Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • Some of Ron Paul's positions
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Some of Ron Paul's positions
Tweet Topic Started: Sep 18 2011, 10:34 AM (805 Views)
hoosierinhogville Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM Post #61
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
5,812
Group:
Members
Member
#155
Joined:
February 11, 2008
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM Post #62
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Nov 12 2011, 11:32 PM Post #63
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Isolationism implies economic independence (i.e., protectionism), which couldn't be further from what Paul advocates. Calling Paul an isolationist (or "more isolationist than" the others) is intellectually dishonest.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Nov 13 2011, 01:28 AM Post #64
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Old_School
Nov 12 2011, 11:32 PM
brumdog44
Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Isolationism implies economic independence (i.e., protectionism), which couldn't be further from what Paul advocates. Calling Paul an isolationist (or "more isolationist than" the others) is intellectually dishonest.
Paul is against NAFTA and CAFTA, stating that free trade agreements are nothing more than managed trade agreements. In this respect, he is against the government's involvement in global economic policy -- which is isolationism from a government perspective. It's a policy of his I agree with -- wanting the government to be isolationist in economic decisions does not have to mean 'isolated from the rest of the world'; rather it can simply mean that it is isolated in either the promotion or regulation of global economic affairs. To me economic isolationism can simply mean the decision of the government to stay isolated from making decisions that affect American based businesses.

Secondly, Ron Paul most definitely states that the United States needs to cut aid to foreign countries (again, a stance I agree with), which is most definitely a more isolationalist point of view.

I fail to see how this is intellectual dishonesty. In both cases, he IS more isolationist than his opponents are, but in both cases, I agree with his stance.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mr Gray Nov 13 2011, 07:41 AM Post #65
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
16,503
Group:
Members
Member
#26
Joined:
February 5, 2008
brumdog44
Nov 13 2011, 01:28 AM
Old_School
Nov 12 2011, 11:32 PM
brumdog44
Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Isolationism implies economic independence (i.e., protectionism), which couldn't be further from what Paul advocates. Calling Paul an isolationist (or "more isolationist than" the others) is intellectually dishonest.
Paul is against NAFTA and CAFTA, stating that free trade agreements are nothing more than managed trade agreements. In this respect, he is against the government's involvement in global economic policy -- which is isolationism from a government perspective. It's a policy of his I agree with -- wanting the government to be isolationist in economic decisions does not have to mean 'isolated from the rest of the world'; rather it can simply mean that it is isolated in either the promotion or regulation of global economic affairs. To me economic isolationism can simply mean the decision of the government to stay isolated from making decisions that affect American based businesses.

Secondly, Ron Paul most definitely states that the United States needs to cut aid to foreign countries (again, a stance I agree with), which is most definitely a more isolationalist point of view.

I fail to see how this is intellectual dishonesty. In both cases, he IS more isolationist than his opponents are, but in both cases, I agree with his stance.

i suppose this entire debate depends on your definition of isolationism. I can see how some view Paul as an isolationist, but it isn't like he wants to build a wall and not let Americans do business with other nations...etc, he just doesn't want America to be the governing force of the world....which I agree with.
Posted Image
The body knows what fighters don't: how to protect itself. A neck can only twist so far. Twist it just a hair more and the body says, "Hey, I'll take it from here because you obviously don't know what you're doing... Lie down now, rest, and we'll talk about this when you regain your senses." It's called the knockout mechanism.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Nov 13 2011, 11:20 AM Post #66
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
govern or be governed.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tAmazingHoosier Nov 13 2011, 12:32 PM Post #67
Coach
Posts:
4,797
Group:
Members
Member
#335
Joined:
June 21, 2009
Old_School
Nov 9 2011, 11:35 AM
tAmazing, you are the biggest dumbass on these boards. You have no clue what you're talking about. You've taken bits and pieces from various things you've read on the internet and used them to stitch together a totally incoherent and contradictory set of beliefs. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard
Lol


You hurt me this much | |

I'm going to go study some political websites for a few hours so my views can match yours.

I don't trust the media, I haven't for awhile, so you're off on my info. I put little time into politics because it's pointless to invest all your time in it. You're an ant. You'll always be an ant in this country. I thought you guys wanted an HONEST man in office for once, but it's highly evident that our country just isn't ready to progress. Still way too high on ego's... nobody is thinking of "long term". Well, Paul is... but he's a cult leader and a Christian... and he looks out for his people so that's not really the type of attributes the United States President carries. Not in my lifetime at least.

P.S. Eat one. You have barely any input on this board besides your little politics kingdom. Go to college and learn about politics to show off on a message board. I bet you get mad ladies....
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sirbrianwilson Nov 13 2011, 12:44 PM Post #68
Member Avatar
Stemlerite
Posts:
22,404
Group:
Admin
Member
#1
Joined:
February 4, 2008
so long as there are political parties, this country will also be driven by ego-maniacs...

br
Posted Image
Posted Image
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Nov 13 2011, 05:23 PM Post #69
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
brumdog44
Nov 13 2011, 01:28 AM
Old_School
Nov 12 2011, 11:32 PM
brumdog44
Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Isolationism implies economic independence (i.e., protectionism), which couldn't be further from what Paul advocates. Calling Paul an isolationist (or "more isolationist than" the others) is intellectually dishonest.
Paul is against NAFTA and CAFTA, stating that free trade agreements are nothing more than managed trade agreements. In this respect, he is against the government's involvement in global economic policy -- which is isolationism from a government perspective. It's a policy of his I agree with -- wanting the government to be isolationist in economic decisions does not have to mean 'isolated from the rest of the world'; rather it can simply mean that it is isolated in either the promotion or regulation of global economic affairs. To me economic isolationism can simply mean the decision of the government to stay isolated from making decisions that affect American based businesses.

Secondly, Ron Paul most definitely states that the United States needs to cut aid to foreign countries (again, a stance I agree with), which is most definitely a more isolationalist point of view.

I fail to see how this is intellectual dishonesty. In both cases, he IS more isolationist than his opponents are, but in both cases, I agree with his stance.

I think you just have your terms mixed up then. "Isolationism" as a term has broad implications. Isolationists wish to cut themselves off from the rest of the world both militaristically and economically. One cannot be an isolationist (or "more isolationist than x") if he favors global markets and free trade, especially as unapologetically as Ron Paul does. One who favors trade and economic freedom but eschews entangling alliances and the absurd conflicts they give birth to is not an isolationist (or even "sort of isolationist"), but rather a non-interventionist. This may all seem like semantics, but the difference is important. The term isolationist is a pejorative and is used to discredit not only Ron Paul, but the entire non-interventionist movement (members of which, obviously, come from all over of the philosophical map). I call its use intellectually dishonest because most of the time those who use the term know better, but choose to use it anyway. People like Sean Hannity and the like. Sorry to have lumped you in with that crowd! :cheers:
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Nov 13 2011, 05:45 PM Post #70
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
tAmazingHoosier
Nov 13 2011, 12:32 PM
Old_School
Nov 9 2011, 11:35 AM
tAmazing, you are the biggest dumbass on these boards. You have no clue what you're talking about. You've taken bits and pieces from various things you've read on the internet and used them to stitch together a totally incoherent and contradictory set of beliefs. I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes: "It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." - Murray Rothbard
Lol


You hurt me this much | |

I'm going to go study some political websites for a few hours so my views can match yours.

I don't trust the media, I haven't for awhile, so you're off on my info. I put little time into politics because it's pointless to invest all your time in it. You're an ant. You'll always be an ant in this country. I thought you guys wanted an HONEST man in office for once, but it's highly evident that our country just isn't ready to progress. Still way too high on ego's... nobody is thinking of "long term". Well, Paul is... but he's a cult leader and a Christian... and he looks out for his people so that's not really the type of attributes the United States President carries. Not in my lifetime at least.

P.S. Eat one. You have barely any input on this board besides your little politics kingdom. Go to college and learn about politics to show off on a message board. I bet you get mad ladies....
This will probably go way over your head, but in the post I initially replied to, you stated that Ron Paul and co. knew mathematical formulas to get us out of the recession. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd realize how foolish this sounds. The Austrian School (of which Ron Paul is an adherent) views an economy as an incalculably complex series of exchanges between parties of all different shapes, sizes, and makeups. Whereas other schools of thought use mathematics and formulas to build economic models, Austrians view this as a waste of time and, worse yet, ultimately counterproductive, as these models (which consist of bad numbers) are then used to influence political policy, often to the detriment of society at large.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Nov 13 2011, 07:51 PM Post #71
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Old_School
Nov 13 2011, 05:23 PM
brumdog44
Nov 13 2011, 01:28 AM
Old_School
Nov 12 2011, 11:32 PM
brumdog44
Nov 12 2011, 11:12 PM
hoosierinhogville
Nov 12 2011, 05:46 PM
Mr Gray
Nov 12 2011, 03:20 PM
sirbrianwilson
Nov 11 2011, 02:04 AM
I don't see how, in an age of globalization, that isolationism is a valid tactic. it makes no sense.

br
I don't believe that globalization by force is a good thing, which is essentially what you are talking about when you support vast occupation.
Not to mention the fact Ron Paul is not an isolationist.

Just because he see no need for a vast military empire or to send our tax dollars overseas to other countries does not make him an isolationist.
Absolutes aren't going to exist, but Paul most definitely is more isolationist than anyone in the race.
Isolationism implies economic independence (i.e., protectionism), which couldn't be further from what Paul advocates. Calling Paul an isolationist (or "more isolationist than" the others) is intellectually dishonest.
Paul is against NAFTA and CAFTA, stating that free trade agreements are nothing more than managed trade agreements. In this respect, he is against the government's involvement in global economic policy -- which is isolationism from a government perspective. It's a policy of his I agree with -- wanting the government to be isolationist in economic decisions does not have to mean 'isolated from the rest of the world'; rather it can simply mean that it is isolated in either the promotion or regulation of global economic affairs. To me economic isolationism can simply mean the decision of the government to stay isolated from making decisions that affect American based businesses.

Secondly, Ron Paul most definitely states that the United States needs to cut aid to foreign countries (again, a stance I agree with), which is most definitely a more isolationalist point of view.

I fail to see how this is intellectual dishonesty. In both cases, he IS more isolationist than his opponents are, but in both cases, I agree with his stance.

I think you just have your terms mixed up then. "Isolationism" as a term has broad implications. Isolationists wish to cut themselves off from the rest of the world both militaristically and economically. One cannot be an isolationist (or "more isolationist than x") if he favors global markets and free trade, especially as unapologetically as Ron Paul does. One who favors trade and economic freedom but eschews entangling alliances and the absurd conflicts they give birth to is not an isolationist (or even "sort of isolationist"), but rather a non-interventionist. This may all seem like semantics, but the difference is important. The term isolationist is a pejorative and is used to discredit not only Ron Paul, but the entire non-interventionist movement (members of which, obviously, come from all over of the philosophical map). I call its use intellectually dishonest because most of the time those who use the term know better, but choose to use it anyway. People like Sean Hannity and the like. Sorry to have lumped you in with that crowd! :cheers:
Okay,non-interventionalist would have been a better term.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tAmazingHoosier Nov 13 2011, 10:53 PM Post #72
Coach
Posts:
4,797
Group:
Members
Member
#335
Joined:
June 21, 2009
The mathematical formula position I took I did get from Dylan Ratigan. I'm not on my home laptop so I can't quote it right now. He was talking about Ron Pauls plan to get us out of the hole. Or start to, at least.

And not for the short term like all the other candidates. Long term. For our children and grandchildren.

There's mathematical formulas for about everything. There's mathematical equations that explain evolution... So don't tell me there isn't an equation that could be mustered up that would reverse our current financial state. When dealing just with numbers and percentages, whether it be deficits or not, how would you NOT use an equation to solve the problem?

I wonder why Ratigan would bring that up and back up Pauls views on it if Ron Paul was actually AGAINST this type of thinking...
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Old_School Nov 13 2011, 11:14 PM Post #73
Member Avatar
Defender of Mars, Kicker of Ass
Posts:
2,313
Group:
Members
Member
#143
Joined:
February 10, 2008
tAmazingHoosier
Nov 13 2011, 10:53 PM
The mathematical formula position I took I did get from Dylan Ratigan. I'm not on my home laptop so I can't quote it right now. He was talking about Ron Pauls plan to get us out of the hole. Or start to, at least.

And not for the short term like all the other candidates. Long term. For our children and grandchildren.

There's mathematical formulas for about everything. There's mathematical equations that explain evolution... So don't tell me there isn't an equation that could be mustered up that would reverse our current financial state. When dealing just with numbers and percentages, whether it be deficits or not, how would you NOT use an equation to solve the problem?

I wonder why Ratigan would bring that up and back up Pauls views on it if Ron Paul was actually AGAINST this type of thinking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School#Methodology

First two paragraphs.
The poster formerly known as mybracketownsyou.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
brumdog44 Nov 13 2011, 11:29 PM Post #74
Member Avatar
The guy picked last in gym class
Posts:
43,823
Group:
Members
Member
#181
Joined:
February 20, 2008
Secondly, if there was an equation that could be 'mustered up' to reverse our current condition, don't you think it would have already been done?
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
tAmazingHoosier Nov 13 2011, 11:37 PM Post #75
Coach
Posts:
4,797
Group:
Members
Member
#335
Joined:
June 21, 2009
brumdog44
Nov 13 2011, 11:29 PM
Secondly, if there was an equation that could be 'mustered up' to reverse our current condition, don't you think it would have already been done?
As the rich get richer and the poor poorer... No.


The select few, (I.E. officials that make the decisions our everyday life is governed by) don't have to worry about unemployment or their 401K sinking or losing their bonuses or timeshares. We're seeing a disappearing middle class, and a further distancing low and high class.

Would the rich vote to raise their own taxes? Never. That's going to be the toughest part. The big spenders are the ones crossing the T's and dotting the I's. I highly doubt they'd risk even the slightest pinch in their pay.


I have a feeling that Ron Paul is going to be that guy everyone looks back at and says "Damn, you know, he was right....." one day. I think his plan is very underrated and overlooked.

Just because the media doesn't endorse him he won't win, which is petty of our people... but just how society is today.

random note: Obama's slogan "Yes We Can" translates to "Thank You Satan" if you play it backwards. Verified by my voicechanger app on my phone. Fuckin creepy man.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Our users say it best:
"A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards."
Learn More · Register for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 7:54 PM Jul 10
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy