Interesting Ron Paul Newsletter Excerpts

[GhettoDogAllStars]

The Federal government is WAY too big, and incredibly inefficient. They do a better job at wasting money than they do at anything else. Ron Paul realizes this.

To begin fixing America's problems, we first need to fix our budget.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

The Federal government is WAY too big, and incredibly inefficient. They do a better job at wasting money than they do at anything else. Ron Paul realizes this.

To begin fixing America's problems, we first need to fix our budget.

Besides platitudes (e.g., "the government is too big" and "I don't like the war") what does he stand for? Many of his ideas look interesting at first glance, but, upon closer examination, they are actually quite nuts.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Besides platitudes (e.g., "the government is too big" and "I don't like the war") what does he stand for? Many of his ideas look interesting at first glance, but, upon closer examination, they are actually quite nuts.

He was on CNN denouncing this newsletter excerpt. Desperate times calls for desperate measures?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Besides platitudes (e.g., "the government is too big" and "I don't like the war") what does he stand for? Many of his ideas look interesting at first glance, but, upon closer examination, they are actually quite nuts.

He stands for the constitution.

I believe the federal government is in need of some serious overhauling -- maybe even a revolution. He's the only candidate in my eyes who's not afraid of drastic change -- the kind of change we need.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

He stands for the constitution.

I believe the federal government is in need of some serious overhauling -- maybe even a revolution. He's the only candidate in my eyes who's not afraid of drastic change -- the kind of change we need.

What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.

He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.

Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.

He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.

Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.

Damn, I don't think Tim Russert could have said it any better than you did!

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What does "he stands for the Constitution" mean? I've heard him talk in platitudes that appeal to the masses, but he rarely talks about what his general philosophy will mean in terms of concrete change.

He has all but come out and explicitly said he'd like to get rid of all federal agencies except for the DoD and DoJ. So there goes the CIA and Department of Homeland Security. Does that mean that all intelligence activities taking place outside of the DoD cease to exist? Even though the CIA and DHS have serious flaws, he basically wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater. He wants to get rid of the IRS. That's nice, I hate paying taxes too, but I shudder to think what will happen to our economy when huge sectors of the workforce (e.g., tax preparers and tax attorneys) hit the unemployment line. He would get rid of the FAA. That's nice, I personally don't care if airline safety is totally unregulated. He would get rid of the SEC. That's also nice, who cares if corporations can solicit investments without adequate disclosure and thereby defraud investors.

Simple phrases like, "our government is too big," "taxes suck," "the war is bad," might resonate with a lot of people. I don't like big government, I don't like taxes, and I don't like war. But serious matters call for serious talk, not pscyho babble that reduces complex problems to one-liners.

"Standing for the Constitution" means that he respects it, and honors it. He believes in its importance. The Constitution is a measure to ensure the Federal government doesn't get out of control. Yet, the Federal government has abused, and outright ignored the Constitution. We seem to be headed down a slippery slope. That scares me.

I don't rely on the President to have all the answers. Just because he doesn't have a concrete plan doesn't bother me at all. He knows what he wants to do, and he'll figure the best way to do it once he's in office and has his cabinet to advise him.

In my eyes, the President is supposed to be a leader and a thinker -- not an oracle.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

"Standing for the Constitution" means that he respects it, and honors it. He believes in its importance. The Constitution is a measure to ensure the Federal government doesn't get out of control. Yet, the Federal government has abused, and outright ignored the Constitution. We seem to be headed down a slippery slope. That scares me.

I don't rely on the President to have all the answers. Just because he doesn't have a concrete plan doesn't bother me at all. He knows what he wants to do, and he'll figure the best way to do it once he's in office and has his cabinet to advise him.

In my eyes, the President is supposed to be a leader and a thinker -- not an oracle.

All Presidential candidates say that they respect and honor the Constitution. The important question, however, is not whether someone claims to respect the Constitution, it's what concete steps they would take to honor it.

IMO, Ron Paul does not know what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Based on his public comments, Ron Paul seems to think that one "interprets" the Constitution simply by reading it and applying it literally. That approach to interpreting the Constitution sounds easy and appealing, but is astonishingly naive. Does the 1st Amendment guarantee everyone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to bear all arms, nuclear or conventional? What does "unreasonable" mean in the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure?" Ron Paul's world is one of black/white when, in reality, the world in grey. Either he is too dumb to realize as much, or he thinks that we will buy into simple catchphrases lacking in substance like "We need to protect free speech."

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

All Presidential candidates say that they respect and honor the Constitution. The important question, however, is not whether someone claims to respect the Constitution, it's what concete steps they would take to honor it.

IMO, Ron Paul does not know what the Constitution means or how to interpret it. Based on his public comments, Ron Paul seems to think that one "interprets" the Constitution simply by reading it and applying it literally. That approach to interpreting the Constitution sounds easy and appealing, but is astonishingly naive. Does the 1st Amendment guarantee everyone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Does the 2nd Amendment guarantee the right to bear all arms, nuclear or conventional? What does "unreasonable" mean in the phrase "unreasonable search and seizure?" Ron Paul's world is one of black/white when, in reality, the world in grey. Either he is too dumb to realize as much, or he thinks that we will buy into simple catchphrases lacking in substance like "We need to protect free speech."

In a nutshell, the guy lacks balance.