I believe in Ron Paul except for... .
I agree with most of Ron Paul's ideals, but i have a problem believing in his approach to global warming.
The government has a right to intervence in the market ONLY when their is a market failure. Global warming is a negative externality that results in prices being below market equilibrium
when it comes to carbon emmisions. This results in a third party paying the cost that the firms fail to do. The government needs to tax (uh oh!) or better yet restrict supply to increase the price of emmisions which would bring the market back to equilibrium. This is basic economics, and when i was watching the GOP debate, Ron Paul seemed determined if president to leave it up to the market.
Ron Paul is so far my most preferred candidate ,but i am going to have a hard time supporting him if he does not take global warming serious.
Remove Oil Subsudies
And let the Oilco's get a taste of the Free Market. Watch how quickly innovation kicks in when gas is $5 a gallon.
Remove personhood from corporations and watch a new wave of responsiblity hit when a real people can be held accountable.
The government has a right to intervence in the market ONLY when
"The government has a right to intervene in the market ONLY when their is a market failure."
The government actually has no “rights."
“Rights†are the "peoples" domain.
The government has "limited and enumerated powers" which are very different from "rights" and are VERY limited.
The quicker all of us learn this, the freer we will all be.
eric
Global Warming => read... ***GLOBAL POLUTION***
Did you noticed readers that ALL people here that are ridiculing the "Global Warming" jingle, calling it “GLOBAL WARMING HOAXâ€, etc. act like fanatics... call those who stand for addressing GLOBAL POLLUTION, names... use foul language... and do not see anything else but what their handlers are telling them to see...
GLOBAL POLLUTION is man made... did you see how polluted [with racket and satellite debris] Gaya's orbit is...? -do you think... oh pardon me, fanatics do not think... but for normal people... we know how badly damaged by our human/industrial activities our Mother Earth is...
Would you fanatics... enjoy life, as you know how, with only 1/3 of your lungs left...?
Mother Earth already lost 2/3 of her lungs [read Rain Forest]... you don't need to be a racket scientist to know that the world is on its path to suffocation...
So, to all you fanatics... stop pushing your anti-Global-Warming agenda... Global Warming is not the issue... GLOBAL POLLUTION is... and We-The-People... need to start working on solutions now... We-The-People speaking/working on the issues under “Global Warming†understand that... we understand the real issue is GLOBAL POLLUTION... and the biggest culprits are the industrial complexes and their big-money handlers...
We-The-People know, that you, anti-Global-Warming fanatics... are servants to the one world government masters, masquerading as "good" teachers trying to save our lost to GLOBAL POLLUTION [“Global Warmingâ€] minds... you think we’ll just follow your Solar radiation "discovery"... and... let the Global Polluters do what they want...
Well, just watch us We-The-People...
and hear our spokesman Dr Ron Paul here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjlA_yXr4gE
and check people like Texas Little El...
see "Global Warming et al" On June 13th, 2007 Texas Little El says:
Globalist dont care about the environment
I dont like pollution anymore than you do....but global taxes and more centralized power is not the answer. Al Gore and company COULD CARE LESS about pollution. Their agenda is POWER...
Thats the point you seem to miss
Correct in general
But the first problem was the Mideval warm period. Greenland was not misnamed, merely named during a period where temperatures were higher than today, but where man's activity wasn't a factor.
You are right that there can be externalities - caused by man or nature.
What you describe would be under the general category of "public health" where liberty meets science that says you cannot be free to spread an epidemic and have many die.
If Global Warming is NOT caused by man, it may still be a threat. Yet government's response will be inefficient if not counter productive. Consider the move to Ethanol, where we burn a gallon of gasoline in the production and distribution for each gallon of ethanol produced (Bob Dole would be proud).
If damage can be established to a collective, an effluvium tax proportional (but not exceeding) the damage should be imposed.
And I'm sure Ron Paul would do the right thing - he has in every other case - when such is demonstrated to him.
GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
The science behind global warming is weak to say the least. Scientists who dispute the theory are treated by the mainstream media EXACTLY like people such as Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich.....SILENT TREATMENT.
Global Warming is an excuse to increase government control nationally and internationally.
Here are some facts to ponder:
Satelliite readings confirm that the planet Mars is undergoing a slight warming trend? (Do Martians drive SUVs?)
Greenland got its name because 1000 years ago it was...well...GREEN. Today it is covered in ice. Warming and cooling trends have occurred throughout history.
Scientific studies linking solar flare activities to slight fluctuation of earth's temperature have been IGNORED by the MSM. Solar flare storms generate ENORMOUS energy...enough to effect the earth for sure (and Mars)
There has been NO debate on this issue. You either swallow Global warming or you are marginalized. Doesn't that tell you something?
The same gang that gave us the IRS, the Fed, the Iraq war, the UN etc..are the same elite crooks who push the Global Warming Hoax. Do you really think these butchers of humanity care about some low lying islands getting flooded???
Global Warming
I think Ron Paul takes global warming seriously. But I also think he is justifiably skeptical--as a lot of folks are--about human activity being the primary source of it.
There is no real scientific evidence that human induced carbon emissions are a major cause of climate change. In fact there is a large contingent of the scientific community who believes that it isn't. Dr. Paul, being the wise man that he is, can see that this side of the debate needs to get a fair hearing (which the algore contingent is going all out to silence) before we go getting the government involved, and sign on to all kinds of costly restrictions which may do nothing to alter the gw situation.
It appears that you've already made up your mind about this, but just in case you haven't go here and find out what the other side has to say about this:
www.junkscience.com
come on
please don't link to junkscience. if you're trying to argue against global warming, find a more credible source.
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html
His stance on the Islamic world
I support the idea of pulling out of Iraq and the middle east, but I think that Dr. Paul makes very naive assumptions when it comes to the root causes of Islamofascism and extremism. The fact that the majority of Arabs in the Islamic world are completely irrational and full of hatred/jealousy/hot air/etc. is not all the result of American foreign policy--though it is part of it, there is no doubt, but a very small part of it. He needs to do some reading on the recurring conflict between the West and Islam since its very origin, and he needs to learn how the Islamic world thinks, and how they view their traditions. I like his concepts of just trading with nations, but I have little desire to trade or talk with people who are naturally autocratic, and worship their militant culture of death, destruction, and hatred. I have devoted too much of my life's study and academic effort to the middle east and Islam to come to any other conclusion.
Cue the PC crowd to flame me.
Arab Ethnicity Does Not Islamofascism Make
DataSage equates irrationality, hatred, jealousy, and extremism with being Arab. That is like saying that rabies is natural to canines. Only a few dogs become rabid, i.e., those which are not protected by innoculation.
Saying that the majority of Arabs have the aforementioned, potentially destructive qualities is characteristic of stereotypic thinking.
I spent six weeks recently in Turkey and had first-hand experience with many Turkish Muslims (Turkey is a Muslim country) as well as Arab Muslims. My experience was that the majority were good people just like you find everywhere. One Iraqi even gave me money to buy food after my wallet was taken by a pickpocket. Also, I was treated with care and respect by virtually all people with whom I came in contact except, of course, the pickpocket.
Stereotypes are true, stop being PC
This is the exact type of thinking that is sending America down the globalist road of death and destruction. Arabs aren't more violent than their Kurdish, Turkish, and Persian counterparts? Please. Go pick up a history book, don't bow into the media-type wisdom of "but most Arabs are peaceful!!!" In their own definition, this may be true, but in the western sense it's not. And it's not the consequence of religion, political circumstances, etc. It's all dependent on the cultural values inherent to that particular group since the beginning of time.
As soon as people start getting it through their heads that cultures actually do effect the social orientation of entire ethnic groups, the sooner this country will be able to correct its disastrous foreign policy and survive. Humans are equal in dignity; but there are in no way equal in achievement or social evolution.
Stereotypes Are True???
DataSage...the logic of your statement escapes me. Definition of stereotype: "A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image." Does not the definition preclude a stereotype's being true? Does not a stereotype's being "oversimplified" have even a modicum of influence on the truthfulness of the concept?
And, what in tarnation does PC mean? It would help if you would write in plain English and not cyberspeak.
I am having real trouble sorting through your thoughts and putting them in some kind of non-contradictory order. You agree that current U.S. foreign policy is undesirable and that we should pull out of Iraq and the Middle East. But, then, you get caught up in a frenzy about violent cultural values of Arabs and end by saying that, if we accept that your stereotype is true, then we will be able to change our "disastrous foreign policy and survive."
What change would you propose? We come home, then what? If you are saying that we need to use our resources to make ourselves safer here at home, as in closing the borders, then I agree, but that goes without saying and without invoking a stereotype. If this is not what you mean, then I am at a loss as to what your idea of a change in foreign policy would be.
Do we lobby other countries to run "Beware of Arab" commercials on national TV? I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I am perplexed by the emotions that seem to get all tangled up with your words. What is a patriotic American to do? Seriously?
Should we not just leave other countries alone to sort things out for themselves in terms of their cultural values, as Dr. Paul, has said, unless they actually start threatening our national security HERE, and not over there?
Very Little Flaming Goes On Here
....because we all understand that this election...our very future..is all about becoming educated in the old way, ie, gaining opinions and then making up our own minds. Critical thinking is being born again in a world where information has been suppressed by the mass-media.
If you read more Ron Paul, you quickly see that he is not just a "dove." He is all about defending our borders in every way imaginable. While we are off fighting senseless wars for big business, we are stretched thin. Look at all the candidates who are now saying some of what Ron Paul has said all along.
Authorities on the Middle East last night said on PBC (and I am sorry I did not get their names), that, yes, indeed loosely organized "terrorist organizations" have grown by leaps and bounds since we began this occupation. Go to Informationclearinghouse.com and read first hand accounts from our military about how the people of Iraq, the citizens have been treated. Were I one of them, I would now have a gun and protect myself and my family. I would probably die to protect my way of life. The truth is...right now...I feel their pain more and more as I see my grandchildren's chance for freedom and liberty fade away. That freedom is not frading away because of thugs in the middle east...it is because of thugs in the White House, Pentagon, Trilateral Commission.
My American way of life and my Christian background prohibit me from agreeing with what is being done in the Middle East in my name. To me, the outraged youth in the Middle East as well as the fathers who love their children are joining terrorist organizations for much of the same reasons that young, inner city, without hope and angry young people here have joined gangs. It is for protection. It is to express unbelievable hopelessness and anger. That is just where I come from and I respect very much where you come from and the studies you have devoted to the Middle East.
fonta
Global Warming is one of the biggest hoaxes..
Global warming is a ruse to get you to ascribe to world taxation nothing more!
For those who are still not in understanding of why the globalists are happy you liberals calling yourselves libertarians will support their open borders, and carbon coalition schemes, here is a great website that explains about one world government, what it is, and who is behind it and how they are implementing it using gaia (earth worship ala Al Gore), global warming, world poverty, terrorism, and even education to scare people emotionally into supporting it....
See the article on this site about what happened in Canada...also:
http://www.augustreview.com/issues/globalization/the_global_...
http://www.augustreview.com/ (Main Page)
The shadow gov't is now starting to realize that it will NOT be accepted by a large enough number of INFORMED Americans (thank you internet) to cause a problem for them, thus the UN has been diligently working on disarmament of small weapons from the masses. They also have contrived issues around which they feel people can join so they can further their message of 'one world.'
Welcome to 1984
PS - no one believes in polluting. But humans did not cause a 1 degree increase in temperature in 100 years. That is natural. Think about the dinosaurs. What caused their demise? NATURAL climate change. Also we had 5,000 polar bears in 1960, we have 20,000 now.
Please folks, don't pollute, but USE YOUR HEADS. It's just another scare tactic.
- Jane Aitken
Hillsborough County NH Co-Chair, Ron Paul Campaign
here I go
I feel the same as the author. It's not cars that are the main problem, it's corporate polluting is where WE need help. If you remove caps, well, they would be more than happy to not have to make any moves to reduce emissions--it may cost them a new yacht. Yes, you can make a point to not purchase their product, but if it's cheap--well, people will buy it, no matter if it costs jobs in the long run (hello, China). And yes, you can say free market, but personally, I would like to not breath in the crap that is being put into the air buy the Kellog plant that is about 7 miles from where I live. Well, I could move, right? Well, probably not, considering the medical bills and student loans I have, I can't really afford the housing in the "factory clear" zone. Oh wait, that's right. It dosn't matter because there isn't ANYWHERE that has a dome over it so it can have nice clean air and water pumped in.
The people we need protecting from right now are not in the government. They are in the few companies that control everything from the news you get, to what is in the food you eat. And the government is in their pockets. And thats is what we are fighting. Not big government, but government that we can't see through or control. And that is one of the reasons Ron Paul's small state based government is so appealing.
The issue isn't simple, so there are no simple answers. I would just hope that people could put their "individual" aside long enough to look at things that are right for "us". And you can't change China, or India. But we can change us, and be better, and do good for everyone. And as Ron Paul states in his policies, we can lead by example for change.
Global warming
And just what should a constitutionally restrained federal govt do about global warming? You suggest that a centralized campaign against global warming should be waged even though there is no scientific consensus about the facts.
I suggest the remedies, if any, lie in the courts, should there be any evidence of cause. If, for example, auto emissions are in fact causing global warming, a lawsuit could be brought to require their reduction without regulating every aspect of industry as we do now.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Quit looking to the federal government to solve all of mans ills
When the government quits stealing roughly 50 percent of the income of the American people, they will have that money to buy fuel efficient housing and cars. If the American people are convinced that global warming is largely caused by human factors we can expect they will use their money in what they consider the most practical approach to solving the problem.
If we expect the goverment to solve the problem we should expect they will waste our money on approaches that are inefficient at best and even counter-productive. Has the war on poverty solved our poverty issues? Has federal intervention in education solved the decline in our schools or made it worse?
Look at the goverment proposed solutions to global warming which have already taken place. Tax breaks for large corporations for research. Tax breaks for large corporations to convert to bio-fuels.
If we wish to remain free, we have to quit looking to the federal government to solve all of mans ills. Any government powerful enough to solve all of mans ills would necessarily be so powerful that it oblitirated personal freedom for everyone except the power elite.
Why go that far?
Whether global warming is real/imagined or man-made/natural, why go that far? Burning fossil fuel pollutes "us" and its pursuit and production are the major causes of most of our problems. A new tax will do nothing. Change of habits and alternative fuels and technologies will do more. Brazil is energy independent, why aren't we?
Global warming
I agree that many environmental issues involve large negative externalities so government regulation is appropriate. The most economically efficient approach is to tax what you want less of (in this case, CO2 emissions) and then let the market decide how to do the rest. If we replaced the income tax with taxes on pollutants it would be a win all round. Is this Constitutional? The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. An economic externality that crosses state lines is a type of negative commerce, and can be regulated by the federal government. Arguably more local types of pollution can not be regulated by the federal government, but in those cases people should convince their state governments to act on those issues. The Constitution gives the states a great deal of leeway to do what they want.
And yes, I have read/viewed the "global warming is a hoax" arguments. The fact is that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that global warming is real and the recent warming is man made. A handful of dissenting scientists have not convinced me otherwise.
What evidence are you talking about?
Are you speaking of the UN paid for study that everybody claims is the positive proof of human induced global warming? That report is a piece of politically motivated garbage whose end game is to hang the blame for gw on the United States. Lord Monkton has throughly debunked it, as have numerous U.S. climatologists, the least of which is not Dr. Bill Gray, considered the formost authority on climate change in the US.
This whole affair is all about the money. The big multi-national conglomerates like GE and Wal-Matt are in line to make huge windfalls from the gw hoax, and we can be sure plenty of politicos have their hands in the gw pie as well. And guess who will end up paying for it all?
I believe in Ron Paul except for.....
... I would want our nation support Taiwan if China attacked it. I like the Taiwan Foreign Relations Act. I think it helps keep China in a box militarily. We are witnessing the rise of a very powerful China, all while U.S. military ground forces are disintegrating. I believe we have robust enough air and naval assets to counter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, but if China was able to get entrenched there, then it's over for Taiwan forever. No one would ever get them out. Taiwan is a major technology trading partner.
Don't get me wrong, I am a hardcore fan of Ron Paul's message all the way and I see his wisdom in staying out of foreign entanglements, but China is scary. In war, they won't go by Geneva conventions, thats just frilly western garbage to them.
If we would sell Taiwan some Aegis cruisers, they'd be set. Already they just made a new prototype IDF2 fighter that appears pretty wicked. My main point is we could by trading with them, help them get to the ability to where they could easily defend themselves no problem, then they would not need our help if China attacked 'em. That would be preferable, but I think our hand may be forced before we can get to that point.
Why?
Taiwan would still be a major trading partner. Did Hong Kong get cut-off from the modern world?
Why should America risk lives and treasure to defend an island city state set up by a military dictator?
I can think of no American interest that an independent or Chinese Taiwan relies on.
China
"China is scary. In war, they won't go by Geneva conventions, thats just frilly western garbage to them."
China is a signatory to the Geneva conventions just like the USA.
Don't assume the Chinese are bloodthirsty savages bent on aggressive war who won't abide by the Genveva Conventions- the USA has been MUCH more militarily aggressive than the Chinese in the last 110 years (including occupying China only about 100 years ago).
People tend to fear anyone who is "different", but that fear isn't always rational...
www.ronpaul2008.com
www.ronpaul2012.com
Taiwan
I don't believe that we should be promising to fight anybody else's war. I am happy to let Taiwan buy all the non-nuclear armaments it wants from us, but I don't want any Americans dying over this dispute.
If you are really worried about China then don't buy at China-West, aka Walmart. It is the huge trade surpluses that China has with the United States that enables it to build up its military. As for myself, I believe that China is certainly a threat to the majority of Taiwanese who want to remain independent of that country, but it is not a real threat to the United States. China just isn't likely to invade us.
Global warming
I suggest picking up a copy of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming.
The warming trend is not caused by human activity; it is caused by solar activity. There was a cooling trend from about 1945 to 1975 and we kept hearing about an imminent ice age. It's a lot of rubbish.
There is nothing to be concerned about and we certainly shouldn't allow government to take more of our money and our freedom in the name of combating a problem that doesn't exist.
Ice Age
Thanks wildbill, I forgot to mention this! I grew up in that era and all they did was warn about the coming ice age!
Ridiculous.
I believe in Ron Paul except for... .
I had heard all this global warming stuff coming up over the last few years on the MSM and kind of believed it because it was on the news, and we all know, THEY DON"T LIE ON THE NEWS. Yeah, right. Anyway, the only info I, and probably everyone else got, was from the MSM, so it was slanted the "Politically Correct" way, instead of objectively and fairly. But I didn't know it untill recently when I received a newsletter with this link in it:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag Watch the videos, they're very important, and eye openning.
I now see things differently, I believe this is just one more way for the Globalists to get into our pockets just a little deeper, one more thing with which exert a little more control over us. Six years ago, I'd heard people (Alex Jones, and others) saying the directions we were heading in this country and didn't believe it until I started to see their predictions coming true. Anyway that's my two cents. WE NEED RON PAUL!!!!
Legit concerns...
I can't complain about somebody being concerned about our planet. I'm concerned about it as well. I happen to think that RP is pretty strong on the environment. Some folks seem to think that he is weak on the environment simply because he won't advocate the government making global warming into another one of its rackets. I can think of a few positives that he'd bring to the table just with his natural message.
He is a leading advocate for industrial hemp. American farmers should have the option to grow the very useful hemp plant and businesses should be able to find ways to utilize and capitalize from it. It's a very good source for many of the same things that we use petro for and we have the best plot of land in the world to grow it. He just helped christen a huge biodiesel plant in his district too.
RP seems to be about the people and government having a biotrophic relationship instead of our current necrotrophic relationship. The same exact thing can be said about our relationship with Earth. We over consume and many of the smartest options to change our ways are hindered by the government and huge corporations which pay to influence the government. We are wasteful and inconsiderate of our host much like we have been to the wonderful Constitution that was provided to us by those scoundrel hemp farmers who didn't like the Crown ruling every aspect of their lives and excessively taxing the people. We are necrotrophic parasites. Taxing emissions isn't going to solve the problem. It's about our mindset as a whole.
Thanks for some of your
Thanks for some of your support and the links provided they were helpful
I was not suggesting a tax; instead, a supply restriction. I never mention subsidies which work opposite of a supply restriction in the sense they drive down prices using our money, keeping useless firms in the market.
Im sorry that i am a jackass with an opionion, but I also feel that the country is in need of a change. If i am willing to sacrafice some issues for others, I will vote for Ron Paul, but in the meantime i will keep updated. I still have more than 200 days right?
"The Power to Tax involves the Power to Destroy"
That's all this is, a way to tax, control, and redistribute the wealth, GLOBALLY for world socialism ala the UN, the elitists, etc.
Do some reading folks on world government.
The elitists feel we should not govern ourselves and want a new constitution whereby the government grants us our formerly natural or God given rights.