Ron Paul

really? someone explain why to me.

I heard an interview with him on NPR this afternoon, and he sounds EXTREMELY isolationist. He'd immediately pull our troops out of the Middle East, ships out of the Persian Gulf, basically bring all our troops 'round the world back here. While I do think we've got our fingers in too many pots, and have WAY overstepped our bounds in Iraq, I can't imagine that this plan would be a good one either.

[Rapunzel]

He's a Libertarian, really.

And, as such, he believes in a limited roll for the federal government. He is most likely influenced by the advice of I think Jefferson to stay out of the affairs of foreign nations as a rule of thumb. It's the opposite thinking of, say, the Clinton administration where we became the "police of the world".

[pstone]

Because you do not spread freedom with the barrel of a gun!

Perhaps you could do the reverse and explain why we have troops in south korea or germany?

I mean germany? they can't take care of themselves?

He is not an isolationist, he does not want us to meddle in others affairs.

Why would it not be good to mind our own business? Don't we have problems of our own to deal with?

Imagine that we took the 12 billion a month we spend in Iraq alone and used them to fix our problems. Imagine that we saved the 30 billion a month we spend on all our troops abroad in countries that should take care of themselves.


Ps. I am so glad you are hearing about him at least. The first principled politician I have ever heard from.

[pstone]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=12224561

Because you do not spread freedom with the barrel of a gun!

Never said you do -- I think we're over-involved, too. But I also think that yanking everyone home is a rash act. There are some places that do need our help. And some things that need to be addressed elsewhere.

And as far as Clinton leading us to become the "world's police" ... what exactly would you call Bush deciding to bring democracy to Iraq and hoping we'd be greeted as liberators? Of course, WMD was the original story, and we've been through many since then. But now the story is how the people of Iraq needed us to save them from Saddam.

[Rapunzel]

Clinton set the precedent.

Madeline Albright - under his leadership and direction - indicated that the United States was out to make all other nations democracies.

Under his leadership and direction more military actions were performed around the world than under any other presidency. He set a precedent. This president may be continuing the legacy, but Clinton ad Albright were the precedent-setters and paved the way for Bush's actions.

Clinton set the precedent.

Bush hasn't chosen to follow any other precedents Clinton supposedly set, and I sincerely doubt his administration would say "we did it b/c Clinton did it before us." I may buy that arugement for continued involvement in Bosnia, but not for invading Iraq to "liberate" the people.

[DCJenn]

Are you kidding?

Hmmmm, Puerto Rico? the Phillipines? Guam? The Marianas Islands? Cuba? Nicaragua?

I'm pretty sure we were already overinvolved in those places LONG before Clinton/Albright showed up.

Jenn

[pstone]

Economically, culturally, socially... our country can no longer be separated from the rest of the world.

I don't get that from him at all. I get that he wants to trade, talk, and be friends with anyone that wants to do so with us. That is hardly separated.

Just look at the falling dollar to see our influence and debt society at work. All this interconectedness is also not the holy grail, look at the imports we get, poisoned pet food, lead painted toys, etc...

We make nothing as a society and jobs keep going over seas.

We have so much to learn in my book before we go about the world flexing our might.

Our culture is a war based one, war on drugs, war on terror, war on everything. Be afraid, be very afraid so the goverment can help us poor little people.

I just don't see why we would want more of the same from anyone, it is clearly not working.

I still want anyone to tell me why we have military in Germany, or Europe at all for that matter. I would love to hear how the billions we spend on our troops there could not be better spent either in our country, or imagine if we actually let people keep their money instead of taxing us to death.

[DCJenn]

Why we have troops in Germany? Because we add a whole lot of $ to their economy AND they still want us there.

Same reason we are building a ginormous base in South Korea and releasing the smaller ones back to the Koreans. They want us there and now that the troops are so over extended in places where people dont want us to be that they've realized that sending peopel on a one year forced unaccompanied tour is one way to encourage people to get out ASAP- so enter one huge base with housing for families and there you go.

and we have people in something like 50 countries at any given time.

Jenn

[pstone]

Why we have troops in Germany? Because we add a whole lot of $ to their economy AND they still want us there.

Course they do, why pay for it themselves if we will ship our kids debt over to them. What is the amount each american owes now to our debt?

Let Germany pay for themselves is my point.

(I'm sure there's plenty more we disagree about though Smile )

If you are for freedom then we have lots in common.

I am just glad people are talking about Ron Paul, about time we have discourse other than the same old same old from our politicians.

Paul in my mind does not want to disengage except in military, and sending our kids money abroad. Somebody is going to have to pay the debt back afterall, I don't see any sacrifice currently in our country.

I have read enough and talk to my parents enough to know about victory gardens, rations of meat and food during WWII.

While we fight Bush's war on terror we keep spending, 2nd mortagages, bigger house, bigger cars, and feel fine about passing it on to our kids.

Burns me up.[/quote]

[DCJenn]

Peter-

This war was designed so that the American people wouldn't 'feel the pain'.

and anyone who thinks we're getting out of Iraq any time soon hasn't read about the WORLD'S most expensive embassy, the fabulous new hospital we just built in Balad, etc., etc. Iraq is Korea for the new millenium.

Jenn

[pstone]

A good health does of NO is what we need. Remember that congress is the one that writes laws etc...so a big NO is only part of the equation but one that has been lacking.

[GrayMatterWife]

I don't know how I feel about him. I want to like him but I don't like this Dr. No business. The Libertarians tell me he votes no on anything that's not specifically allowed by the Constitution and other sources tell me he votes no on anything that's unconstitutional. I don't know if they are saying two different things or if "unconstitutional" to him means "not specifically permitted by the Constitution".

For whatever it's worth, here's my understanding:

In very rough terms, the concepts are synonymous.

Whether a power belongs to the federal government is determined by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a a right to the federal government, it is considered "reserved" (that's the term used by constitutional scholars, anyway) to the states. For example, the power to print money is specifically enumerated as a federal government power in the Constitution. States can't print money. However, public schooling is not enumerated in the Constitution, so it is reserved to the states to govern (yes, the federal government is free to subsidize public education, because it can spend its money however it wants).

Liberatarians want as little government intervention into the lives of private citizens as possible. Therefore, in reading ANY constitution (federal or state), they will argue for the narrowest construction of the reserved powers. Their argument is, if it isn't specifically in the constitution as enumerating the power to the government, then it is unconstitutional to allow the government to control that power. This argument tracks the Libertarian's core belief: whatever is not specifically enumerated as a power of the government eventually should return to the people as a choice. And Liberatarians are strong believers in maximizing personal choice.

[pstone]

I do understand Libertarian ideals but that does not mean I agree with them all

Since this is the debate forum, let me ask.

What could be wrong with limited federal government given the founder's ideas that the states would decide the rest? How would someones answer change when one remembers the federal government can be given 'new' powers by amending the constitution?