Why Ron Paul obviously won't make it past the primaries

[Nathyn]

The Republican party controls the primaries.

And I think congressional endorsements are probably a pretty decent gauge of whether or not a candidate will win.

A list of how many endorsements each Republican candidate has received:

(From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_United_Sta tes_presidential_election))

Mitt Romney - 5 senators, 27 house members
John McCain - 9 senators, 19 house members
Rudy Giuliani - 3 senators, 22 house members
Fred Thompson - 4 senators, 17 house members
Duncan Hunter - 7 house members
Mike Huckabee - 2 senators
Ron Paul - 1 member of the house

Ron Paul comes in dead last with only one endorsement. Can anyone name a single candidate who has won the primaries AND the general election, with only one supporter in Congress?

If every state was as Libertarian as the district where Ron Paul lives, yes, he could win. But they aren't. The Republican party as it stands now is a mostly Conservative party.

Here's a CBS news poll (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) for you:

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"

Republicans: Approve 58%, Disapprove 35%, Unsure 7%And in every opinion poll among likely voters (http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm), Ron Paul loses by a landslide.

Isn't the outcome blatantly obvious from the evidence? I'm a Democrat. It'd be great if Ron Paul could defeat the other Republicans, but it simply isn't going to happen.

[WildCat]

But he wins every internet poll! The Ron Paul juggernaut is unstoppable!

[Kerberos]

But he wins every internet poll! The Ron Paul juggernaut is unstoppable!

Ahh, but are the Republican primaries doen using Diebold (sp?) machines?

[Tailgater]

I expect him to run anyway, despite his denials.

[NoZed Avenger]

So he won't make it past the primaries because he won't get enough support?


That's the only thing holding me back, as well.

[Suddenly]

If he's smart he's running in the GOP primary not because he can win as much as for the publicity and fundraising.

Then he runs under the Libertarian ticket with a huge head start and what would be a massive base for a Libertarian.

[dudalb]

If he's smart he's running in the GOP primary not because he can win as much as for the publicity and fundraising.

Then he runs under the Libertarian ticket with a huge head start and what would be a massive base for a Libertarian.


Which means he might end up with a much a 5 to 6% in the regular election.
The problem Paul has is by categorical denying he is going to run as an indepedent/Third Pary candidate,if he does his image as "Mr.Honesty" will take a huge blow. He should have just dodged that question.
I am inclined to think he will not do a third party candidacy. He has always stated he wants to get his ideas out, and I think he knows he does not stand a chance on a third party run,and he will forfeit his House seat if he does so.He will figure that staying in the house with a heightened profile will be a better platform then a doomed run for a fringe party.
Also, If Bloomberg jumps in he might take the wind out of the other third party candidates. He offers a choice for those dissatisfied with the two major parties but does have the kook baggage that Paul does.

[Suddenly]

At this point as a GOP candidate he of course if going to say he has no plans to do so. If he wants to run he will easily be able to pass it off as being drafted by popular demand I didn't plan to run but who am I to stand against the will of the people, etc.

I guess it depends on how safe his house seat is. If he runs there as a Libertarian it would be somewhat unlikely that the GOP would want to target him as he would still caucus with the Republicans, and such an attempt would risk a split vote and a Democratic win.

Things being what they are, who knows. The way things are given a crappy set of major canidates there is room for a Ross Perot type move. Especially if there are two pro-Iraq candidates and Iraq happens to go straight to hell.

[WildCat]

I wonder if Ron Paul would peel off votes from Dems, the GOP, or just bring out those who'd stay home otherwise?

[dudalb]

At this point as a GOP candidate he of course if going to say he has no plans to do so. If he wants to run he will easily be able to pass it off as being drafted by popular demand I didn't plan to run but who am I to stand against the will of the people, etc.

Maybe his fervent supporters would buy that, but I think the average voter would just say "He Lied. He is just another Politician,etc".
Perot's withdrawal and then his getting back in again were,in the end,fatal to his campaign.
I really,really,doubt Paul can win on the issue of Iraq alone. A lot of the lefties who have been flirting with him will ,in the end,relize that he is opposed to their beliefs in everything but Iraq, and decide not to vote for him.

[Suddenly]

I wonder if Ron Paul would peel off votes from Dems, the GOP, or just bring out those who'd stay home otherwise?

The answer is yes. Lets assume Rudy and Hillary get the nod. We now have a pro-choice Republican and a pro-war democrat.

Ron Paul believes seperation of church and state is a myth. Ron Paul also lacks the authoritarian streak Rudy has.

Ron Paul is absolutely anti-Iraq and Drug war, and many airball lefties seem to go deaf at that point as to his other qualities.

He peels off votes from both, and he will energize a libertarian base larger than you would think. A bit of a recession and Iraq going to hell will strengthen his appeal to the brainless centrist protest voter who is more or less the political cousin of the person that uses homeopathy over chemo because it is so unpleasant (but I digress).

[Cleon]

The answer is yes. Lets assume Rudy and Hillary get the nod. We now have a pro-choice Republican and a pro-war democrat.

...And my liver will never be the same again. :boggled:

[Checkmite]

With Ron Paul constantly yapping about downsizing the federal government by eliminating this agency and dissolving that department, I wonder if anyone has attempted to create a tally, based on his statements, of about how many government employees Paul is planning to fire if he wins. All I know is, it's a big number. I wonder if it's a big enough number to make some of his supporters think twice. We're talking thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jobs lost due to a Ron Paul victory.

[Suddenly]

With Ron Paul constantly yapping about downsizing the federal government by eliminating this agency and dissolving that department, I wonder if anyone has attempted to create a tally, based on his statements, of about how many government employees Paul is planning to fire if he wins. All I know is, it's a big number. I wonder if it's a big enough number to make some of his supporters think twice. We're talking thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jobs lost due to a Ron Paul victory.

Don't worry. When he gets rid of all that newfangled banking stuff and gets us back to the good old days were we used pretty metal instead of ugly paper the economy will grow so fast that these people will be just dandyfinethankyouverymuch.

[IllegalArgument]

If I was a Republican strategist, I would be worried.

How many votes is Ron Paul going to drain away from the Republican candidate?

Remember Ross Perot or Ralph Nader, a few percentage points can make the difference.

[Checkmite]

Don't worry. When he gets rid of all that newfangled banking stuff and gets us back to the good old days were we used pretty metal instead of ugly paper the economy will grow so fast that these people will be just dandyfinethankyouverymuch.

Bah. Ron Paul won't even be able to abolish the Federal Reserve System, because it was created by an act of Congress, and can only be undone by another act of Congress, which won't happen. In fact, given that absolutely nobody in Washington thinks like him, Ron Paul would probably be the most useless and ineffectual president in the history of the United States. He's got all kinds of hare-brained schemes and plans that simply won't come to fruition because no Congress will support them. Of all his plans, about the only single thing Ron Paul would actually be able to accomplish would be the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's already one of the most useless Congressmen in Washington. Think about it - he introduces crazy bills; they never get passed. He votes against bills that pass anyway. The guy is a complete and total nutjob of a loser.

[Mister Agenda]

Makes him the perfect anti-war candidate. If you like him for planning to bring home the troops, that's what he will do. Anything you don't like him for, he won't be able to accomplish anyway. I'd be pretty happy with a president who doesn't accomplish much besides getting us out of this stupid war.

[Checkmite]

You'd better be happy with a Congress that accomplishes nothing either, because Ron Paul is likely to veto every bill that lands on his desk.

[Mister Agenda]

I imagine his vetoes would get overridden more than those of most previous presidents, and I don't think we have such a shortage of legislation that it will hurt much to only have what an overriding majority wants passed for a few years. There are a fair number of congresses and presidents I would have preferred accomplished less. Our current president is extremely accomplished.

[Checkmite]

Well, you're entitled to be satisfied with whatever you choose. I prefer a little return on my investments.

[Suddenly]

Bah. Ron Paul won't even be able to abolish the Federal Reserve System, because it was created by an act of Congress, and can only be undone by another act of Congress, which won't happen. In fact, given that absolutely nobody in Washington thinks like him, Ron Paul would probably be the most useless and ineffectual president in the history of the United States. He's got all kinds of hare-brained schemes and plans that simply won't come to fruition because no Congress will support them. Of all his plans, about the only single thing Ron Paul would actually be able to accomplish would be the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's already one of the most useless Congressmen in Washington. Think about it - he introduces crazy bills; they never get passed. He votes against bills that pass anyway. The guy is a complete and total nutjob of a loser.


Statist.


Why do you hate the constitution?

[MaGZ]

The Republican party controls the primaries.

And I think congressional endorsements are probably a pretty decent gauge of whether or not a candidate will win.

A list of how many endorsements each Republican candidate has received:

(From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_United_Sta tes_presidential_election))

Mitt Romney - 5 senators, 27 house members
John McCain - 9 senators, 19 house members
Rudy Giuliani - 3 senators, 22 house members
Fred Thompson - 4 senators, 17 house members
Duncan Hunter - 7 house members
Mike Huckabee - 2 senators
Ron Paul - 1 member of the house

Ron Paul comes in dead last with only one endorsement. Can anyone name a single candidate who has won the primaries AND the general election, with only one supporter in Congress?

If every state was as Libertarian as the district where Ron Paul lives, yes, he could win. But they aren't. The Republican party as it stands now is a mostly Conservative party.

Here's a CBS news poll (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) for you:

And in every opinion poll among likely voters (http://pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm), Ron Paul loses by a landslide.

Isn't the outcome blatantly obvious from the evidence? I'm a Democrat. It'd be great if Ron Paul could defeat the other Republicans, but it simply isn't going to happen.

Paul recently said half of Republicans are against the war. If this is true then a lot of these voters could go over to Paul if he was perceived as a credible candidate. To get there two things have to first happen.

I think there is a chance he could come in third in Iowa. If this happened then he could win NH where Dems and Independents could vote for him. If these two things happened then the Ron Paul bandwagon could attract the others in the Republican Party.
In general election Paul would attract independent and traditional democrat voters and he could win the Presidency.

[geni]

In general election Paul would attract independent and traditional democrat voters and he could win the Presidency.

Not remotely. One of Ron Paul's main advantages is that as yet he isn't really worth attacking. He doesn't really pull votes from the areas the other republicans are looking for so letting him have his single figure percent is the easy option.

[maxpower1227]

Bah. Ron Paul won't even be able to abolish the Federal Reserve System, because it was created by an act of Congress, and can only be undone by another act of Congress, which won't happen. In fact, given that absolutely nobody in Washington thinks like him, Ron Paul would probably be the most useless and ineffectual president in the history of the United States. He's got all kinds of hare-brained schemes and plans that simply won't come to fruition because no Congress will support them. Of all his plans, about the only single thing Ron Paul would actually be able to accomplish would be the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. He's already one of the most useless Congressmen in Washington. Think about it - he introduces crazy bills; they never get passed. He votes against bills that pass anyway. The guy is a complete and total nutjob of a loser.

In terms of domestic policy, sure, Ron Paul would accomplish nothing. It's his foreign policy, which is equally looney and moronic, that we should be worried about. Foreign policy is the area in which the president has more power to act out his agenda, as he is the chief diplomat/negotiator with other nations. His crazy ideas about withdrawing from all treaties and international organizations might actually come to fruition if he's elected (though the Senate may be able to frustrate him on some of that).

[hgc]

Maybe his fervent supporters would buy that, but I think the average voter would just say "He Lied. He is just another Politician,etc".
Perot's withdrawal and then his getting back in again were,in the end,fatal to his campaign.
I really,really,doubt Paul can win on the issue of Iraq alone. A lot of the lefties who have been flirting with him will ,in the end,relize that he is opposed to their beliefs in everything but Iraq, and decide not to vote for him.


The average voter would be completely unaware in Nov 2008 that Paul swore in Nov 2007 that he wouldn't run independently.

On the rest of your analysis, I agree. When you peel away the layers of the libertarian agenda, most people don't have a taste for it.

[Rob Lister]

Whereas I think his foreign policy is close to perfect...

[quote]The war in Iraq was sold to us with false information. The area is more dangerous now than when we entered it. We destroyed a regime hated by our direct enemies, the jihadists, and created thousands of new recruits for them. This war has cost more than 3,000 American lives, thousands of seriously wounded, and hundreds of billions of dollars. We must have new leadership in the White House to ensure this never happens again.

RL sez true enough

Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations. Today, we have troops in 130 countries. We are spread so thin that we have too few troops defending America. And now, there are new calls for a draft of our young men and women.

RL sez true enough on the first count but a little misleading on the second

We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

RL sez true enough

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations.

RL sez true enough

Too often we give foreign aid and intervene on behalf of governments that are despised. Then, we become despised. Too often we have supported those who turn on us, like the Kosovars who aid Islamic terrorists, or the Afghan jihadists themselves, and their friend Osama bin Laden. We armed and trained them, and now we’re paying the price.

[B]RL sez true enough

At the same time, we must not isolate ourselves. The generosity of the American people has been felt around the globe. Many have thanked God for it, in many languages. Let us have a strong America, conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.

RL sez true enough

[billydkid]

With Ron Paul constantly yapping about downsizing the federal government by eliminating this agency and dissolving that department, I wonder if anyone has attempted to create a tally, based on his statements, of about how many government employees Paul is planning to fire if he wins. All I know is, it's a big number. I wonder if it's a big enough number to make some of his supporters think twice. We're talking thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of jobs lost due to a Ron Paul victory.Well over half of all Americans (and other inhabitants) receive all or most of their income from the federal government. The federal government is the largest employer in the country. Do you think this is a good thing?

[Cleon]

Well over half of all Americans (and other inhabitants) receive all or most of their income from the federal government.

What? Bull-pucky.

You're going to claim, with a straight face, that the federal government employs more than 150,000,000 people full-time?

[maxpower1227]

Whereas I think his foreign policy is close to perfect...

...Both Jefferson and Washington warned us about entangling ourselves in the affairs of other nations....

RL sez true enough

Ron Paul supporters LOVE to regurgitate that Jefferson quote. Do you have any arguments that are not 200 years old as to why Ron Paul's foreign policy is viable in TODAY'S world? I don't know - maybe you want to return to the pre-1945 world where disputes between nations were always solved through war, and where the lack of a pro-active superpower allowed for dictators and despots to create a festering situation that ultimately led to two world wars in 3 decades, which slaughtered about 100 million people.

You're right, we should crawl back in our hole, pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, and remain in that state until something effects us directly. Then we can have another world war that claims about half a million American lives in 3+ years. That would be swell.

[maxpower1227]

Ron Paul supporters LOVE to regurgitate that Jefferson quote. Do you have any arguments that are not 200 years old as to why Ron Paul's foreign policy is viable in TODAY'S world? I don't know - maybe you want to return to the pre-1945 world where disputes between nations were always solved through war, and where the lack of a pro-active superpower allowed for dictators and despots to create a festering situation that ultimately led to two world wars in 3 decades, which slaughtered about 100 million people.

You're right, we should crawl back in our hole, pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, and remain in that state until something effects us directly. Then we can have another world war that claims about half a million American lives in 3+ years. That would be swell.

*CRICKETS.WAV*

[Mister Agenda]

Ron Paul supporters LOVE to regurgitate that Jefferson quote. Do you have any arguments that are not 200 years old as to why Ron Paul's foreign policy is viable in TODAY'S world? I don't know - maybe you want to return to the pre-1945 world where disputes between nations were always solved through war, and where the lack of a pro-active superpower allowed for dictators and despots to create a festering situation that ultimately led to two world wars in 3 decades, which slaughtered about 100 million people.

You're right, we should crawl back in our hole, pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist, and remain in that state until something effects us directly. Then we can have another world war that claims about half a million American lives in 3+ years. That would be swell.

Non-interventionism isn't the same as isolationism. Wiki is your friend.

[maxpower1227]

Ok, so you're arguing semantics. Whatever you call his foreign policy, it is a bad policy.

You didn't answer my question (it wasn't specifically addressed to you, but consider it an open question to all RP supporters).

[Mister Agenda]

I'm not sure what the question was. Isolationism is a policy that includes high trade barriers and diplomatic disengagement as well as not getting involved in other people's wars, and was popular in the USA after WWI. Noninterventionism is not getting involved in non-defensive wars while trading freely and using diplomacy in place of force. How is that distinction arguing semantics?

[Matteo Martini]

The Republican party controls the primaries.

And I think congressional endorsements are probably a pretty decent gauge of whether or not a candidate will win.

A list of how many endorsements each Republican candidate has received:

(From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_United_Sta tes_presidential_election))

Mitt Romney - 5 senators, 27 house members
John McCain - 9 senators, 19 house members
Rudy Giuliani - 3 senators, 22 house members
Fred Thompson - 4 senators, 17 house members
Duncan Hunter - 7 house members
Mike Huckabee - 2 senators
Ron Paul - 1 member of the house


Member of the Senate and of the House are not the ones who vote in the Primaries
The fact that Ron Paul has so few supporters in the House + Senate could be working for him, as he is looking more and more as out of the American politics war-mongering logic..


Here's a CBS news poll (http://pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) for you:

Isn't the outcome blatantly obvious from the evidence? I'm a Democrat. It'd be great if Ron Paul could defeat the other Republicans, but it simply isn't going to happen.

"Thinking about Iraq: Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

Right Decision 40%
Wrong Decision 55%
Unsure 5%


And in every opinion poll among likely voters, Ron Paul loses by a landslide.


Well, he moved from 1% of support in September 2007 to 6% in December 2007

[Matteo Martini]

The Republican party controls the primaries.

And I think congressional endorsements are probably a pretty decent gauge of whether or not a candidate will win.

A list of how many endorsements each Republican candidate has received:

(From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_endorsements_for_the_2008_United_Sta tes_presidential_election))

Mitt Romney - 5 senators, 27 house members
John McCain - 9 senators, 19 house members
Rudy Giuliani - 3 senators, 22 house members
Fred Thompson - 4 senators, 17 house members
Duncan Hunter - 7 house members
Mike Huckabee - 2 senators
Ron Paul - 1 member of the house

Ron Paul comes in dead last with only one endorsement. Can anyone name a single candidate who has won the primaries AND the general election, with only one supporter in Congress?


Huckabee has only 2 senators endorsing him, but he is 2nd in the polls right after Giuliani..

[maxpower1227]

I'm not sure what the question was. Isolationism is a policy that includes high trade barriers and diplomatic disengagement as well as not getting involved in other people's wars, and was popular in the USA after WWI. Noninterventionism is not getting involved in non-defensive wars while trading freely and using diplomacy in place of force. How is that distinction arguing semantics?

While I used the word "isolationism", my criticisms of Ron Paul's foreign policy were all criticisms that apply to non-interventionism. I was asking for someone to address those points, and all I got was a nit-pick about using the wrong word to describe his foreign policy.

[WildCat]

I don't see how it's possible for the richest nation on earth to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. It's easy for a little country to be non-interventionist, because their ability to intervene at all is minimal. But rich countries have the most to lose, but also have the ability and means to intervene in their interests. IMHO, they are compelled to intervene in their interests, because if they don't someone else will for their interests. Power hates a vacuum.

[Suddenly]

I don't see how it's possible for the richest nation on earth to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. It's easy for a little country to be non-interventionist, because their ability to intervene at all is minimal. But rich countries have the most to lose, but also have the ability and means to intervene in their interests. IMHO, they are compelled to intervene in their interests, because if they don't someone else will for their interests. Power hates a vacuum.

Once Paul gets ahold of the federal reserve and puts us on the gold standard we won't have to worry about being the richest country on earth.

So this is one of those things that will work itself out. We will be busy mining for currency, taking the gold fringe off courtroom flags, and looking for the manufactuer's statement of origin for our cars and will have no time for silly forriners.

[Matteo Martini]

I don't see how it's possible for the richest nation on earth to have a non-interventionist foreign policy. It's easy for a little country to be non-interventionist, because their ability to intervene at all is minimal. But rich countries have the most to lose, but also have the ability and means to intervene in their interests. IMHO, they are compelled to intervene in their interests, because if they don't someone else will for their interests. Power hates a vacuum.

I see..
So, basically, for your logic, were you a Chinese, it would be OK to invade Taiwan.
Were you an Iranian, it would be OK to develop nukes.

[Matteo Martini]

While I used the word "isolationism", my criticisms of Ron Paul's foreign policy were all criticisms that apply to non-interventionism. I was asking for someone to address those points, and all I got was a nit-pick about using the wrong word to describe his foreign policy.

Basically, the main point here is that the US ar spending 500+billions dollars per year ( by far more than any other country in the world ) in the military, to maintain a hundreds of bases around the world, nukes, missiles, etc.
Who gave the US the authority to be the policeman of the world?

[WildCat]

I see..
So, basically, for your logic, were you a Chinese, it would be OK to invade Taiwan.
If China thinks that is in their interest, that's what they will do. It's not a matter of it being OK or not, it's just what it is.

Were you an Iranian, it would be OK to develop nukes.
Which they will also do if they decide that is in their interest. They want to be a player, that is why they fund and train Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. But Iran isn't ready for prime-time yet.

[WildCat]

Basically, the main point here is that the US ar spending 500+billions dollars per year ( by far more than any other country in the world ) in the military, to maintain a hundreds of bases around the world, nukes, missiles, etc.
Who gave the US the authority to be the policeman of the world?
Which bases are opposed by the government of the country they're in? Seems to me they're there because those countries want them there, and signed treaties or agreements to that effect.

[WildCat]

So, basically, for your logic, were you a Chinese, it would be OK to invade Taiwan.
Were you an Iranian, it would be OK to develop nukes.


Who gave the US the authority to be the policeman of the world?
It would be very interesting if a Paul was elected and kept his promise to pull all US forces back into the US, and see how China and Iran react to that big green light.

Interesting, but terrible.

[Matteo Martini]

[..]

Which they will also do if they decide that is in their interest. They want to be a player, that is why they fund and train Hezbollah and other terrorist groups. But Iran isn't ready for prime-time yet.

Good, basically, so, if you were born in Iran, instead of being born in the US, you would push your government to get weapons??

[Matteo Martini]

It would be very interesting if a Paul was elected and kept his promise to pull all US forces back into the US, and see how China and Iran react to that big green light.

Interesting, but terrible.

Please, give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years.

[Matteo Martini]

Which bases are opposed by the government of the country they're in? Seems to me they're there because those countries want them there, and signed treaties or agreements to that effect.

Germany, Britain and Canada have rejected hosting elements of the U.S. system.

Polls suggest the majority of Czechs and Poles are opposed to the base out of fear of turning their countries into supporters of Washington's controversial Middle East policy and into targets of terrorism.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/0219-02.htm

The plan to enlarge the base had been agreed with the previous centre-right Berlusconi government but, after some hesitation and with deep internal divisions causing a political crisis, it was confirmed by the current centre-left Prodi government and by all local administrations involved (with the exception of Caldogno, a town bordering Vicenza). The project has provoked massive demonstrations in Vicenza and has given birth to a composite movement against enlargement of the base. According to an October 2006 Demos & Pi opinion poll, almost 61% of the population of Vicenza is against the enlargement project

http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:Hgit2EUSEfYJ:foreignpolicy.it/file_adon/monteleone.rtf+Demos+%26+Pi+opinion+poll&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Residents of the Japanese city of Iwakuni have voted overwhelmingly against the expansion of a local US military base, according to exit polls.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4798086.stm

President Bush acknowledged Tuesday that a new agreement to realign America's military presence in Japan isn't welcomed by many on Okinawa, where many U.S. troops are based, but said the two governments negotiated the best plan they could.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,174978,00.html

[WildCat]

Germany, Britain and Canada have rejected hosting elements of the U.S. system.
And didn't the US honmor that?

Polls suggest the majority of Czechs and Poles are opposed to the base out of fear of turning their countries into supporters of Washington's controversial Middle East policy and into targets of terrorism.
The US will honor the position of the governments of those countries.

:words:
Sorry Matteo, you have not proved at all that we have a base in any country that doesn't want us there. Nor have we ever failed to leave when a government told us to get out - see the Phillippines for example.

Of courser, Guantanamo is aspecial case. :D

[Corsair 115]

Isolationism is a policy that includes high trade barriers...Perhaps then it is worth remembering that, in 2006, the dollar value of goods exported from the U.S. to Canada amounted to 22% of the total dollar amount of U.S. exports that year; Mexico took in 12% of the total amount. By rank, that's #1 and #2 respectively. Such figures would seem difficult to achieve if NAFTA was renounced.

[Matteo Martini]

Sorry Matteo, you have not proved at all that we have a base in any country that doesn't want us there. Nor have we ever failed to leave when a government told us to get out - see the Phillippines for example.


Teorethically.
Practically, the US has the resources to " push " a foreign Government to accept what the people of the country do not want.
Look at Italy, how many Italians want the enlargement of the NATO base of Vicenza?

[WildCat]

Teorethically.
Practically, the US has the resources to " push " a foreign Government to accept what the people of the country do not want.
Look at Italy, how many Italians want the enlargement of the NATO base of Vicenza?
Is that the sound of goalposts ,oving I hear?

Do you have any evidence that the majority of Italians want the bases closed? It would suit me just fine, WWII ended over 60 years ago, the Cold War nearly 20 years ago, it's about time Europe paid for its own defense, but that's just my opinion.

[maxpower1227]

Basically, the main point here is that the US ar spending 500+billions dollars per year ( by far more than any other country in the world ) in the military, to maintain a hundreds of bases around the world, nukes, missiles, etc.
Who gave the US the authority to be the policeman of the world?

It's not really a "who" who gave us the "authority", it's our place as the world's only superpower that gives us the responsibility to do that. How many large-scale global wars have erupted since 1945, when the US adopted this pro-active foreign policy? When is the last time a dictator ran amok over an entire continent before a nation or group of nations took strong action to stop him?

The US does pay a high price monetarily on advancing its interests around the world and maintaining presence in various locations around the world, if the alternative is another half a million American soldiers dead in 3 years the next time a whole continent becomes overrun and engulfed in war, then I'll stick with the interventionist policy.

[Suddenly]

Please, give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years.

China?

Korea, Tibet, India (border dispute), Vietnam,

If we leave the area they certainly will invade Taiwan, for all purposes an independant state.

Iran just hasn't had the chance. They have existed as they do now for a brief period, and a good bit of that was the war with Iraq. They have shown intent, and clearly have motive, to invade Iraq.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not really a "who" who gave us the "authority", it's our place as the world's only superpower that gives us the responsibility to do that. How many large-scale global wars have erupted since 1945, when the US adopted this pro-active foreign policy? When is the last time a dictator ran amok over an entire continent before a nation or group of nations took strong action to stop him?

The US does pay a high price monetarily on advancing its interests around the world and maintaining presence in various locations around the world, if the alternative is another half a million American soldiers dead in 3 years the next time a whole continent becomes overrun and engulfed in war, then I'll stick with the interventionist policy.

Your scenario is speculation...why do you think a dictator will run amok over a continent without a strong American presence? Europe used to have a propensity for that sort of thing, seems very unlikely to repeat under current circumstances. Africans are killing each other in the millions, but we don't seem interested in sticking our neck out to stop it and they seem perfectly capable of ganging up on anyone who runs amok. Asia has got what, five nuclear powers to discourage would-be conquerors?

I think you have an out-of-proportion sense of the risk of widespread war and of our ability to prevent it unilaterally with military force if it should threaten. Hussein threatened to overrun a tiny country, not a continent. He couldn't defeat Iran with US support. Military power doesn't necessarily translate into the ability to enforce peace or quickly end conflicts. Recent events have given the world an object lesson in how quickly our military resources can be stretched thin.

I defintely don't believe the alternative to America World Police is continental conflagration. Certainly if I believed that would be the case I would not support non-interventionism.

[Mister Agenda]

China?

Korea, Tibet, India (border dispute), Vietnam,

If we leave the area they certainly will invade Taiwan, for all purposes an independant state.

Iran just hasn't had the chance. They have existed as they do now for a brief period, and a good bit of that was the war with Iraq. They have shown intent, and clearly have motive, to invade Iraq.

Perhaps we could seek a diplomatic solution with Iran on this issue? I know it's radical to try diplomacy before invasion, but that's the beauty, they won't be expecting it.

[Matteo Martini]

China?

Korea, Tibet, India (border dispute), Vietnam,


A border dispute is not exactly a war.
China presence in Vietnam lasted 29 days.
China invasion in Korea is something of 60 years ago.
Tibet is part of China, AFAIK


If we leave the area they certainly will invade Taiwan, for all purposes an independant state.


I see..
You know about wars before they currently happen.


Iran just hasn't had the chance. They have existed as they do now for a brief period, and a good bit of that was the war with Iraq. They have shown intent, and clearly have motive, to invade Iraq.

Iran had its constitution back in 1906, it is more than a century that they are around.
They have not invaved, but have been invaded by the then US-friend Saddam Hussein` s Iraq

[Suddenly]

A border dispute is not exactly a war.
Still an invasion
China presence in Vietnam lasted 29 days. 3

irrelevant
China invasion in Korea is something of 60 years ago.
You said within 100 years. Still the same government anyway.

Tibet is part of China, AFAIK
It wasn't until they invaded and took it over.


I see..
You know about wars before they currently happen.

I also know soon I will drive to the supermarket. As far as China is concerned Taiwan is a renegade province and the government a mere rebellion. Absent US involvement, that happens in a hurry.



Iran had its constitution back in 1906, it is more than a century that they are around.
They have not invaved, but have been invaded by the then US-friend Saddam Hussein` s Iraq

The present government was formed in 1979. Looking further back than that is meaningless as it is not really the same country.

[Suddenly]

Perhaps we could seek a diplomatic solution with Iran on this issue? I know it's radical to try diplomacy before invasion, but that's the beauty, they won't be expecting it.

I've been in the minority that thinks full diplomatic relations with Iran would be a very good idea. The population is more pro-American than people would think, and their crazy President that foams at the mouth is a total figurehead. Flowcharts are necessary to describe Iran's political structure, and the president isn't anywhere near the top.

[varwoche]

A border dispute is not exactly a war.
China presence in Vietnam lasted 29 days.
China invasion in Korea is something of 60 years ago.
Tibet is part of China, AFAIK Sure, goalpost movement this blatant is goofy and dishonest. (Especially the Tibet example. Sheesh.) Yet it's refreshing, what with the lack of obfuscation. Bravo I say.

[maxpower1227]

Your scenario is speculation...why do you think a dictator will run amok over a continent without a strong American presence?

Without some force to maintain a balance of power, history seems to indicate that major powers will periodically go to war with each other, with the results getting progressively more catastrophic as technology regarding the weapons of war makes advances. Right now, the primary - though certainly not only - potential source for that stabilizing force is American power.

Europe used to have a propensity for that sort of thing, seems very unlikely to repeat under current circumstances.

What are the "current circumstances"? Are you referring to the presence of international organizations which work to resolve conflict and prevent global conflagration?

Africans are killing each other in the millions, but we don't seem interested in sticking our neck out to stop it and they seem perfectly capable of ganging up on anyone who runs amok.

A legitimate criticism, as far as I can see.

I think you have an out-of-proportion sense of the risk of widespread war and of our ability to prevent it unilaterally with military force if it should threaten.

It's not just with military force that we maintain stability, and it is not solely the product of American power. Organizations like NATO and the UN (which Dr. Paul would divorce us from) play a large part in the fact that there has been no worldwide conflict in 60 years.

Hussein threatened to overrun a tiny country, not a continent. He couldn't defeat Iran with US support. Military power doesn't necessarily translate into the ability to enforce peace or quickly end conflicts. Recent events have given the world an object lesson in how quickly our military resources can be stretched thin.

Regime change and nation building should not be among our concerns, so in that regard your criticisms are justified. But the alternative that Ron Paul proposes (complete withdrawal from international organizations and the return to non-interventionism) would be a foolish policy for the world's superpower.

[Matteo Martini]

Still an invasion

??


irrelevant

Absolutely relevant.
Invading a country for 29 days is not the same as invading a country for years and years


You said within 100 years. Still the same government anyway.


So, which country invaded more, the US or China?



It wasn't until they invaded and took it over.

70 years ago


I also know soon I will drive to the supermarket. As far as China is concerned Taiwan is a renegade province and the government a mere rebellion. Absent US involvement, that happens in a hurry.

Evidence?


The present government was formed in 1979. Looking further back than that is meaningless as it is not really the same country.

So what?
Iran as a nation is much older than that!!

[Suddenly]

??

Invading a country for 29 days is not the same as invading a country for years and years

Keep moving those goal posts...

They invaded. They invaded Tibet and have occupied it for decades. As to Taiwan, read a book or something.

[Matteo Martini]

Keep moving those goal posts...


Where am I moving posts?


They invaded. They invaded Tibet and have occupied it for decades. As to Taiwan, read a book or something.

You should see this movie.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/trials_of_henry_kissinger/

[varwoche]

Where am I moving posts?
Are you serious? Your goalposts should be entered in the marathon at the Beijing Olympics.

Please, give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years.

China? Korea, Tibet, India (border dispute), Vietnam

A border dispute is not exactly a war.
China presence in Vietnam lasted 29 days.
China invasion in Korea is something of 60 years ago.
Tibet is part of China, AFAIK Besides the bits I bolded, the fact that you dismiss one of the events as too small (Vietnam), and another as too large (Tibet which was permanently invaded) is bizarre and dishonest, seeing as it was you who defined the criteria.

[Mister Agenda]

Without some force to maintain a balance of power, history seems to indicate that major powers will periodically go to war with each other, with the results getting progressively more catastrophic as technology regarding the weapons of war makes advances. Right now, the primary - though certainly not only - potential source for that stabilizing force is American power.

What are the "current circumstances"? Are you referring to the presence of international organizations which work to resolve conflict and prevent global conflagration?

Actually, yes. The EU for example seems to be a very stabilizing organization.


A legitimate criticism, as far as I can see.

I fervently hope that someday they can find more peaceful ways to settle their differences, but at least they are too fractious to conquer.


It's not just with military force that we maintain stability, and it is not solely the product of American power. Organizations like NATO and the UN (which Dr. Paul would divorce us from) play a large part in the fact that there has been no worldwide conflict in 60 years.

I don't necessarily agree with Paul about these organizations. OTH, I am not sure two global conflicts, the second resulting largely from poor resolution of the first, establishes any inevitability of global conflict sans sanctions and military interventions.


Regime change and nation building should not be among our concerns, so in that regard your criticisms are justified. But the alternative that Ron Paul proposes (complete withdrawal from international organizations and the return to non-interventionism) would be a foolish policy for the world's superpower.

I personally don't think a policy of non-interventionism requires withdrawal from these organizations. RP's wish list is pretty long, he obviously would not be able to get all of them granted, even the ones that fall under presidential authority. If we actually withdraw from any international organizations and it turns out to be a big mistake, I take comfort in advance from the thought that they will probably let us back in if we ask nicely.

[Matteo Martini]

Are you serious? Your goalposts should be entered in the marathon at the Beijing Olympics.

Besides the bits I bolded, the fact that you dismiss one of the events as too small (Vietnam), and another as too large (Tibet which was permanently invaded) is bizarre and dishonest, seeing as it was you who defined the criteria.

Nope.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.
Writing " give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years ", does not mean, in any way, that China has not invaved any country in the last 100 years.
If you assume that, that is your only problem, not mine.
Moreover, I have not dismissed any event here, I was just making legitimate comparisons between the 29 days of China in Vietnam and the ( how many? ) years of the US in that region..
Please, do not call me as " bizarre and dishonest ", otherwise, I will be forced to call you as a liar.
Thanks.

[Faithless]

Ummm... those endorsements count as delegates at the national Republican convention... so technically they are voting for the leader...

[varwoche]

Nope.
Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. In which case you didn't communicate clearly.

You really should acquaint yourself with the facts about Tibet btw.

[Suddenly]

In which case you didn't communicate clearly.

You really should acquaint yourself with the facts about Tibet btw.

Taiwan as well.

[WildCat]

Taiwan as well.
Exactly, I wonder how fast China would move on Taiwan after President Paul basically gives them the green light by announcing he is withdrawing all US forces from overseas and the US has no position on China/Taiwan.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Who gave the US the authority to be the policeman of the world?

The countries that choose socialism as opposed to spending on their own defense.

[Matteo Martini]

Taiwan as well.

When did China invade Taiwan?

In which case you didn't communicate clearly.

You really should acquaint yourself with the facts about Tibet btw.

You wrote me that I am " bizarre and dishonest ", as, according to you, I would have dismissed the Chinese invasion of Tibet and Vietnam.

I have never dismissed those facts.

I have never written that China has never invaded any country in the last 100 years.

I have written:" Please, give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years. "

I did communicate clearly.

I have no idea if you are a stupid, a liar, or both.

My discussion with you is over.

Move on..

[Matteo Martini]

Exactly, I wonder how fast China would move on Taiwan after President Paul basically gives them the green light by announcing he is withdrawing all US forces from overseas and the US has no position on China/Taiwan.

Apparently, you seem to know that, if Paul geets elected, China will invade Taiwan.
Since I have no crystal ball, I can not confirm nor deny.

[Matteo Martini]

The countries that choose socialism as opposed to spending on their own defense.

You mean, socialist countries should spend more on their own defense?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You mean, socialist countries should spend more on their own defense?

I mean that the socialist countries prefer America being the police-man of the world because that means that they do not have to spend as much on their own defense and can use those resources for social programs.

[Matteo Martini]

I mean that the socialist countries prefer America being the police-man of the world because that means that they do not have to spend as much on their own defense and can use those resources for social programs.

That is an interesting theory.
BTW, Ron Paul seems to say the same thing.
Anyway, I can not think that you, or anybody else, can say that the US have the authority to police the world, since ( some ) socialist countries are, in your opinion, in tacit agreement

[Suddenly]

[QUOTE=Matteo Martini;3249363]When did China invade Taiwan?
[QUOTE]


Taiwan is part of China.

[varwoche]

When did China invade Taiwan?

You wrote me that I am " bizarre and dishonest ", as, according to you, I would have dismissed the Chinese invasion of Tibet and Vietnam.

I have never dismissed those facts. I have never written that China has never invaded any country in the last 100 years.

I have written:" Please, give me the list of the countries China and Iran have invaded in the last 100 years. "

I did communicate clearly.

I have no idea if you are a stupid, a liar, or both. My discussion with you is over. Move on.. Not so fast.

Help me understand what you meant when you posted this... Tibet is part of China, AFAIK True, it's become a fact on the ground that Tibet is part of China. True also, you qualified your comment with "AFAIK". That said, did you post this because...?

(1) You are condemning China for conquering Tibet.
(2) You are unaware that China conquered Tibet.
(3) You are aware that China conquered Tibet and you are excusing China's actions for reasons unknown.
(4) It's a neutral statement -- you are simply passing on the fact that China conquered Tibet in an attempt to educate readers, despite your acknowledgment that you're not well acquainted with the facts.
(5) Other?

Please enlighten.

[Matteo Martini]

Not so fast.

Help me understand what you meant when you posted this... True, it's become a fact on the ground that Tibet is part of China. True also, you qualified your comment with "AFAIK". That said, did you post this because...?

(1) You are condemning China for conquering Tibet.
(2) You are unaware that China conquered Tibet.
(3) You are aware that China conquered Tibet and you are excusing China's actions for reasons unknown.
(4) It's a neutral statement -- you are simply passing on the fact that China conquered Tibet in an attempt to educate readers, despite your acknowledgment that you're not well acquainted with the facts.
(5) Other?

Please enlighten.

That, as far as I knew, Tibet is/was a part of China.
I do not completely know the conditions and the claims of China on the region of Tibet.
Now..
Was this has to do with me being " bizarre and dishonest "?

[varwoche]

That, as far as I knew, Tibet is/was a part of China. Well that clears it up. :confused:

Interpreting your opaque comments in the most favorable light, I take it that you are simply ignorant of the facts.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How did "Why Ron Paul obviously won't make it past the primaries" devolve into an argument about Tibet?


:boggled:

[Matteo Martini]

Well that clears it up. :confused:

Interpreting your opaque comments in the most favorable light, I take it that you are simply ignorant of the facts.

Which facts?
About some things about China invasion of Tibet 70 years ago?
Maybe, this is why also wrote " AFAIK ".
Now, would you please explain to me your sentence:

Besides the bits I bolded, the fact that you dismiss one of the events as too small (Vietnam), and another as too large (Tibet which was permanently invaded) is bizarre and dishonest, seeing as it was you who defined the criteria.

In particular:
1) when I dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam;
2) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Vietnam, as I never dismissed it;
3) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Tibet, as I wrote " AFAIK Tibet is a part of China "

[Matteo Martini]

Now, would you please explain to me your sentence:

In particular:
1) when I dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam;
2) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Vietnam, as I never dismissed it;
3) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Tibet, as I wrote " AFAIK Tibet is a part of China "

Waiting..

[varwoche]

Waiting.. Waiting for what? To play a guessing game called What in Odin's Name Does He Mean?

[NoZed Avenger]

Waiting..




Hey, speaking of waiting, maybe you'd have a second to pop over and answer this question that's been hanging around for a bit?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249082&postcount=23

[Matteo Martini]

Waiting for what? To play a guessing game called What in Odin's Name Does He Mean?

Now, would you please explain to me your sentence:

In particular:
1) when I dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam;
2) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Vietnam, as I never dismissed it;
3) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Tibet, as I wrote " AFAIK Tibet is a part of China "

[Matteo Martini]

Hey, speaking of waiting, maybe you'd have a second to pop over and answer this question that's been hanging around for a bit?


http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3249082&postcount=23

I am replying now.
See you there
Now, please, I am waiting for varwoche` s reply

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You guys are still on about China?

:boggled:

[Matteo Martini]

I am replying now.
See you there
Now, please, I am waiting for varwoche` s reply

Bump :)

[varwoche]

Now, would you please explain to me your sentence: I'll try. What impressed me as dishonest were your goalpost movements and denial of same. Now maybe I'm wrong and one or both of us is communicating poorly. But if you re-read the thread you will see that I'm not alone in perceiving the goalpost motion. It would behoove you to explain yourself if you don't want readers to have this perception.

1) when I dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam;
2) how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Vietnam, as I never dismissed it;
Not that I think it will resolve anything, but I should have used the word discount instead of dismiss.

Now if you wish, you can continue to pretend that the words you type exist in a vacuum and not as part of a dialog. I suspect there aren't very many readers who are dense enough to buy in however.

how am I dishonest about dismissing China` s invasion of Tibet, as I wrote " AFAIK Tibet is a part of China " What's dishonest (and cowardly) is not having the cajones to say what you mean and mean what you say.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. If so, you can answer this question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3250213#post3250213) without weaseling and I'll reconsider.

[Matteo Martini]

I'll try. What impressed me as dishonest were your goalpost movements and denial of same.

You keep insulting me, and not addressing the question I have asked you.


Now maybe I'm wrong and one or both of us is communicating poorly. But if you re-read the thread you will see that I'm not alone in perceiving the goalpost motion.

Do not take other posters inside our discussion.
What other people have written is not an excuse for what you have written.
Also, you are the only one who have insulted me.
I am willing to accept other` s people different opinions, not the insults.


It would behoove you to explain yourself if you don't want readers to have this perception.


You have accused me ( and insulted me ) as, according to you, I have dismissed facts that I have never dismissed.
I ask you for a clarification on the point.


Not that I think it will resolve anything, but I should have used the word discount instead of dismiss.


Quite a difference.
So, did I dismiss China` s invasion of Vietnam?


Now if you wish, you can continue to pretend that the words you type exist in a vacuum and not as part of a dialog. I suspect there aren't very many readers who are dense enough to buy in however.


You keep going around and not addressing my point.
You have insulted me as, according to you, I have dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam and China.
I ask you to clarify where I did that.
If you can not do that, I ask you to apologize for your insults.


What's dishonest (and cowardly) is not having the cajones to say what you mean and mean what you say.


Keep insulting.
You have just half-apologized, saying that I have discounted, and not dismissed, China` s invasions.
And now, you are saying that it is me, who is " not having the cajones to say what you [I] mean and mean what you [I] say ". Funny.


Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding. If so, you can answer this question (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3250213#post3250213) without weaseling and I'll reconsider.

I think you are.
And I do not need any of your re-considerations.
Anyone can be wrong.
But I am not the one who is " weaseling " here.

[Matteo Martini]

[..]

You keep going around and not addressing my point.
You have insulted me as, according to you, I have dismissed China` s invasion of Vietnam and China.
I ask you to clarify where I did that.
If you can not do that, I ask you to apologize for your insults.

[..]



Bump ( tock? )

[Matteo Martini]

Re-bump

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Ron Paul will not make it past the primaries because if he wins, places, or shows he is certain to have some sort of accident.

[Brainster]

Ron Paul will not make it past the primaries because if he wins, places, or shows he is certain to have some sort of accident.

Then he's in trouble around March 4, in Texas, since that's the first (and last) time he's likely to show.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then he's in trouble around March 4, in Texas, since that's the first (and last) time he's likely to show.

Remember you heard it here at JREF first!!!

[Matteo Martini]

Re-re-bump

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Re-re-bump

You should create a new thread about China. People looking at the title of this thread will not enter the conversation.

I suggest: "China is not an Empire" or something of this sort. I will participate in your thread if you would like. Just link it here.

:)

[Matteo Martini]

You should create a new thread about China. People looking at the title of this thread will not enter the conversation.

I suggest: "China is not an Empire" or something of this sort. I will participate in your thread if you would like. Just link it here.

:)

I am not willing to start a new thread.
This is not the point.
I have been insulted few times by varwoche, who lied about me, saying I said things I have never said.
I am asking for an apology

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am not willing to start a new thread.
This is not the point.
I have been insulted few times by varwoche, who lied about me, saying I said things I have never said.
I am asking for an apology

Sorry, and good luck with your task. From my experience here, many (not most) choose to never to admit defeat and also tend to believe an apology is an admission of defeat.

I am still looking for the score board for the forum.;)

[Kerberos]

Sorry, and good luck with your task. From my experience here, many (not most) choose to never to admit defeat and also tend to believe an apology is an admission of defeat.

I am still looking for the score board for the forum.;)
Sorry, but you have to win a level to unlock the scoreboard.

[Matteo Martini]

Sorry, but you have to win a level to unlock the scoreboard.

So, you are suggesting I have not been insulted?

[Kerberos]

So, you are suggesting I have not been insulted?

I'm desperatly trying to figure out how you got that from what I said.

[Solitaire]

Dodge Ball With Ron Paul

Ron Paul on Meet The Press, December 23, 2007 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22342301/)

This has to be the softest interview in history. Russet fires the first volley on eliminating the income tax. Shoots self by accident which then hits Paul.


Mr. Russert: But if you had a flat tax, 30 percent consumption tax, that would be very, very punishing to the poor and middle class.

Rep. Paul: Well, I know. That's why I don't want it.


The fair tax rebates a small amount to everyone, including the poor, so their tax rate is either nothing or very small depending on earnings.

Then he goes into foreign policy...


Mr. Russert: So if Iran invaded Israel, what do we do?

Rep. Paul: Well, they're not going to. That is like saying "Iran is about to invade Mars." I mean, they have nothing. They don't have an army or navy or air force. And Israelis have 300 nuclear weapons. Nobody would touch them.


Okay we got a hit. Sort of winged him there. More dodging and weaving then they get to the third rail of politics.


Mr. Russert: And Social Security? You're okay with Social Security now?

Rep. Paul: I think we need to get.. give... offer the kids that change to get out. But right, now, if I don't... if we don't save the money, we can't take care of the other. For instance, Social Security, I never voted to spend one penny of Social Security money. So I'm the one that has saved it. Now, if I save the money in this military operation overseas, I say take that money... and, and I say this constantly... don't turn anybody out on the streets. People we have conditioned... yes, technically we shouldn't have them, and it'd be nice to get rid of them, but I would say take care of the people that are dependent on us. Let them... and the only way you can do that is cut spending. If we don', they're all going to be out in the street. Because right now Social Security beneficiaries are getting 2 percent raises, their cost of living is going up 10 percent. A dollar crisis is going to wipe them all out. That's my point.


Yikes! :eek:

Never get an old person talking about the prices of their food, energy, or property taxes. If seniors take this seriously then goodbye front runners.

Fortunately, the dodge ball game gets back into earmarks.


Rep. Paul: You got it completely wrong. I've never voted for an earmark in my life.

Mr. Russert: No, but you put them in the bill.

Rep. Paul: I put it in because I represent people who are asking for some of their money back. But it doesn't cut any spending to vote against an earmark. And the Congress has the responsibility to spend the money. Why leave money in the executive branch and let them spend the money?


That sounded like a good solid hit, especially with all the noise after. I'm satisfied. :p

[Matteo Martini]

I'm desperatly trying to figure out how you got that from what I said.

OK.
Good then.
Still waiting for varwoche` s reply

[Matteo Martini]

I love this guy!!

I am against the FBI spying to people Like Martin Luther King
I am against the CIA figthing secret wars and overthrowing governments and interfere..

rgTqSu-ZVFM

ADD

[RP` s irony]
" When you do not support the war, then you do not support the troops "
[/RP` s irony]
Great!!

LCSY438wpCk

[Corsair 115]

From my experience here, many (not most) choose to never to admit defeat and also tend to believe an apology is an admission of defeat.As Bart Simpson once observed, the ironing is delicious.