The State of Global Missions in 2024
12 hours ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Luke
- I started this blog out of curiousity and it grew to become a great encouragement for me in my Christian walk. I hope the writings here can be used by God to further His work in your life.
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
-
-
What's This? A Blog Post???8 months ago
-
opening day [squeezed in versinon]1 year ago
-
[Free *HD*] The Good Lie Free5 years ago
-
-
Three Princes... and a Pauper7 years ago
-
What day is it?7 years ago
-
-
the.big.28 years ago
-
Our ellipsis . . .8 years ago
-
Disney World8 years ago
-
-
November 20148 years ago
-
The Other Side of the Hill8 years ago
-
-
-
Pink Explosion8 years ago
-
Illnesses and injuries9 years ago
-
What they say about Good Friday9 years ago
-
I am unclean9 years ago
-
-
My Blog has Moved!9 years ago
-
December... Full, Full, Full!9 years ago
-
-
An Overnight Guest10 years ago
-
A New Beginning...10 years ago
-
Worlds Greatest Beans10 years ago
-
5 or 50??10 years ago
-
Zach & Daniela's Wedding Reception11 years ago
-
July in Review11 years ago
-
A Note from Tucker11 years ago
-
I wonder how many times12 years ago
-
Finally!12 years ago
-
2012 resolutions12 years ago
-
7.24.1112 years ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11 comments:
as much as I agree with him, i really don't think he has a chance in the primaries...
what do you think?
i've heard many people say they'd vote for him if it wasn't a wasted vote
I believe that Ron Paul has a chance to win the primaries. It may be a small chance, but it's a chance non-the-less, and as long as that chance exists, I'm going to try and educate as many people as I can on his platform.
If you really want to have a chance to vote for him, the best thing you can do now is donate money. He needs to get his message out.
Since he's not one of the "mainstream" candidates, the major news outlets don't give him as much coverage, and his opponents are fighting to keep him off of ballots in primaries.
Spread the word and give what you can. Every little bit helps. There's going to be another major fund raising drive on Dec. 16th. to commemorate the Boston Tea Party.
He has some interesting points, but I do not agree with everything on the platform shown in the ad.
The "dangers of a Central Bank" and fiat money may be a concern, but they are better then the damage that would be done if we attempted to have some sort of gold standard. As Bryan said, "You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." (I know he was talking about a different context, but the quote is too good to pass up.)
He is also pressing the isolationist message pretty strong there.
matthew: I don't know how much you've looked into Dr. Paul, but he's not an isolationist. He's all for communicating and trading with other countries, he's just not for spreading our military all over the world.
As far as the central bank goes, did you watch the Ron Paul video on monetary policy? I'm not an expert, but I think it's worth a shot. The idea that a central bank can just print more money to bail out people who used horrible judgment (i.e. sub-prime loans), doesn't appeal to me.
Hey Luke, thanks for dropping by after all this time!!
Matthew:
Paul calls for a foreign policy of nonintervention. This policy avoids entangling alliances with other nations, in the tradition of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, in order to avoid being drawn into wars not related to defense. He believes that war must be fought only to protect citizens, it must be declared by the U.S. Congress, and it must be concluded when the victory is complete as planned: "The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq." Paul advocates bringing troops home from U.S. military bases in Korea, Japan, and Europe among others. He denies being an isolationist: he advocates "conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations".
How do his ideas of open trade coincide with his support maintaining US sovereignty? I know that he has been a vocal critic of NAFTA, open economic borders, and the Latin American free trade agreements because he thinks they'll have a negative impact on US sovereignty. I really don't know where he comes to in his balance between openness and sovereignty and it seems to me there's always a bit of sovereignty lost in the free trade agreements (less exploitation, more regulation = sometimes higher prices for US economy while hopefully benefitting developing countries) so do you have any idea what his reconciliation of that is? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to critique him.
Pepe: I'm not sure I follow your reasoning that trading with other countries somehow diminishes our sovereignty (government free from external control).
Dr. Paul contends that the current "free trade" systems we have diminish our sovereignty by giving up our power to the organization controlling the trade agreement.
Here's a transcript of Lou Dobbs interviewing Ron Paul on this issue:
DOBBS: First, let me ask you the question that is often asked of someone taking the position you have on free trade. I want to remind everybody who may be surprised as you speak about free trade you are a candidate for the Republican nomination. Are you a protectionist?
PAUL: No, not really. Only when it becomes national security reasons. But no, I think the more trade that we have, the better. I just don't like privileged trades. I don't like international managed trade. I don't like this NAFTA and WTO managed trade because I don't think the people are served. I think the special interests are served because they have the influence in these organizations.
DOBBS: Would you either rewrite or rescind NAFTA?
PAUL: I'd get rid of NAFTA and WTO, for that matter. I certainly don't want a North American Union and I'm sick of these plans for this highway coming through here that's going to go from Mexico to Canada. That's not my idea of national sovereignty.
"Conducting open trade, travel..."
Isn't that exactly the goal of a highway system? It just seems to me like he's saying he's all for open trade, etc without actually saying what that means, while shooting down all proposed ideas as a threat to our sovereignty. I don't really see the effect of a highway on our sovereignty, though I do see the effect it could have in lowering transportation costs boosting numerous small North American business opportunities and allowing greater travel for those who can't afford to fly. I'm not saying this highway, NAFTA, or WTO are the best solutions for open trade & travel, but it seems like he's not providing any other solutions and just shooting down everything under the guise of our "sovereignty"...which I'm not so sure we should be so worried about anyway.
One world Gov't here we come. It will all be peace and prosperity under one kind benevolent dictator. No need for sovereignty.
One universal kingdom is more like it, and I can't wait.
Post a Comment