On January 20 2012 12:00 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Paul and Gingrich are the only ones who can beat Obama and stand up to him in debates.
Paul and Gingrich can't stand up to Obama. Romney certainly can, but not in a debate. Probably in economy, which would be good enough to win if Europe keels over.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would destroy Obama on Foreign policy and civil liberties easily.
Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.
On January 21 2012 02:58 Geo.Rion wrote: i've been doing some research today, does any of the candidates believe in evolution over creation? I couldnt find out about Romney, though he's mormon so i guess not
He seems to believe in evolution, but for the sake of winning the evangelical vote(which won´t work imho) he flip flops around topics like this one. Santorum - no - Ron Paul probably not BUT he has the balls to acknowledge different views because he is a true libertarian. Gingrich - probably not(same reason as Romney).
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong since those are just my estimats .
I would agree with this assessment. 2008 Republican primaries they were all thrown a 'how can you believe everything in the Bible" question. Huckabee answered it like a former Baptist pastor did. Others gave a more "it's a good book with good morals, but I don't believe everything in it" answer. Both of which are honest answers that I can respect. Romney gave the most wishy washy answer ever: trying to sound like both at the same time. That's when I first saw him as a man that's going to say whatever it takes to get into the White House whatever else he may truly believe.
And I've seen nothing but confirmation in pretty much every "position" he's held ever since. He may seem like one of the more reasonable people there (when he's not quoting news cycle talking points), but he's the Brian Mulroney, slick car salesman of the campaign.
On January 21 2012 07:11 Haemonculus wrote: You may not be able to directly force people to stop holding bigoted views, but you can't just sit idly by and allow institutionalized racism to continue.
Do you seriously think schools in the south (especially private ones) would have EVER desegregated if the govt hadn't sent the goddamn national guard in?
There are school districts in Georgia and Mississippi that were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008, (as in, minority students are *not allowed* to attend "white prom.") I know how important it seems to be to stick up for the rights of people to discriminate if they want do, but we've also got to stick up for the rights of people to not be discriminated against.
Government institutionalized racism is different from private business racism. The former I do not support, the latter I believe will be eliminated socially.
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
The United States spend much on their military and have the pover to change something. I would even see America as guilty when the government just watches a genocide happen in the world (in the sense of guilty because of neglecting, hope that's the right english term for that) and don't use their military to improve the situation in case diplomacy fails (which it very well can, believing you could solve everything peacefully and with discussions is childish). In that sense you would evaluate money and human lives (speaking of genocides ofc). I can't agree with that and don't like Ron Paul because of that. It should be possible to fix Americas intranational problems without sacrificing their military world dominance.
On January 20 2012 12:00 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Paul and Gingrich are the only ones who can beat Obama and stand up to him in debates.
Paul and Gingrich can't stand up to Obama. Romney certainly can, but not in a debate. Probably in economy, which would be good enough to win if Europe keels over.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would destroy Obama on Foreign policy and civil liberties easily.
Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.
Foreign policy is one area where I can really dig Paul's ideas. Perhaps we should intervene in very blatant violations of human rights, or in various genocides, but we cannot afford to stay at war randomly with the rest of the world.
Does anyone have a figure of how much money we've actually spent on Iraq/Afghanistan over the last 10 years? We talk like social security or health care totally bankrupt the country, but we've been involved in TWO wars for wayyyy too long, and people just seem to write that off as a necessary expense, which is ridiculous.
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble. And as Paul says, a lot of time our foreign aid results in us taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in other countries.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
3) The civil rights act of 1964 has failed to promote racial harmony. What do we see today: Women and minorities still make less than their white male counterparts in equal situations. You will not stop racism with brute force; only with education. If I'm going to start a restaurant that doesn't serve black people, hypothetically, what is going to happen is that social pressures will force me out of business. On the other hand, a law that states I can't do so, will only cause me to make my racism more subtle. I'll pay less attention to them, treat them rudely, etc. Anything I can do to undermine the law without actually breaking it. How to change this? Educate me. A law won't stop my racism.
4) When necessary we make amendments. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because something is newer means that it is correct. This idea that we are so much smarter than the great thinkers from centuries ago is a fabrication. They were highly intelligent and had much wisdom.
1) Should be done on a case-by-case basis. The constitution was written at times where globalization wasn't even known as a word. 2) See 1. 3) History is not on your side on this one. Those social pressures that would force you out of business did not exist before the civil rights act. Having good laws against discrimination need not be mutually exclusive with education laws. 4) Likewise, don't assume that something is correct just because the constitution say so. After all, great thinkers from centuries ago had no idea how things would look in the 21st century. Also, highly intelligent and wise people are not exclusive to that era.
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble. And as Paul says, a lot of time our foreign aid results in us taking money from poor people in this country and giving it to rich people in other countries.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
3) The civil rights act of 1964 has failed to promote racial harmony. What do we see today: Women and minorities still make less than their white male counterparts in equal situations. You will not stop racism with brute force; only with education. If I'm going to start a restaurant that doesn't serve black people, hypothetically, what is going to happen is that social pressures will force me out of business. On the other hand, a law that states I can't do so, will only cause me to make my racism more subtle. I'll pay less attention to them, treat them rudely, etc. Anything I can do to undermine the law without actually breaking it. How to change this? Educate me. A law won't stop my racism.
The progress we've made since 1964 is a social one, not a legislative one.
4) When necessary we make amendments. But don't make the mistake of assuming that just because something is newer means that it is correct. This idea that we are so much smarter than the great thinkers from centuries ago is a fabrication. They were highly intelligent and had much wisdom.
1) We can afford to feed the starving children in Africa, or many of them anyways, for tiny fractions of our wealth. Same with developing and deploying cheap vaccines and rudimentary medication.
2) This is the point that always gets me. People really would be willing to allow the holocaust to happen (which is of course this reasoning taken to its logical conclusion). Furthermore, I'm not talking about occupation, or even invasion necessarily. The Rwandans didn't need long term stabilization efforts to prevent genocide they needed immediate action. 800,000 people died to a bunch of machete wielding fanatics who were caught up in the moment, Do you really think it would have taxed us so horribly to save them? Hell, even in Libya we probably prevented mass killings by intervening (no boots on the ground). No one is arguing that war should be the first option. Diplomatic channels should always be exhausted first in my opinion. I'll be damned though, if I'm willing condemn millions of people to death because we refused to reach out and save them.
3) The Civil Rights Act was very needed, especially in the south, where racism was rampant. It isn't enough to say that we'll educate people, that could take several generations. Hell, I'm sure that there are places in the where blacks would still be on the back of the buses and other egregious injustices if we just waited for people to change. It wouldn't be everywhere probably not even close, but I won't settle for that happening anywhere. Further more, the sort of education policies you are proposing would have to be state and local run under Paul. And kids could always be withdrawn and home schooled. And if you were right about no progress being legislative, there wouldn't still be discrimination lawsuits being won by the accusers. That is the government system preserving the freedom of minorities through legislation.
4) Of course they are. They failed to account for things like the internet though. The basic system they laid forth still works, I just think it's silly to enshrine it as the pinnacle of human thought or American liberty. The founders got many things right, but they also got some wrong (slavery).
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
The United States spend much on their military and have the pover to change something. I would even see America as guilty when the government just watches a genocide happen in the world (in the sense of guilty because of neglecting, hope that's the right english term for that) and don't use their military to improve the situation in case diplomacy fails (which it very well can, believing you could solve everything peacefully and with discussions is childish). In that sense you would evaluate money and human lives (speaking of genocides ofc). I can't agree with that and don't like Ron Paul because of that. It should be possible to fix Americas intranational problems without sacrificing their military world dominance.
Yeah....No.
If you wanna help poor countries or countries where shit went extreemly bad ( Bahrain I think is the best example ) you need to create a confederation of states who will help them . We already have something like that but because of bureaucracy and a mixture of opinions within it, many things are stalled until shit goes really wrong and goes beyond repair..
USA has no responsibility to help the world...All the 1st world countries have this responsibility together. Including Germany.
On January 21 2012 07:11 Haemonculus wrote: You may not be able to directly force people to stop holding bigoted views, but you can't just sit idly by and allow institutionalized racism to continue.
Do you seriously think schools in the south (especially private ones) would have EVER desegregated if the govt hadn't sent the goddamn national guard in?
There are school districts in Georgia and Mississippi that were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008, (as in, minority students are *not allowed* to attend "white prom.") I know how important it seems to be to stick up for the rights of people to discriminate if they want do, but we've also got to stick up for the rights of people to not be discriminated against.
Government institutionalized racism is different from private business racism. The former I do not support, the latter I believe will be eliminated socially.
That's a utopian belief.. could you give us a historical example in which something like that has happened? I believe there isn't such thing.. minorities through history have either been eliminated or moved somewhere else. Modern social and civil laws are made precisely to allow minorities to participate in society without fear of backslash.
On January 21 2012 07:11 Haemonculus wrote: You may not be able to directly force people to stop holding bigoted views, but you can't just sit idly by and allow institutionalized racism to continue.
Do you seriously think schools in the south (especially private ones) would have EVER desegregated if the govt hadn't sent the goddamn national guard in?
There are school districts in Georgia and Mississippi that were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008, (as in, minority students are *not allowed* to attend "white prom.") I know how important it seems to be to stick up for the rights of people to discriminate if they want do, but we've also got to stick up for the rights of people to not be discriminated against.
Government institutionalized racism is different from private business racism. The former I do not support, the latter I believe will be eliminated socially.
That's a utopian belief.. could you give us a historical example in which something like that has happened? I believe there isn't such thing.. minorities through history have either been eliminated or moved somewhere else. Modern social and civil laws are made precisely to allow minorities to participate in society without fear of backslash.
Could you give me a historical example in which minorities have been given equal opportunity as a result of legislation? Current social economic statuses indicate not. Combating racism by grouping people into categories is not going to promote racial harmony.
Instead of worrying about whether x business owner will serve black people how about start focusing on the REAL things that prevent minorities from succeeding: Education and a prison model that is practically institutionalized racism at its finest.
On January 20 2012 12:00 FeUerFlieGe wrote: Paul and Gingrich are the only ones who can beat Obama and stand up to him in debates.
Paul and Gingrich can't stand up to Obama. Romney certainly can, but not in a debate. Probably in economy, which would be good enough to win if Europe keels over.
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would destroy Obama on Foreign policy and civil liberties easily.
Sorry Ron Paul fans, but Obama would beat Ron Paul solely because of foreign policy issues. Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't just out of step with mainstream America, they're also offensive to most Americans. Whether he's right isn't really relevant.
Sometimes I wonder if you'd ever be able to make an argument if youtube went down for a week.
I thought it would be easier for me to give him something he could understand. I do the same with you because you don't like reading what I type when it comes to historical facts. Also, I don't understand why you still support our foreign policy of American Imperialism.
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
The United States spend much on their military and have the pover to change something. I would even see America as guilty when the government just watches a genocide happen in the world (in the sense of guilty because of neglecting, hope that's the right english term for that) and don't use their military to improve the situation in case diplomacy fails (which it very well can, believing you could solve everything peacefully and with discussions is childish). In that sense you would evaluate money and human lives (speaking of genocides ofc). I can't agree with that and don't like Ron Paul because of that. It should be possible to fix Americas intranational problems without sacrificing their military world dominance.
Yeah....No.
If you wanna help poor countries or countries where shit went extreemly bad ( Bahrain I think is the best example ) you need to create a confederation of states who will help them . We already have something like that but because of bureaucracy and a mixture of opinions within it, many things are stalled until shit goes really wrong and goes beyond repair..
USA has no responsibility to help the world...All the 1st world countries have this responsibility together. Including Germany.
German army is restricted to I believe 300k soldiers and the German people would oppose any form of military intervention I would say. Then it would be the fault of the German people and not of the government. Americans seem to be more supportive of their military. As you stated this "confederation of states" often leads to "shit going really wrong". USA is the only country that can put itself above other states because it has the capacity and power to do stuff on their own. According to my logic the USA obviousely had to fight many wars all over the globe. I believe it should fight those who don't harm their own troops/wealth that hard. An economic crisis at home obviousely is a reason to slow down with foreign policy and it would be justifiable to end a war to prevent sth like an own bancruptcy, but not to the extend of Ron Pauls foreign policy. As I said there should be other possibilities to enlarge Americas economy.
On January 21 2012 07:11 Haemonculus wrote: You may not be able to directly force people to stop holding bigoted views, but you can't just sit idly by and allow institutionalized racism to continue.
Do you seriously think schools in the south (especially private ones) would have EVER desegregated if the govt hadn't sent the goddamn national guard in?
There are school districts in Georgia and Mississippi that were holding racially segregated proms as late as 2008, (as in, minority students are *not allowed* to attend "white prom.") I know how important it seems to be to stick up for the rights of people to discriminate if they want do, but we've also got to stick up for the rights of people to not be discriminated against.
Government institutionalized racism is different from private business racism. The former I do not support, the latter I believe will be eliminated socially.
That's a utopian belief.. could you give us a historical example in which something like that has happened? I believe there isn't such thing.. minorities through history have either been eliminated or moved somewhere else. Modern social and civil laws are made precisely to allow minorities to participate in society without fear of backslash.
Could you give me a historical example in which minorities have been given equal opportunity as a result of legislation? Current social economic statuses indicate not. Combating racism by grouping people into categories is not going to promote racial harmony.
Instead of worrying about whether x business owner will serve black people how about start focusing on the REAL things that prevent minorities from succeeding: Education and a prison model that is practically institutionalized racism at its finest.
The civil rights act did so much to solve racism.
This is very difficult to explain to people who have never seen what the USA was like back then. They can't understand how widespread racism was, they think it was more or less like today, except that black people had to sit on the back of the bus.
If you don't understand the massive difference between now and then, if you don't have that framework, explaining how the civil rights act made all the difference in the world is going to be very difficult. You won't be able to understand any of the improvements because you don't grasp that these gaps existed to begin with.
This notion that the private market fixes racism is entirely based on a modern perspective.
If you allow blacks to eat at your restaurant then you will earn more money then a racist who does not, ergo free market makes racism go away. This is the train of thought that seems most prevalent.
How do you explain to these people that their imaginary free market restaurant owner cannot even buy his supplies because the supplier only sells their wares to stores that refuse to serve black people? How do you go about explaining these people that white people will avoid your restaurant if you allow black people to eat there?
How do you explain the massive scope of racism if they have never lived in it and have never taken the time to educate themselves on the subject?
No, free market capitalism or libertarianism does not eradicate racism, it does not even combat it slightly. The government had to step it because the people were not ready to make that step. As a result, the USA made leaps forward in terms of fighting racism that would have otherwise taken centuries.
Open displays of racism are considered disgusting by the majority of the people. There are still people alive that lived in an era where racism was considered desirable at worst and a valid different point of view at best. The strides forward that the US made in so little time is impossible to explain if you do not learn about what it was like back then.
On January 21 2012 06:56 VediVeci wrote: I understand that Ron Paul has some interesting things to say, and certainly some valid points. My question for Ron Paul supporters however, is how do you feel about Ron Paul's views on:
2) No foreign intervention. Paul would not intervene in any foreign conflict, would not have intervened in Rwanda in the 90's, even knowing what he knows know, or any other genocide. Source:+ Show Spoiler +
3) Paul is against the Civil rights act of 1964, is it really ok to allow people to discriminate based on race, gender, etc when the government can intervene? Source http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/
4) Paul favors adhering strictly to the constitution, but that document was written hundreds of years ago. It makes no provisions for many important parts of the modern world. How should that be addressed?
I agree with Paul on many points. In an ideal world the Civil Right Act, foreign aid/intervention, government involvement in the economy, and alot of other government functions would be unnecessary. The reality though, is that we live in a messy and complex world. Some people are still racsist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted, and would like to take action discriminating against other groups, and while the government can't, and shouldn't, tell you how to feel, is it unreasonable to at least ensure you can't ban African Americans from your bar, or gays from your town? People kill each other en masse and starve outside our borders every day, and sometimes we have the power to stop it. The economy has shown time and again that it does not regulate itself ideally. Imperfect information, human greed, and factors mean that simply trusting the market is not always beneficial or effective. In these situations, the government has the power to do good, should it not?
Edit: Sources
1) No, we shouldn't. We should fix things at home first before worrying about other countries. Where in the Constitution does it say that we have to save the whole world? Furthermore, despite being such a rich country, we're broke. Even worse, we're in debt. Heavy debt. Spending money on others that have no way of repaying us in the future is a stupid gamble.
2) A foreign policy based on diplomacy rather than military force makes sense. Again, we don't have the money to maintain current foreign intervention policy.
The United States spend much on their military and have the pover to change something. I would even see America as guilty when the government just watches a genocide happen in the world (in the sense of guilty because of neglecting, hope that's the right english term for that) and don't use their military to improve the situation in case diplomacy fails (which it very well can, believing you could solve everything peacefully and with discussions is childish). In that sense you would evaluate money and human lives (speaking of genocides ofc). I can't agree with that and don't like Ron Paul because of that. It should be possible to fix Americas intranational problems without sacrificing their military world dominance.
Yeah....No.
If you wanna help poor countries or countries where shit went extreemly bad ( Bahrain I think is the best example ) you need to create a confederation of states who will help them . We already have something like that but because of bureaucracy and a mixture of opinions within it, many things are stalled until shit goes really wrong and goes beyond repair..
USA has no responsibility to help the world...All the 1st world countries have this responsibility together. Including Germany.
German army is restricted to I believe 300k soldiers and the German people would oppose any form of military intervention I would say. Then it would be the fault of the German people and not of the government. Americans seem to be more supportive of their military. As you stated this "confederation of states" often leads to "shit going really wrong". USA is the only country that can put itself above other states because it has the capacity and power to do stuff on their own. According to my logic the USA obviousely had to fight many wars all over the globe. I believe it should fight those who don't harm their own troops/wealth that hard. An economic crisis at home obviousely is a reason to slow down with foreign policy and it would be justifiable to end a war to prevent sth like an own bancruptcy, but not to the extend of Ron Pauls foreign policy. As I said there should be other possibilities to enlarge Americas economy.
Because of these wars now they are in an economic crisis. They simply don't have the resources, plus if you believe that a foreign entity can help a country get better by killing some bad guys you are extremely wrong, you don't understand society...People have those bad leaders because they in turn are not ready for "democracy" or whatever, sure there may be some people ready for it, but the vast majority is not ready, so the next bad guys will get in power.
Kill bad people in a bad place won't make that place better....It will just mean that you wasted resources to replace a bad guy with another bad guy, unless you occupy that territory in order for shit not going bad, and in that case you violate the principle that you're fighting for as well, + the resources required for this are huge.
I most likely am not very smart, but you are extremely naive and uneducated in this matter...
Here is the Ron Paul highlights of it, I don't believe you should watch the others ( not as a principle,because it does sound horrible to say such a thing, but simply because you waste your time imo ). Won't say Ron Paul is right on everything and even most of what he says, I'm just saying what he is saying is actually his opinions and stances...
About Obama supporters...I would bet all my money that at least 1/5 are suffering of white guilt xD ... You just don't go on national television saying "We asked for it back..". That was simply hilarious :D
I'd just like to say that if anyone takes the high horse of being against racism, I'd like for you to think about your general life. In your daily life how many times do you think to yourself that you are above someone, whether it be a group of janitors or safety cross guards, people who work at mcdonalds, or any of these things. Do you stop and talk with them like they are people in your "group"? Do you engage in conversion the same with everyone? It's a form of racism, no matter how you think of it. Everyone in some way is racist. I highly doubt there are more than a FEW that would talk to the majority of people in life the same as they do in their own social class.
If you are Homosexual, are you open to those who are heterosexual? Or vice versa. If you walk down the street and you see someone homeless, do you engage in conversion and talk about life? Or do you drop some change and walk away and feel like you did something. You might say "oh well they arent the same social class so i have no idea if they talk about some of the things i do or understand things i do" And what is that? That is segregation anyway. If you were really gung-ho about stopping racism then You would understand to improve upon your social interactions on a daily basis instead of going on the general hes white shes black arguement.
EPT
.
