Comments on: Point of Order http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/ Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:30:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78939 MInTheGap Thu, 24 Jan 2008 19:00:02 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78939 That's strange, Nathan.<br><br>Maybe it's the fact that you're using OS X.  Can you try editing your comment (if you get back here in time) and I can see what it's doing?<br><br>Otherwise, I can try to put the paragraph breaks back in for you!<br> That’s strange, Nathan.

Maybe it’s the fact that you’re using OS X.  Can you try editing your comment (if you get back here in time) and I can see what it’s doing?

Otherwise, I can try to put the paragraph breaks back in for you!

]]> By: Nathan Rice http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78938 Nathan Rice Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:51:34 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78938 Ahh, it removed my line breaks!  It looks like one giant paragraph :-)  Sorry 'bout that. <em>Nathan Rice's last blog post..<a href='http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/blognrcharlescom/~3/222367447/'>Holy Ground</a></em> Ahh, it removed my line breaks!  It looks like one giant paragraph :-)  Sorry ’bout that.

Nathan Rice’s last blog post..Holy Ground

]]> By: Nathan Rice http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78937 Nathan Rice Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:49:46 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78937 MIn,You essentially got it right on Paul.  He does indeed want to remove military bases from the countries we have them in.He also does indeed believe that, while he thinks it's very sad and discouraging that people would choose to sell their bodies or harm them with drugs, there isn't a single provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate those things.So, here's my commentary :-)Are you aware that out of 190 countries on earth, the United States has fully functional military bases in 130 of them?  Did you know that these military bases cost us over half a  trillion dollars per year (over half of the FY2007 budget)?Now, if China or Russia wanted to put a fully functional (including weapons and bombs) military base on our land, I think we'd get bent out of shape.We're no longer acting like a sovereign nation. We're moving toward becoming an empire (if we're not already there), with our hands in the middle of all foreign affairs.The founders were clear in their advice against this sort of activity, and George Bush ran, in 2000, on a humble foreign policy with no nation building.  Then, 3 years later, we removed the Iraq government and built a new one.Concerning the drug and prostitution thing ... I can understand your position.  If you're not there yet, then you're not there yet.  But I can see that you at least see it as the most constitutional position, so you'll come around :-) MIn,You essentially got it right on Paul.  He does indeed want to remove military bases from the countries we have them in.He also does indeed believe that, while he thinks it’s very sad and discouraging that people would choose to sell their bodies or harm them with drugs, there isn’t a single provision in the constitution for the federal government to regulate those things.So, here’s my commentary :-)Are you aware that out of 190 countries on earth, the United States has fully functional military bases in 130 of them?  Did you know that these military bases cost us over half a  trillion dollars per year (over half of the FY2007 budget)?Now, if China or Russia wanted to put a fully functional (including weapons and bombs) military base on our land, I think we’d get bent out of shape.We’re no longer acting like a sovereign nation. We’re moving toward becoming an empire (if we’re not already there), with our hands in the middle of all foreign affairs.The founders were clear in their advice against this sort of activity, and George Bush ran, in 2000, on a humble foreign policy with no nation building.  Then, 3 years later, we removed the Iraq government and built a new one.Concerning the drug and prostitution thing … I can understand your position.  If you’re not there yet, then you’re not there yet.  But I can see that you at least see it as the most constitutional position, so you’ll come around :-)

]]> By: MInTheGap http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78923 MInTheGap Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:21:23 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78923 Though Nathan would be a better one to talk about what Ron Paul actually believes, I'll take a stab at it and hope he corrects me if I'm wrong. Ron Paul is a non-interventionalist. I believe that he would advocate that we remove all our forward bases from across the globe-- not just Iraq. He believes (rightly, in my opinion) that we should have a strong defense, but does not believe (wrongly, in my opinion) that this includes having bases in places like Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. I'm not a global expert. I do know that many have used these bases as an excuse for aggression, but I don't know that removing them is the best policy, and I know that he wants out of Iraq ASAP and I'm not for that. Ron Paul doesn't necessarily support legalized prostitution as much as he doesn't see a Constitutional reason why it should be criminalized. (There is a group of prostitutes supporting his run for President.) Basically, being a strict Constitution guy and a libertarian, he believes that if the prohibition is not in the Constitution then it shouldn't have been mandated by the federal government. And this applies to things like earmarks, etc. But when it comes to some social things, he believes that the federal government should stay out of it and let the states handle it. In theory, I don't disagree, except I have a problem with saying that some of these things should be left up to the states because of who I am and what I believe. For instance, I believe that he supports ending the war on drugs... I can understand the position, and even appreciate the strict following of the law, but I don't know that I can support it-- I'm not there yet. Though Nathan would be a better one to talk about what Ron Paul actually believes, I’ll take a stab at it and hope he corrects me if I’m wrong.

Ron Paul is a non-interventionalist. I believe that he would advocate that we remove all our forward bases from across the globe– not just Iraq. He believes (rightly, in my opinion) that we should have a strong defense, but does not believe (wrongly, in my opinion) that this includes having bases in places like Germany, Saudi Arabia, etc. I’m not a global expert. I do know that many have used these bases as an excuse for aggression, but I don’t know that removing them is the best policy, and I know that he wants out of Iraq ASAP and I’m not for that.

Ron Paul doesn’t necessarily support legalized prostitution as much as he doesn’t see a Constitutional reason why it should be criminalized. (There is a group of prostitutes supporting his run for President.) Basically, being a strict Constitution guy and a libertarian, he believes that if the prohibition is not in the Constitution then it shouldn’t have been mandated by the federal government. And this applies to things like earmarks, etc. But when it comes to some social things, he believes that the federal government should stay out of it and let the states handle it. In theory, I don’t disagree, except I have a problem with saying that some of these things should be left up to the states because of who I am and what I believe. For instance, I believe that he supports ending the war on drugs… I can understand the position, and even appreciate the strict following of the law, but I don’t know that I can support it– I’m not there yet.

]]> By: Mary http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78919 Mary Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:23:36 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78919 Great article, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Ron Paul from this aspect. But do explain your side comments about "legalized prostitution" and "the war in Iraq"...is he for or against these things? Glad you are back, I missed your blogging~! <em>Mary's last blog post..<a href='http://homesteepedhope.com/2008/01/21/god-is-good-all-the-time/'>God is Good, All the Time</a></em> Great article, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Ron Paul from this aspect. But do explain your side comments about “legalized prostitution” and “the war in Iraq”…is he for or against these things? Glad you are back, I missed your blogging~!

Mary’s last blog post..God is Good, All the Time

]]> By: Nathan Rice http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/22/point-of-order/comment-page-1/#comment-78917 Nathan Rice Tue, 22 Jan 2008 20:20:01 +0000 http://www.minthegap.com/2008/01/08/point-of-order/#comment-78917 Obviously, as you can tell over at my blog, I'm a Paul supporter. But here's a dirty little secret.  I don't expect him to win.  But his candidacy, and my support of him, as well as the support of thousands of volunteers and donors, has raised awareness of the issues of liberty to the national level.I do believe he is the best choice for President, but I agree that there needs to be a much larger movement before any of the things he talks about are possible.  However, I don't find the issue of electability to be of any consequence.  Primaries aren't about electability, they are about nomination, and are one of our only chances to be proactive in forming the future.General elections are about the lesser of two evils.  But do enough research and you'll find that neither side is really any less evil than the other. Obviously, as you can tell over at my blog, I’m a Paul supporter. But here’s a dirty little secret.  I don’t expect him to win.  But his candidacy, and my support of him, as well as the support of thousands of volunteers and donors, has raised awareness of the issues of liberty to the national level.I do believe he is the best choice for President, but I agree that there needs to be a much larger movement before any of the things he talks about are possible.  However, I don’t find the issue of electability to be of any consequence.  Primaries aren’t about electability, they are about nomination, and are one of our only chances to be proactive in forming the future.General elections are about the lesser of two evils.  But do enough research and you’ll find that neither side is really any less evil than the other.

]]>