Ron Paul Soft on Big Government???

[88GT]

I do not think Paul is soft on Big Government. Even the article you linked in the OP says that it's title is "tongue in cheek".

What indication do you have that Paul is soft on Big Government?

Because he's proposing actions identical to those which garner the other candidates similar accusations???????

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not trying to stir up anyone and I am not unsympathetic to Paul's stated goals.

I just have questions. If I can't ask questions, then what's the point of political discussion? Geez, it's like pulling teeth around here.

What's the point of the discussion? It's obvious that Bush 2.0 or Bush 3.0 is going to win the next election. It's like having a child who's addicted to meth and the parents are trying to convince their kid to switch to coke because it's less destructive. All those who argue to get the kid completely sober are dismissed as loons, bots, etc.

I frankly do not much care anymore. America is getting what she deserves and all my worrying or discussing isn't going to change any of it. People are intent on their own destruction and are going to take me down with them regardless of what I do.

Who is John Galt?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Because he's proposing actions identical to those which garner the other candidates similar accusations???????

Which actions?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What's the point of the discussion?

Lots of smart people on INGO. I thought I'd bring out their opinions on Paul's proposals.

 

[rambone]

Because he's proposing actions identical to those which garner the other candidates similar accusations???????

Which candidate?

 

[hornadylnl]

Lots of smart people on INGO. I thought I'd bring out their opinions on Paul's proposals.

Paul's proposals have been discussed in-depth here many times and every time, Paul is met with the same derision by the same people. Did you honestly think this thread was going to bring out new thoughts?

 

[rambone]

He's got a tougher plan than Reagan. Yeah I went there.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I suspect Kirk is stirring the pot by linking to an article and sitting back, seeing if anyone would actually click through and read it before jumping in to discuss it.

 

[steveh_131]

Attempting to steer this back on track, why do you believe Ron Paul was so soft on Big Government? This is especially confusing to me because, as Mark Steyn says, Paul is one of the few pointing out that the USA is broke.

1. Baby steps, eat the elephant one bite at a time, unrealistic to assume it will all get done in one move?

2. This plan has the most political support in Congress?

3. This plan would cheese the fewest number of people off?

4. Some other motive?

If the USA is as broke as Paul repeatedly says, then why not more dramatic plans than this?

I think number 1 is the biggest reason. He stated himself that it's a start. Contrary to what his detractors try to claim around here, some of us who like Paul actually are realists. I do understand that if he started chopping out giant chunks of the government, there would be consequences.

But when the rest of the candidates offer up "That's a start" plans, they're just big government pawns and socialist-lite because it's not enough? Have to remember that one.

Which plans are you talking about, specifically? What other candidate has offered a plan for a balanced budget? A plan to actually cut a significant portion of the government rather than "Making it work FOR us"?

The reason it's "not enough" is because I want to see someone putting government spending on the chopping block. More tax revenue isn't the answer.

Nobody says we have to police the world. But I'd like you to tell me what an appropriate level of spending to keep us ready and capable to meet any foe that initiates aggression might be? So just how much cuts are acceptable beyond those eliminating waste and fraud?

Eliminating waste and fraud is a great start. And I do consider most of our huge foreign deployments of troops to be waste. Continue the focus on national defense, missile defense, etc. I'm all for a strong military.

This is exactly what Rambone does on a daily basis: make specious conclusions about articles that are only loosely connected to the claims being made. Unless you're just disappointed that Kirk stooped that low, I fail to see the problem.

The beginning of the article even pointed out that the title was a joke. I suppose I thought the answer to his question was glaringly obvious, but perhaps it's not to some people. So if it brings up some good discussion then perhaps it is a good thread after all.

Because he's proposing actions identical to those which garner the other candidates similar accusations???????

What other candidates are proposing cuts of this magnitude to government size and spending? What other candidates have voting records that show they're actually committed to these goals?

That's not a rhethorical question, I'd honestly like to know if there are other candidates I should consider. Because so far I haven't heard any of them propose much that is important to me.

 

[hornadylnl]

Here's my plan for this election.

I will ***** about and work to torpedo any candidate who actually espouses beliefs different from the status quo and has a record and plan to make the government and debt smaller.

Once the hand picked establishment candidate is elected, I will make excuses for his increased spending and government growth over the next 4-8 years. Once the opposing party wins, I will trade in the excuses for rants and name calling for the opposing party president.

Wash, rinse, repeat. It appears I half half of INGO with me. Anyone else on board?

 

[jmiller676]

Here's my plan for this election.

I will ***** about and work to torpedo any candidate who actually espouses beliefs different from the status quo and has a record and plan to make the government and debt smaller.

Once the hand picked establishment candidate is elected, I will make excuses for his increased spending and government growth over the next 4-8 years. Once the opposing party wins, I will trade in the excuses for rants and name calling for the opposing party president.

Wash, rinse, repeat. It appears I half half of INGO with me. Anyone else on board?

I

 

[ocsdor]

Wanting and 24 years in office with little effect sure is stellar.

One man; one vote. Wasn't the house of representatives explained to you in school?

 

[Hotdoger]

One man; one vote. Wasn't the house of representatives explained to you in school?

Another condescending Paulbot. Who would have thunk it?

 

[steveh_131]

Another condescending Paulbot. Who would have thunk it?

Instead of responding with further condescension, why not try making an actual argument in response?

 

[ocsdor]

Instead of responding with further condescension, why not try making an actual argument in response?

Because that would take intelligence.

 

[Expat]

Because that would take intelligence.

But then several here would not understand what he was saying.

 

[Hotdoger]

Instead of responding with further condescension, why not try making an actual argument in response?

Why, to be subject to more condesending commets?

Se next post after yours for proof.

 

[steveh_131]

Why, to be subject to more condesending commets?

Se next post after yours for proof.

Because there may be some people reading your posts who could be swayed by a logical, rational argument. If you have a legitimate response then let's hear it.

 

[Hotdoger]

Because there may be some people reading your posts who could be swayed by a logical, rational argument. If you have a legitimate response then let's hear it.

Thats the point. You and the Paul bot attack dogs think they are the sole arbriters of what is "legitimate".

 

[Hotdoger]

Because there may be some people reading your posts who could be swayed by a logical, rational argument. If you have a legitimate response then let's hear it.

BTW are ocsdar posts "legitimate"?

Can you cross the thin Paulbot line and be truthful and call out one of your own?