Newsweek on Paul (sort of)

[CDarwin]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372

 

Fire away, Paulites.

 

The article is mostly about the conspiracy theories surrounding the formation of a "North American Union," parallel to the European Union, and Paul's particular affinity for the notion.

 

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but that notion doesn't particularly frighten me. I haven't seen the numbers crunched, obviously, but I don't see any reason why this is intrinsically a sinister thing. I'm a pretty rabid free-trader, though.

[Realitycheck]

The Canadians could save some money out of it. This could help bring Mexico out of the gutter some more. We already have everything we need, but we can sell a little more gas, and a lot of land, and smell more smoke.

[PhDP]

It shows "Paul" is more of an ultraconservative than anything else.

 

Political globalization is, in my opinion, profitable for humanity as a whole. And more to the point, it's probably unstoppable.

[iNow]

Political globalization is, in my opinion, profitable for humanity as a whole. And more to the point, it's probably unstoppable.

 

You deserve credit for making two great points. Repeated above for accuracy.

[Realitycheck]

It has a real Democratic feel to it. I was surprised that Bush embraced it so much.

[ecoli]

I don't think the Newsweek article was very good.

 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52684

 

Ron Paul's rebuttal (and much more completely coverage on the issue) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59060

 

I don't think Newsweek's coverage was objective, honestly. They say Ron Paul want you to be scared and essentially accuse him of paranoia. you call that honest journalism? More like an attack piece.

[ParanoiA]

It's an attack piece, pure and simple. Anyone watching the debates or anyone who actually reads Ron Paul's direct comments knows this 'conspiracy' angle is BS. They're threatened by his conviction of the principles of the constitution and his conclusions that our present problems all lead back to ignoring those principles.

 

It's the same ole, same ole - discredit the messenger to discredit the message. They can't catch him cheating on his wife with whores or doing meth on the job so all that's left is misrepresentation - and the big players in news media are experts at it - no, actually artists at this point.

 

Ron Paul has made it clear that this about a battle of ideas - globalization through government versus globalization through free society. The NAU is not a conspiracy, any more than the PNAC. They are well known ideas, with their supporters of various stripes, and of course they're going to advocate their beliefs in business and government. No freak show, no Alex Jones fodder - just common sense.

 

What I find interesting is how the same people who are strong advocates of globalization through government are the same people who are against diversity in state governments here in the US. Globalizing requires uniting differing governments - from communism to capitalism and everything in between. Yet, we don't believe that's good for our own country? We can't have diversity in state governments but diversity in national governments is just fine?

 

I really wish folks would get a handle on tolerance and stop forcing everyone to merge with legislation. That's Paul's message, and mine. Free trade and travel IS on par with globalization and allows societies to evolve together.

 

It shows "Paul" is more of an ultraconservative than anything else.

 

Political globalization is' date=' in my opinion, profitable for humanity as a whole. And more to the point, it's probably unstoppable.[/quote']

 

How about defining globalization, versus political globalization and etc? Maybe that would help in parsing opinion. Because I find it hard to accept the notion that my government should participate by dismissing our sovereignty and border security. Why can't we globalize without our government? And with our sovereignty?

[iNow]

Because I find it hard to accept the notion that my government should participate by dismissing our sovereignty and border security.

I was with you until this part. That's a strawman, as Phil never said or implied anything of the sort.

[ecoli]

I was with you until this part. That's a strawman, as Phil never said or implied anything of the sort.

not much of a strawman, if you ask me... what else can political globalization mean than decreasing national sovereignty?

 

I guess you can make the argument that it doesn't have to mean weakened boarder security... but our politicians don't want to strengthen the boarder without some sort of union of north america (whether it's cleverly hidden behind titles of 'free trade' etc). What's makes us think boarder security will improve by doing such a thing?

[ParanoiA]

I was with you until this part. That's a strawman, as Phil never said or implied anything of the sort.

 

And I never implied I was debating with him in order for that to be a strawman. Re-read carefully...

 

How about defining globalization, versus political globalization and etc? Maybe that would help in parsing opinion. Because[/i'] I find it hard to accept the notion that my government should participate by dismissing our sovereignty and border security.

 

It's because I find it hard to accept the notion that my government has to participate in order to call it globalization that leads me to the question: How about defining globalization, versus political globalization?

 

I wasn't taking issue with Phil, but rather I was sharing that my apprehension in "globalization" definition led me to that question. Probably could have stated it better, but...

[iNow]

That's more than fair. Thank you for taking a moment to clarify. It's much appreciated.

[iNow]

Ron Paul will have the full hour on Meet the Press (NBC in the US) next Sunday, December 23.

 

 

Mitt Romney had the full hour this morning, and he reminded me of why I don't like him. Let's see how Paul does! Tim Russert is a heavy hitter.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

[ParanoiA]

Ron Paul will have the full hour on Meet the Press (NBC in the US) next Sunday, December 23.

 

 

Mitt Romney had the full hour this morning, and he reminded me of why I don't like him. Let's see how Paul does! Tim Russert is a heavy hitter.

 

 

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

 

You should see his interview with Stossel.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js2Z4b2PMTo

 

It's chopped up into 6 short parts. At one point, Stossel holds up pictures of federal buildings that would be shut down by Paul's proposals. Paul notes that we would make money selling them off to the private sector.

[iNow]

You should see his interview with Stossel.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js2Z4b2PMTo

 

It's chopped up into 6 short parts.

 

Thanks for the link. Being 20/20, I was a bit concerned that they were going to show some sting operation where Ron Paul had engaged in chat room flirting with youngsters and they taped him coming over to the kid's house to act on his advances. Phew... It was an actual interview.

 

 

I'm really looking forward to Meet the Press next week. Tim Russert's done a great job so far being equally tough on all candidates, and he's had several on the show already. You can see some of them here lower on the page with all of the "Netcasts."

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/

[bascule]

My #1 problem with Ron Paul: He doesn't believe in evolution, or rather he believes it's an "interesting theory" but "just a theory" blah blah blah.

[john5746]

My #1 problem with Ron Paul, he comes across as a simpleton. If there were no amendment to give women the right to vote, he would probably think it better to leave it up to the states.

[ParanoiA]

My #1 problem with Ron Paul: He doesn't believe in evolution, or rather he believes it's an "interesting theory" but "just a theory" blah blah blah.

 

Didn't know that. Since it will make zero difference in his political positions, it doesn't bother me.

 

My #1 problem with Ron Paul, he comes across as a simpleton. If there were no amendment to give women the right to vote, he would probably think it better to leave it up to the states.

 

Haha, yeah I guess I can understand that those who do not realize the the overwhelming, overreaching power of the central government destroying our federation would see him this way.

 

My question to you is, do you believe in the idea of a federation? If so, then why do you have issues with state power? Why is it bad to leave something to the states? By definition, you have to have SOME power in the states to even technically be a federation.

 

Also, simple answers are not indicative of simple analysis. Many of his ideas are rooted in principle and require more than 30 second response windows to explain. Watch the google interview on Ron Paul, it's on Youtube. You'll see what I mean. It's a more relaxed atmosphere and gives him a chance to explain his views of liberty and the structure of government and what role it should play.

 

Money is a big, big issue of his. And when you see the fall of the previous great empires and then look at what we're doing today, it's quite compelling. And with an ignorant public that doesn't understand the value of currency, how it gets it's value and so forth, we seem to be doomed to repeat it. We're all too busy with reality TV to notice the jeopardy our empire is in.

[ParanoiA]

I'm really looking forward to Meet the Press next week. Tim Russert's done a great job so far being equally tough on all candidates, and he's had several on the show already. You can see some of them here lower on the page with all of the "Netcasts."

 

 

Did anyone catch this Sunday? I found it in on Youtube. Sorry, I would include the links, but I'm at work and Youtube.com is blocked (as if there's no legitimate business purpose for access...please )

 

Anyway, I thought Paul did a good job defending himself. I'm still concerned about his ear marks thing though - I'm going to read more about that.

 

Also, in another CNN interview it is brought to his attention that some KKK member donated 500 dollars to his campaign. Paul said he has no intention of returning it. I liked his reasoning on that too. 1) He donated to Paul's message - not the KKK. 2) Why should he give the money back to a white supremicist to further his racial cause, rather than keep the money for Paul's cause?

 

Interesting though, whatever your perspective.

[iNow]

Did anyone catch this Sunday? I found it in on Youtube. Sorry, I would include the links, but I'm at work and Youtube.com is blocked (as if there's no legitimate business purpose for access...please )

For you (and others)... It's split into four parts:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcCO9ZL_d6o&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtdKrFgGruQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQO3nBm10DQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rh94vj_RXY&feature=related

 

 

 

Anyway, I thought Paul did a good job defending himself.

I agree, but my concern is that, while his ideals and philosophy make a lot of sense, that he doesn't have the executive level wherewithal to actually put them in motion and make them work. Philosophy is great, but at some point you need to implement and execute at a real level.

 

I'm not saying he cannot successfully do this, just that details and information on these "project plans" seems pretty anemic right now. How about a RACI diagram or a Gantt chart, or even a proof of concept, you know?

 

 

 

Also, in another CNN interview it is brought to his attention that some KKK member donated 500 dollars to his campaign. Paul said he has no intention of returning it. I liked his reasoning on that too. 1) He donated to Paul's message - not the KKK. 2) Why should he give the money back to a white supremicist to further his racial cause, rather than keep the money for Paul's cause?

That's really good. I like it. To have enough authenticity and honesty in your approach that a statement like this could fly is pretty special.

 

 

I spoke to my grandfather on Newton Day, and I asked him if he was interested in any of the current candidates. He said they're all a bunch of idiots and they'll do an equally bad job, but that he saw this "Ron Paul guy" on the Meet the Press and thought he was worth watching. Goes to show it's not just the youth who are interested in his message.

[ParanoiA]

I agree, but my concern is that, while his ideals and philosophy make a lot of sense, that he doesn't have the executive level wherewithal to actually put them in motion and make them work. Philosophy is great, but at some point you need to implement and execute at a real level.

 

And if you noticed, he doesn't have his ideals and philosphy on his agenda, as a whole. This is a point I think many people miss, and I blame Paul himself for it. He goes on and on about his ideas of government and the role it should play, and I absolutely love that. But he doesn't go on and on about what parts he'll actually work on pushing through. Rather it takes a good interviewer to pull this out of him. It shouldn't. He should make this more clear.

 

He doesn't plan on taking office and then fire 70% of the government, shutting down hundreds of federal buildings, disposing of tens of departments and closing every american military base in the world the first week of office. When interviewers push him on his views and how they're to be implemented, he always explains that we have to transition to this philosophy - not abrupt change.

 

So, in short, I agree with you. But I'll accept his shortcomings because there's too much meat and potatoes with this guy. Even on christmas, he didn't want to talk about his christmas commercial in Iowa - he didn't want to talk about the "warm and fuzzy" christmas advertisements all of the candidates were putting out - he wanted to talk about monetary policy and foreign affairs.

 

To me, he's the exact opposite of the same ole group of propagandists who's messages take a back seat to their persona. Paul is all about the nuts and bolts.

[PhDP]

Paul seems to really like historical revisionism, first their was the amendment that allowed Congress to levy a direct income tax (hint:...it doesn't exist), and now;

 

[Lincoln] did [the civil war] just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.

 

...

[ParanoiA]

Paul seems to really like historical revisionism, first their was the amendment that allowed Congress to levy a direct income tax (hint:...it doesn't exist), and now;

 

[Lincoln] did [the civil war] just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.

 

...

 

Yes it does exist. We've been through this before, Phil. You can't levy income tax until you overwrite the apportionment provision. Just read our previous discussion, maybe it will refresh your memory.

 

The Lincoln criticism caught me completely off-guard, though. You don't usually hear candidates running for office criticize the likes of Lincoln on something so crucial as the civil war. He disagreed with fighting over ending slavery - citing that most of world got rid of slavery by peaceful means, such as purchasing the slaves and then setting them free.

 

Interesting. And I've been wrestling with this one a little too, because compliance by the states to federal law is not voluntary. So I'm not sure why anything short of force would be appropriate. If Montana's state government just started arbitrarily murdering it's citizens are we supposed to purchase them and set them free in one of the other 49 states? I think we would go in...forcefully.

[ecoli]

Interesting. And I've been wrestling with this one a little too, because compliance by the states to federal law is not voluntary. So I'm not sure why anything short of force would be appropriate. If Montana's state government just started arbitrarily murdering it's citizens are we supposed to purchase them and set them free in one of the other 49 states? I think we would go in...forcefully.

 

Not exactly true though.

 

1. ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life' date=' liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[/color']5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

so federal government (via congressional legislation) does have the right to intervene in state law if a state is violating human rights without granting due process. Does this mean congress can pass a resolution of war against a particular state(s)? Does that mean we should be waging war, when peaceful means would be more effective (and cheaper!)

[Sisyphus]

Neither side said the war was the federal government against state governments. From the U.S. perspective, it was a rebellion in which U.S. military bases and other federal properties were attacked and seized in a state of anarchy. From the Confederate perspective, they founded a new nation, which was then attacked by the foreign nation of the United States.

 

Also, BS on Paul's reasoning. Lincoln did everything he could to prevent war.

 

Also, the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

[ParanoiA]

so federal government (via congressional legislation) does have the right to intervene in state law if a state is violating human rights without granting due process.

 

Does this mean congress can pass a resolution of war against a particular state(s)?

 

I think so. I would think that congressional legislation carries with it implied force. What good is passing legislation if it can just be ignored by the states? I would think that, at some point, force is a given.

 

Does that mean we should be waging war, when peaceful means would be more effective (and cheaper!)

 

Obviously, no. Without the particulars on the table, I would have to assume this was tried, and it failed. I don't really know to what extent, though.

 

I know that the framers fought with idea of freedom and liberty while slavery remained the elephant in the room.