• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Our main, very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are listed, are posted HERE

    Purchases made through some of our links earn a commission for the forum and allow us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear and fashion.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

Obama, Hillary? Are you for real?

Harry Haller

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
First than anything I'm not american but I am conscious of the importance of the next elections. In the beginning I thought of Ron Paul as the candidate I would would like to run the country, then when I realized that this was a mere fantasy I got my eyes over the democrats mainly because of the disappointment that caused the Bush administration. And then I heard both Hillary and Obama oppose the NAFTA. Being a free trade fan, I think this is a desperate measure to add votes, the cheapest way. Thoughts?
 

Pedantic Turkey

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
I think if Ron Paul was your first choice, and you're looking for a Democrat for a second, you should wait until you understand your options a little more before voting.
 

rnoldh

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Jul 24, 2006
Messages
17,175
Reaction score
3,262
What country are you in?

Here is a thread concerning the Democrat candidates and NAFTA.

I see you have less than 100 posts, so I hope you can link to it.
 

Harry Haller

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
No thread for me, maybe I should hurry up adding posts.

I know it is a little bit weird changing from Ron Paul to the democrat side, the thing is that the ideology behind Ron Paul really got me. And the fact that part of his economic advisors are/were Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Sennholz and Friedman is quite notable. But again, a candidate like him is lost in the american system.

Again, I chose to look the democrat side, mainly because I think that a change would be refreshing, and important for the political and economic life of the US
 

Pedantic Turkey

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
So... Ron Paul says less government, and you're into that; but you also think a "change" to a more activist and intrusive government would be... "refreshing" and "important."

Right.
 

Harry Haller

Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I think of Ron Paul and what it represents as an ideal estate and an ideal government. But as I said in my previous posts I think that his stuff will stay in its ideal form. Then you look at the other candidates (Huckabee, McCain, Giuliani et al) and all I see is the same old conservativism and right speech that has been on for the last years. Really how liberal are these candidates? More liberal than Obama or Hillary? And when I say refreshing I mean it in the way that it is important for a country and its democracy to have changes in their goverments, I think it keeps them fresh.
 

Pedantic Turkey

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
You just don't seem to understand what Ron Paul is all about. He takes the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence seriously-- that the purpose of government is to SECURE the rights of the individual. The Democrats believe that the role of the government is to act as a benevolent father to the people, to take from some and give to others and to keep us making from bad decisions. Hell, Hillary said it best--

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

No, we're not going to put the government back in its proper place in one giant leap, but that's no reason to hand it over to people who are going to push it farther and father in the wrong direction.

And, I mean, do you think George Bush has been a "small government" president? What "change" would electing a Democrat bring, really? It'd just accelerate Bush's irresponsible growth of the government.
 

JoeWoah

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
5
Originally Posted by Pedantic Turkey
You just don't seem to understand what Ron Paul is all about either. He takes the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence seriously-- that the purpose of government is to SECURE the rights of the individual. The Democrats believe that the role of the government is to act as a benevolent father to the people, to take from some and give to others and to keep us making from bad decisions. Hell, Hillary said it best--

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

No, we're not going to put the government back in its proper place in one giant leap, but that's no reason to hand it over to people who are going to push it farther and father in the wrong direction.

And, I mean, do you think George Bush has been a "small government" president? What "change" would electing a Democrat bring, really? It'd just accelerate Bush's irresponsible growth of the government.


I don't think you quite understand what Ron Paul is about, nor the Democratic party. That explanation you just gave for the Dems sounds like it should be for the Republicans... except they're your drunk, abusive step dad that will leave you a drugged up junkie mess when he's done with you.

Ron Paul is a Liberterian, but his world view is extremely simplistic. It would have worked in a simpler time, like the Middle Ages, but no longer. The strict libertarianism and isolationism doesn't work and never has. Ayn Rand's writing was a fictional as L. Ron Hubbard's.

For example, he wants to get rid of all government ... regulations including the those on Medicine, our Financial systems, Banking, Consumer Protection, our Food, our air travel, our infrastructure, etc... So, no FDA to make sure the medicine your using won't kill you, or that downer cows aren't getting into your food, no one making sure the bridge you drive over is safe, no one to make sure your bank is solvent and can cover it's deposits (your money, bye FDIC, FTC), no one to make sure Wall Street is transparent (so now no one will want to invest in the US anymore), no one to make sure your airplane will get where it's going, no one to make sure there isn't lead in your toys, etc...

He wants to shut down the government. Do you realize the national and global crisis that will cause? No one will want to invest here (why, we are no longer a nation of laws with common regulations), the trains will stop running (tracks owned by AMTRAK), planes can't fly (no air traffic controls any more). Confidence will crash, as will the stock market. Millions will be left without jobs because of the resulting stock, bank and financial meltdown. The millions of people who work for the US government will be let go, compounding the nation's woes!

Depression will grip and with only a loose confederation of states left to govern(our country tried that after we gained independence, it FAILED), no intelligence agencies and a military in shambles (as is the industry that supports it); we will all be ripe for the pickings by our enemies if we don't do ourselves off first.
 

mikeber

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by Harry Haller
First than anything I'm not american

So why bother? Seriously, don't you people have troubles of your own
 

mikeber

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2005
Messages
228
Reaction score
1
Originally Posted by JoeWoah
Ron Paul is a Liberterian, but his world view is extremely simplistic.

That I think, says it all...

I watched his interviews. At no time was he able to comment on the results that would stem from his actions as president. He was not prepared to deal with the following disasters and could not envision them.
 

Pedantic Turkey

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
JoeWoah, I think you're the one who really doesn't understand. There will be nothing, nothing at all that keeps the companies that make medicine, or produce meat for sale, or any other product, from following standards much stricter than present government regulations.

The difference between Ron Paul's world and ours is that if YOU, if you CHOOSE to buy medicine that's not FDA-approved, or if you CHOOSE to buy meat from a local farmer that's not government-inspected, you can. Instead of the government telling you you can't have experimental medicine, you can risk your life if you choose to. That's liberty and it's at odds with government paternalism.

And of course there's nothing at all that would keep you from suing a company that sold a dangerous product or misrepresented its manufacturing standards, a professional who misrepresented his credentials, etc.

A lot of government licensing and regulation serves no useful purpose except to protect the big players in the industry or to produce artificial scarcity. Wal-Mart has salaried lawyers to write (I'm sorry, draft) and insure compliance with volumes of regulations, but Mom & Pop end up getting screwed. It's the same story over and over.
 

lawyerdad

Lying Dog-faced Pony Soldier
Joined
Mar 10, 2006
Messages
27,337
Reaction score
16,486
Originally Posted by Pedantic Turkey
I think if Ron Paul was your first choice, and you're looking for a Democrat for a second, you should wait until you understand your options a little more before voting.


+1
 

JoeWoah

Distinguished Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2007
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
5
Originally Posted by Pedantic Turkey
JoeWoah, I think you're the one who really doesn't understand. There will be nothing, nothing at all that keeps the companies that make medicine, or produce meat for sale, or any other product, from following standards much stricter than present government regulations.

The difference between Ron Paul's world and ours is that if YOU, if you CHOOSE to buy medicine that's not FDA-approved, or if you CHOOSE to buy meat from a local farmer that's not government-inspected, you can. Instead of the government telling you you can't have experimental medicine, you can risk your life if you choose to. That's liberty and it's at odds with government paternalism.

And of course there's nothing at all that would keep you from suing a company that sold a dangerous product or misrepresented its manufacturing standards, a professional who misrepresented his credentials, etc.

A lot of government licensing and regulation serves no useful purpose except to protect the big players in the industry or to produce artificial scarcity. Wal-Mart has salaried lawyers to write (I'm sorry, draft) and insure compliance with volumes of regulations, but Mom & Pop end up getting screwed. It's the same story over and over.


That's all well and good if that was Ron Paul's, Ayn Rand's and the CATO Institute definition of libertarianism, but it is not.

Paul said he would dismantle the FDA, the FAA, FDIC, FTC, IRS, the NIH (there has been not one medical advance that was not funded by the Government, look that one up), shrink the military, reduce our intelligence gathering capabilities and put the federal government out of business. They look our government as an impediment to personal responsibility, which it is not.

They (Ron Paul and CATO) want to instead bring us back to a simpler time when we had a weak central government with little power and most of the power flowed from the States. The fed's role is to maintain a small standing army and print money, that all... no Supreme Court, FBI, ATF, nada. I don't really know what Congress's role would be to just debate. They feel this is what the framers had in mind, and they kinda did, it was called the Confederation of States... the first 10 or so years of our country we had this system. IT FAILED! There were issues they didn't consider and ran into. Those issues have not disappeared, instead there are more to contend with.

Today's world is much more complex and globalized than it was in the past, the framers understood this, which is why they even stated that the Constitution is a living document as is the government. We can not shrink away from the world like Paul and CATO want to do. They are isolationists and we can not live like that. All the things I described would happen if you just shut down the federal government overnight. Maybe he would do it over time, but the end result will be the same.

Of course, Congress and the American voters with half a brain cell left wouldn't let anything like I stated above really happen. I think Ron Paul is the only force, other than an attacking enemy, that could unite the entire country. He would, however, sabotage the executive branch and deadlock the government for a period of time if he did get elected.

You obviously have no idea what Paul was advocating. Read the white papers on CATO's website, then study Economics or Public Policy (Government and Economics combined). We know Ron Paul doesn't have white papers, his plans aren't more complex than 3 steps. If he could think further ahead, he'd realize just how stupid he sounds to the rest of us living in the real world.

As for your opinion on regulations and protections, well you are welcome to them, but you are wrong. So wrong, I was just stunned. Sure, there are some that need to be rewritten (like Bankruptcy, DMCA, Banking Regs, Patents, Sarbanes-Oxley, Children's Internet Protection Act, etc...) but I'd love to hear your explanations to how ALL regulations are bad, because he wants to remove them all. How about, oh just 5% of regulations? The Patriot Act doesn't count either.

As for choice, you have lots of choice as it is. As a matter of fact, American's have more choice than any other market in the world. Sure, you can't buy a gun at your mini mart... oh wait, you can even do that if you live in the right state.

If someone wants to sell a drug, but can't get it approved, they can sell it as a supplement. Those experimental drugs, yeah, they're experimental for a reason. No one is stopping you from going to a third world country and getting it though. Hell, they can even ship it in! Less than less than a tenth of one percent of those packages actually get checked.

See, I am a civil libertarian, as is Obama. People should be able to live as they'd like, take the drugs they want, have sex with anyone they please, have abortions, not have their government spy on them, hold them without the writ of habeas corpus, etc... but sometimes we need someone at the federal level to tell states to allow these things. No one is telling anyone to marry someone of the same sex and go get an abortion, just to stop trying to pass judgment on those who do. We'd still have slavery or at least Jim Crowe laws, segregation, back alley abortions and more if the states just did whatever they wanted and the feds didn't step up and take some control.

Oh, and lets not even get into interstate standards and such, which we could use even more of.
 

Pedantic Turkey

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
166
Reaction score
0
Your ignorance of American history is really impressive. Article 1, Section 8, anybody? But I don't have time to debunk that and your vicious libertarian straw man. Just-- spend more time listening and less time talking.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

What Is The Best Value Shoe Brand For Money?

  • Meermin

    Votes: 37 15.2%
  • TLB Mallorca

    Votes: 40 16.4%
  • Cheaney

    Votes: 8 3.3%
  • Carmina

    Votes: 38 15.6%
  • Crockett & Jones

    Votes: 43 17.6%
  • Other

    Votes: 78 32.0%

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
457,221
Messages
9,910,899
Members
206,587
Latest member
TenseikenSlash
Top