|
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I'm sorry, and correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you vote for Bush in 2004? Despite the fact that Bush had long departed the line of fiscal conservatism, limited government, and the endorsement of states' rights? As a matter of fact, if I recall, the growth of federal government was unprecedented since FDR. Can you reconcile your justification then with your justification for extremist action now? |
It was a choice of two evils. Bush or Kerry. I saw nothing as to convince me that things would change under Kerry and I saw no benefit in changing presidents in the midst of major military engagement.
| quote: | | The Bush administration has been the same type of administration as the Clinton administration? Or ANY other administration in the last half a century? Let's not be revisionist historians here, what kind of constitutional erosions of prior administrations makes what's going on now typical much less acceptable? More to the point, who did you vote for in 2000? I would hope it was a third party considering this behavior has been going on for decades. |
And how many of these changes have happened since 2004? And how many of these changes were talked about during the 2004 re-election? I'd answer nearly all for the first and absolutely none for the second. If Bush ran in 2004 telling us all that he'd suspend habeas corpus, go through this attorney general nonsense and continue the direction we were headed with Guantanamo Bay and Iraq, all while continuing to defy the constitution and civil liberties, I don't think he'd have been elected. If I remember correctly, he ran on a platform of cutting the budget and instilling more freedoms on the US via education and Social Security reforms. I fail to see how you can set a track record of "decades" for Bush when he's been president for less than that, and his first four years were not indicative of how his last term has unfolded.
| quote: | | Uhh well yea he's not the "lesser" of two evils I'll give you that much. He's a unique "evil" in and of itself. I'm still astounded that you think the 90's and the 2000's were eactly the "same". Actually I'm astounded that you think ANY of the decades have been the same. In the 90's I don't recall fighting a decadal war whereby thousands of americans were dying, we were spending billions of dollars, and the government was infringing upon the constitution. Did I miss something? What about the Clinton administration, the Bush Sr. Administration, the Reagan Administrtion, etc., equates with this one? |
I'm looking at the overall pattern, and I fail to see how comparing the actions of GW to the potential actions of Paul proves anything since they are nearly completely the opposite in their positions. You're comparing Bush, a president content to continue the current international and domestic policies and continue the "War on Terror," with Paul who has vowed to change both policies as well as end the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you want to bring other presidents into this, I believe that's another topic and I still fail to see how comparing their actions works when we're comparing them to a vastly different potential president. One of the reasons I like Paul in the first place is because he is so vastly different from those before him.
| quote: | | I completely understand your sentiments and I believe you however, I probably derive my views from the lack of outrage for a republican lead congress that has trounced "republican" ideology. I feel betrayed and the "justification" for this betrayal is merely salt in the wounds. If you ask me any 90's traditional republican who adhered to the concept of small government should have spoken up in the early 2000s |
I guess deep down, I don't see Ron Paul as a "republican" in the modern sense of the word. He is much more libertarian which to me has become the republican party of old. His track record tells me that he has been the republican standing up and shouting that we are going the wrong direction but his cries fell on deaf ears as his party has changed. As I've said before, I don't think the president has the power to change what Paul would like to, especially since he is running on a platform of constitutionality and I cannot see a president making the kinds of radical changes Paul would like to without following the document he wishes to preserve. However, he can influence public opinion and that alone might be enough to make current republicans (and democrats alike) change their current positions. I don't expect major changes under Paul, but there could be a change in attitude and hopefully a reversal of the apathy towards our current national direction the public has.
| quote: | | The vast majority of the US consists of moderates. This "hell bent" path towards big government only materialized with this republican administration. Ummm, you can define ANY estremism as being soemthing that doesn't agree with a proscribed "direction". That doesn't make it right. What you're advocating is "righting the ship" by shooting your cannon into the left side as a temporary measure. Just because a candidate has perfect foreign policies does not mean that his domestic polices aren't going to fuck things up. |
I disagree, the push towards big government started with FDR and has been a gradual progression ever since. Bush may have used the "war on terror" as an excuse to speed the process, but nearly every president between the two has taken steps towards expanding the scope of the government. I think it would be very "revisionist" to not see how other presidents have also lead us to where we are today. I'm not saying Bush's role in the matter should be downplayed, but neither should the role of presidents before him.
I eluded to it earlier, but what I hope for with Paul is a change in the overall attitude of this country. Socialism is "easy" in that it takes personal responsibility from the individual and places it with the government. Each successive generation that grows to rely more and more on the government will make it all that much more difficult to "right the ship" as well as to reverse its course. And as far as the potential to "fuck things up," sure, that's always there. Bush wasn't necessarily "extreme" in his viewpoints when elected, but look where that has left us. I think the possibility of Paul managing to do the same is decreased because his ideas are so different and he'd be constantly fighting the senate as well as public opinion. Besides those we also have impeachment, the courts and his term limit. I guess I feel that I know where a mainstream candidate will lead us and although I can't be 100% sure where Paul would go (mostly because of his interaction with current republicans and democrats, as well as public opinion) I'm willing to take a chance in the hopes that it will be better than where we're going.
| quote: | | Umm you misunderstand me. I'm not lumping them all together. I have definite preferences for a variety of reasons. I'm saying that I would prefer ANY of those candidates over Paul because he stands to do worse. |
I guess that's the heart of the matter. I'll take the risk of the potential "worse" of Paul over the known "worse" of the other candidates in the hope that instead of worse we get better. In my mind the election of a mainstream candidate will definitely make things worse, whereas the election of Paul at least has a chance of making things better.
| quote: | | A republican led congress had allowed a republican led administration lead to the greatest growth in federal government and spending since FDR. Yes 99.9% of the President's ideas have been implemented. How can you say that there is no manipulation or abuse in such a system? Is this not an "extreme" idea when you consider what the Republican party used to be all about?? |
I do, but again, I don't consider the current republican party to be anywhere near the party of old. I see Paul as that "old school" republican, and without a neo-con/republican such as Bush in office, you'd have Paul who would neither introduce such ridiculous bills as Bush or allow senate-approved laws of the same caliber to pass without a veto.
|
