bought and paid for BY THE SAME POWER PLAYERS.They cant lose!! Its all a scam...if we want change we need someone who is not bought and paid for and fortunately we do have someone like that this time around his name is RON PAUL and he follows the constitution yet mainstream media calls him a kook...how can he be a kook when he strcikly follows the constitution? were are founding fathers kooks? we need to get over the false rightleft paradigm. Its a SCAM!

donsutherland1 · 07-27-2007, 03:33 PM

Longdraw,

There's no "scam." The difference between your support for Congressman Paul and that for those who support other candidates (either Republican or Democratic Party) is merely the result of a sincere difference of opinion. Moreover, the argument that all but Ron Paul are ignoring the Constitution is a banal argument that attempts to attack the credibility of the candidates simply by labeling them as "anti-constitution." The better approach would be to address the merits of the contrasting positions on the issues.

Bradgriff · 07-27-2007, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Longdraw, There's no "scam." The difference between your support for Congressman Paul and that for those who support other candidates (either Republican or Democratic Party) is merely the result of a sincere difference of opinion. Moreover, the argument that all but Ron Paul are ignoring the Constitution is a banal argument that attempts to attack the credibility of the candidates simply by labeling them as "anti-constitution." The better approach would be to address the merits of the contrasting positions on the issues.

I'm curious sutherland....why does his message of getting back to the basics of the constitution have so much appeal to moderates? I support Ron Paul because I believe he is our best hope of directing a corrupt law making process back towards a more constitutionally driven process.

It seems like you're trying to do what Republicans and Democrats are trying to do...which is stuff him back in the box that all politicians come in so the threat of his message is silenced. His message is that he won't be like all the politicians that are worn down year after year in office by the type of compromises you have to make that dilute your original message of change for the better. That's just my opinion anyway.

Oh yea! I forgot another thing....the media doesn't like him because they know he isn't scandal worthy. I have a freind in the biz in LA and he said that both parties had his past looked into by jackboot wearing creepies. They found nothing! So the media won't get any mileage out of him. They would rather have GW's and Billarys to make fools of themselves and get great ratings.

So would I call it a "scam", maybe not...more like Mr Paul Goes to Washington fears from the corrupt establishment of lawmakers and lobbyists.

donsutherland1 · 07-27-2007, 05:06 PM

Bradgriff,

First, I fully respect Congressman Paul's choice to seek office and those who support him. Far from seeking to silence him, I believe he should be able to participate in all the debates, as he has something to add.

Second, I do not believe it is a productive approach to argue that one has exclusive claim to insight into the constitution. Others may have differing understandings. The genuine test is what has been held up as constitutional over time.

For example, on a matter of specifics, Ron Paul asserts that under the Constitution, Congress has primacy over foreign policy. Yet, the Federalist Papers and George Washington saw the President as having primacy.

In Federalist No. 75, Alexander Hamilton explained:

To have intrusted the power of making treaties to the Senate alone, would have been to relinquish the benefits of the constitutional agency of the President in the conduct of foreign negotiations. It is true that the Senate would, in that case, have the option of employing him in this capacity, but they would also have the option of letting it alone, and pique or cabal might induce the latter rather than the former. Besides this, the ministerial servant of the Senate could not be expected to enjoy the confidence and respect of foreign powers in the same degree with the constitutional representatives of the nation, and, of course, would not be able to act with an equal degree of weight or efficacy...

On March 30, 1796, George Washington observed:

The nature of foreign negotiations requires caution, and their success must often depend on secrecy, and even when brought to a conclusion, a full disclosure of all the measures, demands, or eventual concessions which may have been proposed or contemplated would be extremely impolitic, for this might have a pernicious influence on future negotiations or produce immediate inconveniences, perhaps danger and mischief, in relation to other powers. The necessity of such caution and secrecy was one cogent reason for vesting the power of making treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, the principle on which that body was formed confining it to a small number of members…

Having been a member of the General Convention, and knowing the principles on which the Constitution was formed, I have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject; and from the first establishment of the Government to this moment, my conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of making treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate; provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and that every treaty so made, and promulgated, thenceforward became the law of the land. It is thus that the treaty-making power has been understood by foreign nations; and in all the treaties made with them, we have declared, and they have believed, that, when ratified by the President , with the advice and consent of the Senate, they became obligatory. In this construction of the Constitution, every House of Representatives has heretofore acquiesced; and until the present time not a doubt or suspicion has appeared, to my knowledge, that this construction was not the true one.

On May 23, 1797, the Senate reaffirmed the President’s constitutional foreign policy authority:

Although the Senate believe that the prosperity and happiness of our country does not depend on general and extensive political connections with, European nations, yet we can never lose sight of the propriety as well as necessity of enabling the Executive, by sufficient and liberal supplies, to maintain, and even extend, our foreign intercourse, as exigencies may require, reposing full confidence in the Executive, in whom the Constitution, has placed the powers of negotiation.

In the end, if Congressman Paul wishes to advance a foreign policy that differs from all the approaches of the other candidates, rather than arguing that his approach is the only constitutional one, he should argue the merits of his approach relative to those of the other candidates.

superdude17* · 07-27-2007, 05:28 PM

Ron Paul is not the best hope for the future of America. Sheesh, I would vote for Hillary or Obama before I would vote for the consistently ignorant, silly caricature.

And to answer everyone else's questions about why Ron Paul has been getting all of these threads: because Ron Paul supporters have a lot of free time and/or no lives. That is why you will continue to see lots of them doing call-ins, continue to view these threads, etc on talk shows or whatever. They spam the polls, like little tweens do with celebrities.

However, fellow moderates, fear not, these Paul supporters are merely Democrats trying to frighten us and stir things up, making it appear as if he is some real contender, which in reality, he is definitely not. Just the fact that he wants to lose the war and call himself a patriot makes him intolerable. At least Obama and Clinton have the decency to say that they don't want to lose the war, yet at the same time, don't run on the idea of patriotism.

Another thing that bothers me is that he lies about the war. Not "this is how I see it," but actual lying, like counting every Northern and Southern Watch sortie as a bombing mission. When someone starts lying to support a "principled" position, it sets my bogometer off.

And, finally, this is Rep. Paul's greatest liability. Every time I run into one of his supporters, notably here and other forums, I like him less. Most of his fans sound far more like Cindy Sheehan than Ronald Reagan.

donsutherland1 · 07-27-2007, 06:09 PM

Superdude17,

When it comes to foreign policy, you make a good point that there is little comparison between what Ron Paul advocates and what President Reagan championed. For example, here's how President Reagan defined the purpose of his foreign policy:

During the postwar years, America had repeatedly stood up to the threat of Soviet expansionism, going to the far corners of the world--Turkey, Greece, Korea, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere--to defend freedom. It was our policy that this great democracy of ours had a special obligation to help bring freedom to other peoples, as we did after World War II when we helped the new nations that merged from the colonial past. We spent billions to help the countries ravaged by World War II, including our former enemies, rebuild after the war. We spent more billions to keep American troops stationed in Western Europe and South Korea for the purpose of containing Communism. Sometimes the price of defending freedom was even higher; Many brave Americans made the ultimate sacrifice. America had always been willing to pay the price of defending human liberty...

As the foundation of my foreign policy, I decided we had to send as powerful a message as we could to the Russians that we weren't going to stand by anymore while they armed and financed terrorists and subverted democractic governments. Our policy was to be one based on strength and realism. I wanted peace through strength, not peace through a piece of paper.

Source: Ronald Reagan, An American Life, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1990, pp.265-267.

Can one imagine Ron Paul arguing that America has a "special obligation" to defend freedom outside its borders? Can one imagine Ron Paul suggesting that the U.S. would not "stand by anymore" on the world stage while the Soviets took measures contrary to overseas American interests? Could one imagine Ron Paul spending "billions" to rebuild war-ravaged nations when he believes foreign aid is "unconstitutional?"

Bradgriff · 07-27-2007, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

In the end, if Congressman Paul wishes to advance a foreign policy that differs from all the approaches of the other candidates, rather than arguing that his approach is the only constitutional one, he should argue the merits of his approach relative to those of the other candidates.

Thanks for all the great federalist stuff, though it brings out the anarchist in me when I read them

I fear I've been too vague....let's start with 911

Ron Paul said...."We brought 911 on ourselves" Which is true in that our intelligence missed the threat. We support Isreal which is the root of middle eastern hatred for the US. We also taught Osama how to fight.

So what happens, Rudy jumps on him because 911 is his cow to milk, and Rudy said "I demand you take that back" (snear), and the Republicans along with the press basically say...."You can't say that"

My point....they won't let him "argue the merits of his approach relative to those of the other candidates"

donsutherland1 · 07-27-2007, 06:54 PM

Bradgriff,

The debate format only permits for soundbites. It gives candidates little more than exposure. It is imperative that candidates get their detailed positions out through other means, some of which don't cost anything.

For example, Rudy Giuliani wrote an op-ed piece in April that appeared in the Financial Times calling for reduced growth in government spending, lower tax rates, regulatory reform, and sound monetary policy. Barack Obama wrote a piece that described his foreign policy approach that appeared in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs.

Bradgriff · 07-27-2007, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

Bradgriff,

The debate format only permits for soundbites. It gives candidates little more than exposure. It is imperative that candidates get their detailed positions out through other means, some of which don't cost anything.

For example, Rudy Giuliani wrote an op-ed piece in April that appeared in the Financial Times calling for reduced growth in government spending, lower tax rates, regulatory reform, and sound monetary policy. Barack Obama wrote a piece that described his foreign policy approach that appeared in the July/August 2007 edition of Foreign Affairs

While I appreciate the historical info, and I certainly wish that more people would read the words of the candidates and thier research staffs directly....I suspect that the majority of voters in this country make thier decisions based on those sound bites. It's sad...but most Americans solidify thier decisions by watching whatever cable news network makes them feel warm and fuzzy. So if the "Media/Political Complex" gives you no love, you don't have a chance even if you publish brilliant ground breaking position papers. And let's face it, Ron Paul hasn't a chance. Republicans will never nominate him.

I want to say that I direct none of this at you Sutherland. You seem like a very well informed person. I'm not attempting cheap flattery either, but if more people looked into the issues to the depths that you seem to...we wouldn't have had to suffer Goerge Bush.

Bradgriff's daily thought....."The Media/Political Complex selects the President, not the people, or even the electoral college"