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
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12 comments:
the key to ron paul not winning is that he has a lot of support from young people. red flag numero uno. "young people" are retarded, myself excluded.
I'm not sure...but I think you just called me retarded.
I don't get that comment. Why do you think "young people" are retarded, and why do you think it's a red flag if Ron Paul has their support?
well confused, young people are easily swayed and not very smart. ron paul could get in front of a crowd of young people and win them over by showing them shiny things and quoting some outkast lyrics. or he could use the words ipod or blog or any cobination of bush and bad. they are that dumb. again, myself (and luke, i hope) excluded.
Maybe "the young" people are just attracted to the "shiny things" of Ron Paul's campaign, but I think his campaign goes a lot deeper than that. I think he's got some great plans, that not only look shiny on the surface, but that also have a lot of depth.
What's something about his policies that you think are unrealistic?
he doesn't want to admit that leaving irag now would make it worse. his analogy he made in the video is completely inapplicable. he'd never be able to get rid of the income tax or the irs, though it's great to hear, it'll never happen. and i somewhat feel with america's great power it is sometimes our responsibility to help other areas of the world, such as stopping genocide, and he seems content to not intervene anywhere overseas. we need to just not be wussies about it and start making people to the right thing. we could have intervened in cambodia, we could easily stop the killing in darfur and we should have done the same in rwanda. the us military would dominate against those dudes and it would have saved thousands of people. although, i acknowledge that no matter what we do, help or sit idle, we will be criticized.
The Iraq issue is arguable, I don't feel nearly well enough informed to be able to say whether pulling out would be better or worse in the long run. I don't think anyone can say for certain, and I think there's strong arguments for either side.
Regarding the income tax and the IRS; maybe he won't ever be able to abolish it, but maybe he would at least succeed in simplifying and downsizing it. Any step in that direction would be a good thing.
Any step that leads the American people away from dependency on the gov't and towards self-reliance is a good thing in my opinion.
As far as peace-keeping goes...I'm not sure where I stand on that issue either. I can definitely understand the thought process that says we're the world superpower, and we have an obligation to try and help others. However, I don't know if our military is the best means for that. It seems that whenever our military is on a peace-keeping mission we end up with failure. Unfortunately I don't have any sure fire answers, but I think it would be interesting to see how much good we could do with the resources we save by not stretching our military out over the world.
Ron Paul has many large and glaring logical errors in his arguments. First, his analogy of iraq to his patient is painfully wrong. Following his Iraq logic, he would not only stop treatment of his patient, but he would refuse to help him/her again. So not only is his analogy wrong, he also is comparing apples to oranges. With his patient, he wants to fix them. Leaving Iraq will not fix their problem, it will increase the problems. We toppled the existing government, and now are trying to set up a new government. If we left, the new government would collapse and civil war would ensue.
Also, he claimed that the United States is more vulnerable now then before. That is a lie. We have Al Quieda and the other terrorist on the run. We have broken up their organization, and foiled many plots. They haven't been able to launch another attack because of our war overseas on them. Besides the fact, that if you loosen the "threats" on civil liberties in the U.S., there is no way to prevent terrorist attacks like 9-11 or the Oklahoma city bombing.
Ron Paul's entire stance is designed to sound great to his listeners. He says things we want to hear such as "I follow this thing called the constitution" or quoting the founding fathers, or saying he will get rid of the IRS. First he needs to prove that he can cut government spending before he can cut out our revenue service. However, I do agree that Social Security should be given a proper burial, never to be resurrected.
I hope I haven't said to much, or been to opinionated. I know I haven't cited any sources, but most of what I said I consider logic and it is based on lots of reading.
Brett: I agree, his Iraq comparison to a patient is flawed. However, I don't think it's a crazy line of thinking to say that we anger a lot people by staying in Iraq and that by leaving we may pacify them. Whether you think we're doing more harm than good there will always be a source of debate, but there is no question that we're doing both harm and good.
Regarding our civil liberties; I find it scary how willing we as a people are to let the gov't see into every aspect of our lives under the auspices that it keeps us safer. There are certain ideas that I hold higher than safety and freedom is one of them. Allowing the gov't more power in the name of protection has the very real possibility of turning against us. Today it may be an arrest for a terrorist suspect, tomorrow it may be an arrest for belonging to a church that condemns sexual six. I know that probably sounds like a "scare tactic", but it's not meant to. Our civil liberties are our greatest assets in America. They have allowed us to spread the gospel in ways only imagined.
You say "first he needs to prove that he can cut government spending before he can cut out our revenue service". Do you not think there's plenty of room to cut spending in Washington? I don't even think it's disputed anymore that there is tons of waste. Now whether or not a president can actually cut that out or not, well, we won't know that until we give him a shot. Bottom line is, I think this is a great campaign platform to have.
I have to admit, Traever, that your comments on "shiny things" would certainly apply to most of the candidates, but Ron Paul would not be one of them. He is not particularly well-spoken, doesn't seem to be particularly well connected, and is not filled with overwhelming charisma. If he's doing well, it has little do with him and much to do with his positions (as he himself has emphasized).
Now you're probably right insofar as his policy ideas are rather simplistic at times, but I'm not about to fault the man for having ideals.
you're right there nick and everything brett said is dead on. i just hate hearing a politician saying a line, like "iraq was a mistake" or "i'd do away with the irs", and then waiting for the crowd to start cheering. they all do it but democrats have gotten especially used to it from the daily show and basically all tv appearances nowadays. that's why i always liked newt. he's so unlikeable but so smart and doesn't say the one-liners to make the people cheer. he just says the truth, even if it's that a democrat had a good idea or did the right thing. too bad he'll never get elected because he never offers any shiny things. he's just smart. it seems like ron paul has kinda fallen into that routine.
"everything Brett said is dead on"...
Traever, I've never heard you agree with everything someone said.
...wait a minute...
...Are you Brett? *grin*
Post a Comment