This is the first mention that the Economist has had of Paul. It's not to bad a review but it highlights some of the issues where he will run into trouble. The gold standard and dismantleing the Fed will not win him any votes from economist readers.
quote:
Libertarian protests
Live free or get hauled off to prison
Oct 11th 2007 | AUSTIN
From The Economist print edition
Taxing questions
THE American constitution gives Congress the power to collect taxes. The 16th amendment to it elaborates that Congress may tax incomes. That is enough to make most Americans pony up. But Ed and Elaine Brown of New Hampshire are unconvinced. In 1996 they decided to stop paying federal income taxes because, they said, they saw no law authorising such an imposition. And in January of this year, when they were convicted on charges of tax evasion, they resisted.
EPA
Paul wants to set you freeMr Brown retreated to his home and vowed to fight anyone who tried to arrest him. Mrs Brown, a dentist in quieter times, joined him a bit later. Their home made a good fort. It sprawls over more than 100 acres (40 hectares) of forest and was equipped with generators, weapons and booby traps. Thus holed up, the couple gave interviews. News of their stand spread over the internet. Supporters brought food and supplies. The situation was at an impasse until federal marshals had a clever idea. On October 4th, they tricked the Browns by posing as supporters. The Browns welcomed them onto the property and were arrested on the front porch.
The Browns, it has to be admitted, are at the far end of the spectrum. But thousands of reasonable Americans are deeply committed to a candidate whose platform might appeal to such scofflaws. Abolishing the federal income tax is a priority for supporters of Ron Paul, a congressman from Texas who is running for the Republican presidential nomination on a libertarian platform. Mr Paul reckons it would be possible to accomplish this; fiscal rigour is central to his campaign. He also wants to dismantle the Federal Reserve and return to gold-backed currency. He has always opposed the war in Iraq. He wants America out of the UN, the WTO, and any other international arrangement. He strongly supports home-schooling and, of course, gun ownership.
These stances are agreeable to people who distrust government, and political watchers have been surprised by Mr Paul's success thus far. According to an October 4th Gallup poll, he is still wallowing with around 2% of the Republican vote. However, in the third quarter of this year he raised more than $5m—quite respectable compared, say, with the $9m raised by Fred Thompson.
It is probably the intensity of Mr Paul's convictions that commends him to his supporters. Republican voters are still not sure whether to believe the conservative credentials of leading candidates like Mitt Romney or Mr Thompson. Mr Paul plainly believes what he says. Perhaps the other candidates should adopt a bit of his libertarian fervour.
Oct-18-2007 03:13
venomX
ISO salty whenches
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.
Orbax
At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome
Oct-18-2007 03:27
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
Re: The Economist Does Ron Paul
quote:
Originally posted by atbell
This is the first mention that the Economist has had of Paul. It's not to bad a review but it highlights some of the issues where he will run into trouble. The gold standard and dismantleing the Fed will not win him any votes from economist readers.
Of course the Economist isn't going to paint a rosy picture in regards to the idea of dismantling the Fed
Originally posted by venomX
Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.
He supports home schooling, but fortunately for us, schooling is left up to the individual states.
___________________
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
dont argue with the yanks nutter, they know best!
Oct-18-2007 03:38
Lebezniatnikov
Stupidity Annoys Me
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: DC
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
Home schooling? Out of the UN, WTO and any other international agreement? Dang, up to now I thought Ron Paul was a pretty good candidate, but if he is thinking of implementing any of this, it is more a step backwards for the states than forwards.
THANK YOU. I've been saying this for a long time. If Paul wins, say goodbye to the World Food Programme, World Health Organization, United Nations Children Fund, United Nations Development Programme, and any attempt (even if inadequate) at peacekeeping around the world.
___________________
Oct-18-2007 03:43
Spirit5
Nobody
Registered: Jun 2005
Location:
I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that?
And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?
Oct-18-2007 05:07
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
quote:
Originally posted by Spirit5
I think he sounds more and more like a Pat Buchanan isolationist type. Now I personally think Ron Paul seems like a much warmer person than Pat Buchanan is, but some of his rhetoric is awfully similar. I don't think these organizations are perfect, it's obvious they aren't. But pulling out of them isn't going to somehow make the UN or WTO better. It wouldn't be good for our standing in the world, and it's already not very good...leaving these organizations would be a big slap in the face to the world that the United States will do whatever it wants, whenever it wants...and now do we really want to do that?
And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?
The UN and the WTO are just two more faces of the NWO in my opinion.
Anyway, Ron Paul has made it quite clear that he's not an isolationist and that he more or less styles himself as a modern-day Taft Republican.
He elaborates a bit (in regards to a couple of your points) in this video:
He doesn't address any of the points we raised. He only talks about the draft. I looked up Taft's policy and basically he was a non interventionist. Now I have a question for you. Do you agree then with China's non interventionist policy? There has been recent outrage of how China has not meddled in Sudan's internal affairs while still keeping their investments there and making money out of it. What is your position on this issue? Or does non interventionism include boycotting such places as Sudan when they are non compliant?
As a side note, if a country is non compliant, how do you (or Paul) suggest the situation be resolved?
I do believe that the world is noticing how interdependent we are, and that we are slowly coming to the realization that we have to share this planet and we are stuck here and we have to help each other. Withdrawing from international efforts such as the UN and the WTO among others would not help anyone in the long run, except maybe the US.
Orbax
At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome
Oct-18-2007 06:13
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
He doesn't address any of the points we raised. He only talks about the draft. I looked up Taft's policy and basically he was a non interventionist. Now I have a question for you. Do you agree then with China's non interventionist policy? There has been recent outrage of how China has not meddled in Sudan's internal affairs while still keeping their investments there and making money out of it. What is your position on this issue? Or does non interventionism include boycotting such places as Sudan when they are non compliant?
As a side note, if a country is non compliant, how do you (or Paul) suggest the situation be resolved?
I do believe that the world is noticing how interdependent we are, and that we are slowly coming to the realization that we have to share this planet and we are stuck here and we have to help each other. Withdrawing from international efforts such as the UN and the WTO among others would not help anyone in the long run, except maybe the US.
You didn't hear him talk about the Constitution? I could have sworn that me mentioned that while he doesn't consider it to be perfect that it's still the rule of law.
If you want me to I can go back and dictate it for the board.
In regards to the non-interventionism, I believe that is the policy that this country was originally meant to follow.
I haven't studied China's policies enough to make any statements in those regards - but if their treatment of the Tibetan Buddhists is any indication of the help that they might offer other countries, I'd have to say that I'm glad that they seem to want to stay away.
Last edited by Trancer-X on Oct-18-2007 at 06:23
Oct-18-2007 06:17
venomX
ISO salty whenches
Registered: Apr 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
quote:
Originally posted by Trancer-X
You didn't hear him talk about the Constitution? I could have sworn that me mentioned that while he doesn't consider it to be perfect that it's still the rule of law.
If you want me to I can go back and dictate it for the board.
He did talk about that. Now, how does that relate to the UN and/or WTO?
Orbax
At that point you kind of crossed the rubicon and you might as well lay siege to Rome
Oct-18-2007 06:18
Spirit5
Nobody
Registered: Jun 2005
Location:
I understand what he's saying, but I still don't see him as the force who will bring us together. I think he'll win a lot of people in the West, and perhaps some college students, but some of his ideas are not realistic in this country....not as it has been in the past 100 years or so. And certainly not realistic in this world either.
Oct-18-2007 06:22
Trancer-X
mutatis mutandis
Registered: Jul 2001
Location: Shambhala
quote:
Originally posted by venomX
He did talk about that. Now, how does that relate to the UN and/or WTO?
Regarding the Constitution, I was responding to Spirit5's post:
quote:
Originally posted by Spirit5
And he always goes by "the founders said this, the founders said that..the constitution says this..." but he forgets...it's not 1776..it's 2007...a lot has changed since then. Now I'm not saying we shouldn't follow the constitution, but not make everything out be like "it's not in the constitution so we can't do it"...uh that's not very realistic now is it? Are computers or the internet mentioned in it?
