Trending Content
| +76 | BBs With The Hottest Girls | 36 | 3s | |
| +43 | Equinox Membership worth it? | 39 | 2d | |
| +38 | I want a puppy - talk me out of it | 26 | 1h | |
| +23 | PIF and Riyadh | 7 | 2d | |
| +19 | RENT MEGATHREAD: How much do you pay for rent? | 23 | 2d | |
| +19 | What was the most critical thinking you have done in a role? | 8 | 1d | |
| +19 | Am I a possible victim of identity theft (United Kingdom)??? I'm PARANOID | 8 | 6d | |
| +18 | Help: Three statement modeling for non-profits | 4 | 2h | |
| +18 | IB Analyst Creed (must repeat every morning) | 5 | 3d | |
| +14 | Advice to get into Whiskey | 16 | 1d |
Career Resources
Hoping so hard Mitt is the nominee.
I'm voting Obama over the rest of them, Newt included. Perry has no chance though, this video reeks of desperation.
that's an insult to morons.
ron paul is the only serious candidate. and before anyone chimes in to tell me that i am wasting my vote, tell me that it wasn't a waste of a vote to put in obama in 2008 and bush in 2004.
Newt sucks Romney sucks Obama sucks
Ron Paul 2012
Newt sucks Romney sucks Obama by JeffSkilling
(Senior Gorilla, 971 Points) on 12/10/11 at 2:45am Newt sucks Romney sucks Obama sucks
Ron Paul 2012
+1 millllllion
the dislikes to likes ratio just makes me lol for that vid
I can't believe a bunch of strategists and other political professionals sat around and decided that this would be a good idea. Not only a lack of foresight, but common sense and good judgement.
As a political science undergrad major I can testify that candidates get more votes by appearing to the more extreme side of their party. You'd assume that moderates get more votes but by appearing radically right/left they're better off.
Holy hell is Perry really that stupid? What world does he live in?
I can just hear his election chances plummeting.......
Like Van said, I cannot believe someone thought this was a good idea. This isn't 18th century Puritan land anymore Mr. Perry.
did Ron Paul fanboys throw MS at me??
i like Ron Paul, i just don't think he's going to win the primary.
unpopularopinionrickperry.tumblr.com/
This got to be the corniest and most meaningless shill ad I ever seen
On a somewhat related note, this might be one of the funniest videos I've ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/igQlbesF0zA
Geez guys, calm down. This is simply a Hail Mary pass by Perry to get back in the race in IOWA...not everywhere else. This is a smart ad on his part because he otherwise has no shot in Iowa. He puts this ad out and the widely evangelicals in Iowa will respond. If he places in the top 3 in Iowa then he will gain traction elsewhere.
Like I've said a dozen times before here on WSO, the religious right in this country feel as though their way of life is being attacked and systematically dismantled by the left, the atheists, the ACLU, etc. This is a smart add for him because he is appealing to that base and telling them that he will defend their way of life, etc.
I'm not saying whether the message is right or wrong in and of itself...just that it's the right message to garner support in a crucial place, Iowa.
Also, I decided not to vote for Ron Paul after I saw his latest interview...
Regards
+1
it's too bad that the christian bloc does not see yet that they will do better under a libertarian RP administration than a bunch of snake oil salesman who talk the evangelical line (like GWB) during the campaign but flip on it and focus on other issues right afterwards. remember god guns and gays in 2004? the evangelical bloc is like an abused girlfriend who keeps making excuses for her abuser.
You guys realize that Ron Paul would make the single worst general election candidate in 50 years, right? First of all, I disagree with Ron Paul's foreign and domestic policy, but even if I agreed with him I'd be forced to recognize his positions for what they are--incredibly unpopular with extraordinarily powerful voting blocs. His stance on Social Security and Medicare alone would get him eviscerated by the senior citizen voting bloc, the largest and most powerful in the nation. His position on military spending would guarantee a loss in military heavy states like Virginia. His position on Israel and Iran would lose him Florida and get Obama big time money from Jewish donors.
I can appreciate that Ron Paul is philosophically consistent and not afraid to say what he believes, but I doubt he'd get 40% of the vote after the debates and a barage of fall ads on his position that SS and Medicare should be disbanded, right or wrong.
The only candidate Obama would lose to in the general is Ron Paul. This country is in serious disrepair and you and the rest of the neocons need to wake up before it's too late.
i'd like to remind you: in 2007, would anyone have said that obama was "electable"? the guy didn't even have the black democratic vote.
to the poster above:
first, when did the popularity of a position have anything to do with its rightness? most people were for slavery when it existed. most people were against civil rights for minorities before 1964. our leaders led us to a better way. it's called leadership.
second, do you think social security and medicare are sustainable? we keep going on this paygo system and even with historical 3% annual growth of GDP and tax base we will still get crushed by demographics alone. yes we can keep the checks flowing in 2041 but what does it matter when a single check will hardly buy a can of dog food when we have to inflate the hell out of the USD to cover our nominal liabilities? wanting SS and M to work will NOT make it so. RP is giving young people a chance to opt out of this system. how many young people here would like to opt out of SS and M? sound off, i want to hear you.
third, RP has more donations from the military service members in active duty than all the GOP candidates combined, and more than O.
fourth, we know that the military industrial complex and the israel lobby hates ron paul. after all, he wants to take away the top brass's carte blanche to make permanent war and permanent profits for their buddies in the defense contracting giants. he also wants israel, a country with a $120BB GDP and 300 nuclear weapons to stand on its own two feet and not drag us into every squabble it gets into. but again this is what leadership is. why should we continue with a status quo where we throw 5% of GDP into the economically unproductive sector called military spending when the USSR is dead and China is still a piss poor country outside of some faux-glamorous coastal cities? why should we dump $3BB a year onto israel's lap at the start of every fiscal year (a privilege extended to no other FA recipient) when they are a modern and advanced state that is the military superpower of the middle east?
i want an american president that will put america first. i want an american president that is going to cleanse our system of this toxic socialism invented by statists and innumerate liberal dreamers. if you want a president that is going to bankrupt america through permanent war and all-consuming socialism, go ahead, vote for romney, gingrich or O.
I didn't even need to read your 700 word rant because it completely and utterly misses the point. Ron Paul's "rightness"--and I'd call it his wrongness"--is not relevant to his electability. Ron Paul's position on entitlements ALONE--not to mention the rest of his belief system--would cost him the election in 2012. He would be eviscerated in the debates and in the ads.
The point is, when people keep saying that Ron Paul is the only hope for victory in 2012 they completely miss reality. There is a reason Ron Paul is so far outside of the "mainstream"--the mainstream is popular. This nation has never in its history been amenable to drastic change and it is no more likely to be amendable to it in 2012 as it has been at any other point in history.
a guy who writes more than he reads doesn't write much worth reading. you are the perfect example of this.
Your rant was about the "rightness" of Ron Paul, NOT about his electability. A man who writes a 700-word rant without even understanding what he's arguing is a man who writes nothing worth reading.
talk about missing the point. did you catch the first part of my post before you ignored the rest? the part about obama's "electability" in 2007?
12 months is a long time in a presidential election and a lot of things can change about electability this early on. but before i get into facts let me promise that i'll keep this short because i know you have a short attention span and reading facts makes your head hurt.
you are hilarious tech, in your metatrolling way. a guy who can't follow the thread of an argument telling other people that they don't understand.
You're ridiculous. Barack Obama's philosophy had nothing at all to do with the most well known third rail of politics, Social Security and Medicare. How do you not understand this? The senior vote is the single most important voting block in the nation and you're telling me a guy who promises to do away with SS and Medicare can get elected in the United States? You have absolutely no understanding of American history or of modern political history if you truly believe that.
And all you wrote was a rant about the rightness of Ron Paul, which is entirely irrelevant when we're talking about who can win for the GOP in 2012. Ron Paul, at best, would be a Barry Goldwater-type candidate who would change the course of the GOP into the future but would lose almost every state in the union.
Jeffskilling, the idea that Obama's only serious challenge is Ron Paul is ridiculous, transparently ridiculous. The unemployment rate is over 8%. Almost ANY incumbent would lose re-election with 8+% unemployment.
And I'm not a neocon.
It's hard to take you seriously when you write in exaggerations like a 5 year old would.
Incumbents are never easy to beat, and there is no material difference between Obama and Newt or Obama and Romney. And by material I mean none of the 3 would take our deficit problems seriously and drastically reduced the scope of our bloated government, and also all 3 would not get us out of these wars. At least Obama is probably not going to bomb Iran like Newt and Romney would but who knows.
When Ron Paul goes head to head with Obama it won't even be a competition. Americans have had enough of this shit.
RON PAUL! Bananas to Paul supporters until I run out of them.
He will shock people in Iowa by finishing first or a close second. Romney will finish third.
This video is brilliant. Seriously.
It's meant to generate this response. He wants your outrage because your outrage makes Evangelical Iowans feel persecuted. The reaction in the media makes his supporters feel that much more vindicated. And it turns up the fervor in his favor.
Think about it: he's not trying to woo any of us northeastern city-based 20-somethings. He's going after people who don't identify with our hyper-connected urban/suburban lifestyle.
And you may think he is too near-sighted - that he'll turn off moderate voters in the general election.
Wrong, for two reasons. First, Americans have a shitty attention span. Two, he's fighting for his primary life. His campaign needs to be singularly focused on survival, and that means going hard after a constituency that can turn out big numbers when it feels threatened.
History is on the side of Ron Paul.
RP has began a transformation of consciousness that goes beyond a mere election in 2012. i don't know who is going to win. but i do know that 2/3 of the american population didn't even support the war of independence as it was happening. (to a certain poster above who proudly declared that he doesn't like to read: the war of independence was fought against the British, in case you decided to skip that fact in your studies). determined minorities that champion ideas whose times have come will eventually sway the majority. if we are lucky we will sway them in time to save the republic from another terrible presidency in 2012.
I'm a Ron Paul fanatic but I understand that the probability of Paul getting elected in 2012 is not on my side. I will still vote for him and encourage others to do so as well.
What is more important is that Ron Paul has instilled a philosophy that has resonated with my generation. In a decade or so from now all of us libertarians will have a huge presence in politics. Seriously, Ron Paul has an overwhelming support from the ~18 to ~30 age group. I am optimistic about the future because our libertarian ideology has strong roots and will prosper in a decade or so.
My main fear with regards to Ron Paul is that Congress would completely stonewall him considering he's basically the antithesis to the blisfully corrupt establishment we call our government. Best case scenario, Congress just keeps Ron Paul from "erasing debt," but more likely is that they keep him from making any real headway on the deficit and Social Security.
He will able to end both wars and end a good portion of the agencies he wants to cut his first year. Also, if he's president, he can speak directly and honesty with the American people and level with them that we have been living in a fantasy land and that congress is paid for. If we elect an honest president, partisan divides will cave.
ivoteforthatguy, you're an idiot. I didn't say I don't like to read--I said reading your 700 word essay on the rightness of Ron Paul in response to my post about electability is a waste of time. Every point you made is, was and will be irrelevant to the electability of Ron Paul in 2012. I could argue all day against the moronic public policy positions of Ron Paul--from the Fed, to immigration, to Iran, to domestic terrorism--but that wasn't the point. Clearly people who I disagree with on public policy--Obama, for example--can be elected President. So you writing an essay about how Ron Paul is right is just ignoring the issue, demonstrates you're a poor student of history and a is regurgitation of everything else I've heard from college-aged males.
Lol would love to hear your argument there. Even most of the crazy tards left in the repub race have come full circle on Paul's views. Would you side with Mr Herman Cain on this issue? Did you think Alan Greenspan was a "model" fed president?
What argument? You haven't posed a position. There are many aspects to Paul's Fed position, from auditing the Fed to ending the Fed to unilaterally moving the U.S. to the gold standard, which defies both math and geology.
Umm you said you could "argue all day" about Paul's "moronic" policies related to the Fed, so I gave you a chance to and you didn't get very far...So you would seriously be against a more rigorous audit of the Fed (aka a real audit)? You might respond and say what the Fed does is so important and sensitive that it could possibly disturb the markets to know who the Fed hands free money to, but I would argue the American people should have priority over that knowledge and over the manipulation of their money supply. I'm also not sure how you are using the word unilaterally, but Paul wouldn't put us back on the Gold standard overnight, and to say that going back to an era of sound money would defy math and geology tells me you are not a student of history and also have a lack of understanding of the word "geology". I would encourage you to read the new book "Currency Wars", I know you're not that much into reading but it lays out where our monetary system is heading and how the US could return to a gold standard.
Ok, so Ron Paul's position on the Fed is nuanced and has many moving parts. That's why I didn't "get very far." Jesus Christ. This is like talking to an infant.
No, I absolutely don't support a so-called "rigorous" audit of the Fed. The Fed releases its information on rolling 5-year basis and is monitored by Congress quarterly. It's a total myth that the Fed is not audited or regulated. A Fed audit can only lead to bad things--it would lead to people like Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Emanuel Cleaver, and other fools having greater influence and control over America's monetary policy. The last thing I want is an elected official exercising influence over our central bank. That would be an absolute disaster. It would be better for the Fed to be destroyed before it gets taken over by Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank and Chris Dodd or, God forbid, George W. Bush or Barack Obama.
Geology: the study of rocks and minerals. I think I have a pretty good idea of what geology means. The United States has $500 billion in gold reserves and a $15 trillion debt. Essentially violating $14.5 trillion in contracts would probably be a violation of the Constitution or the rule of law. Less than $10 trillion of gold has ever been dug up in the history of the human race, and that's at a price of $1,900/ounce.
Also, I look to history. The world under fiat currency with strong independent central banks has flourished more in the last 80 years than at any other time in history. Borrowing is easy, business cycles are smoothe, politics don't have a large affect on monetary policy, and the only thing that has screwed up the system is politicians who buy off their constituencies through earmarks and entitlements. That's not the fault of fiat currency--that can easily be fixed through lobbyist reform, term limits and rules against insider trading in Congress.
I'll be honest, you sound a lot like Hermain Cain here,
. What you just said were just talking points that even Mr Cain ditched when people saw through them.
Sounds like you've been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh because that viewpoint has been shot down more times than I can remember. Paul's bill would clearly not give congress the ability to influence or enact monetary policy, it would simply make the Fed more accountable and force it to be more open.
I think that you are implying that there isn't enough gold in the world to support the money supply, especially what helicopter Ben did these past few years. It isn't a matter of physical gold supply, it's a matter of price. Put the price of gold at $8,000 and suddenly you have enough to support the money supply. Ironically default is not unconstitutional and would actually be much preferable to continuing to dig our selves deeper into debt. What's funny is that no where in the constitution does it give authority for an independent non governmental agency to regulate, control, and counterfeit legal tender.
We went off the gold standard in 1971.
Business cycles are smooth? What rock have you been living under the last 10 years?
You do realize that congress would not be able to spend as near as much as it does now if we didn't have fiat money? We couldn't print money to paper over our debt obligations and we would have to borrow funds at real markets rates, which we all know aren't 0.00001%.
Finally, was just curious what you thought of this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-t…
What I said doesn't sound like Herman Cain--it's fact. There's nothing for me to back track on. You Ron Paul people keep contradicting yourself on the Federal Reserve audit. Your stated intention is to end the Federal Reserve (hence Ron Paul's book "End the Fed"). And yet when people note that a Fed audit would be the first major step toward Congress influencing monetary policy, the "End the Fed" movement states that the only goal/intention of the audit the Fed campaign is to see greater transparency in the Federal Reserve. We know that's a transparent lie. The goal of auditing the Fed is for Congress to start taking over the Fed, making monetary policy and ultimately dissolving the Fed. Just because you say something has been discredited doesn't make it so. There's a reason 19-year-old Campaign for Liberty children don't run the most powerful nations on earth.
Yeah, so all we'll do is let Congress arbitrarily set the price of gold to meet our debt demands, and that won't have any impact on the tens of trillions of dollars in outstanding public and private contracts denominated in paper dollars. You do realize that this would essentially destroy the value of paper-denominated securities and bonds when interest rates shoot through the roof. To implement a gold standard in the United States would be incredibly painful to everyday Americans and yet they would see almost no tangible benefits from it. You'd have riots in the street before gold was fully implemented.
Yes, business cycles are relatively smooth, even in the last 10 years. The financial meltdown was associated with bad public policy from Congress regarding housing as well as subprime lending and Wall Street wading into new securities that it knew nothing about until the advent of powerful computers in the 1980s. To place the blame on monetary policy is to ignore 25 years of Fannie Mae policies, 25 years of Congressional policy and the ins-and-outs of subprime lending.
And finally, we've had a national debt since the 1830s. A gold standard will limit the deficits, but it will in no way at all end Congress' ability to run up debt. To believe otherwise is somewhat laughable.
Virginia Tech 4ever,
Sorry but you remind me of the sheep from 1984. It sounds like the six-pack Joe geared media has infiltrated your thinking. Seriously stop with the talking points and try to think critically. Sure you don't have to agree with Paul but your one-liners don't achieve anything either.
..."He's never going to get elected"... ""He has moronic policies", etc. Come on man.
Look, regarding the economic side we are living in a Keynes fantasy world (1930s to 1980, 1992 till now). Paul's "fringe" ideas have actually stood across time... not 50 years. Regardless if it's even Keynesian or monetarist the concept that a few planners can manipulate a complex system as the economy to run a certain course is a joke. Fiat money run amok , central banking, business cycles, sticky price levels, the allowance of endless budget deficits, a change in government spending or money supply to stimulate/suppress the economy, etc. are all fringe ideas that have barely been tested in context of world history. In fact I believe several hundred forms of fiat currencies have become worthless. When an entity has the ability to print "money" things don't turn out so great either.
We live in a ponzi economy with short-term programs. Sure public services sound great but what if the country cannot afford them? Should we forever print money or keep interest rates endlessly? Do you really think the ~3.8 CPI number is a reflected of true inflation? Where is the money coming from to support an endless budget? Issue more bonds? You know we pay about 6% of our GDP on interest for our debt right? Greece doesn't even have enough revenue to cover interest payments. Should we continue to borrow in sake of "stimulating" aka artificially inflating our economy?
mb666, what you just stated about me is a transparent and verifiable lie. "He's not going to get elected" wasn't a one-liner. It was a sentence followed up by supporting sentences. His moronic policy ideas I've been discussing. I don't know what your definition of one-liner is but this certainly isn't.
If I were a sheep I'd be buying into Ron Paul like the rest of the under 25 crowd. I'll remind you that Ron Paul is not an economist--he's a medical doctor. Ron Paul also has almost no accomplishments to his name in the 30 years he's been in Washington. Keep this in mind--Ron Paul is a career politician with no history of affecting change in Washington.
And Reagan was a movie actor, did you like him?
mb666 hit the nail on the head. VT, maybe the only thing we'll agree on is that Congress and the GSEs had alot to do with the housing bubble, but we both know that the bubble wouldn't have been possible had Greenspan not kept rates too low for too long and looked the other way on deteriorating lending standards.
The fact is we are living in a dream world and those riots you talk about VT, they are coming even sooner if we refuse to consider gold. When the rest of the world realizes the primary goal both the Fed and the Treasury is to kill the dollar, people are going to give it up. And yes, dollar denominated assets and securities will take a big hit. People accuse those that support a gold standard of wanting to take the country backwards, well if we're driving straight off a cliff at 100mph I can't think of a better option.
Again, the solution to $15 trillion of debt and growing is not to dissolve the Fed, implement a gold standard, and to violate tens of millions of private and public contracts. The solution is for the electorate to hold their Congressman accountable and for Congress to hold itself accountable--insider trading reform, term limits, balanced budget amendments, earmark bans, lobbyist reform, etc. A corrupt Congress is no better off with gold than with paper.
Ronald Reagan was an experienced and relatively successful governor of California. You're putting your hopes into a geriatric who has accomplished nothing in Washington, D.C. in the 3 decades he's been there. His main accomplishments are 30 years of youtube videos of Paul complaining about something.
Alright it's clear you're not interested in actually debating anymore, but I'll leave you with this little complaint of Paul's back in 2001. God that geriatic was so delusional!! Makes sense why no one would listen to him. Also, convenient how you didn't acknowledge the Bloomberg report.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/XDKWm92EvhU
you can fool some of the people all of the time, mb666. tech is a perfect example of that.
the reason we went off the gold standard in 1971 is because of gold flight. we obviously had no trouble reconciling our gold standard with geology or mathematics up until then. what we had trouble with is convincing our creditors that we were good for our debts while spending vast fortunes on warfare and welfare.
tech doesn't know any of the history of money, of fiat currencies in every society in which it has been tried, or of central banking. and what's funny here is that he basks in his ignorance. when faced with facts, he just fatuously declares that he won't read them. it is not surprising that he sounds like such an unlettered boob in all of his postings.
Wow, you consistently lie about me. You keep saying I won't read "facts"--I said that I wasn't interested in your 700 word rant against Israel, etc. as a response to my pointing out correctly that Ron Paul has no chance in the general election at all. It wasn't a relevant rant.
I do know the history of American currency, probably a lot better than you. We didn't have a problem reconciling money and geology because we hadn't come off the gold standard. We've been 100% off for more than 40 years. You can't just go back to where we were before--it's not mathematically possible. It just isn't.
Look, I'm a conservative Republican who works in the banking industry, specifically in real estate. The idea of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA insurance I find morally offensive. I find the idea of Section 8 and LIHTC housing morally reprehensible. Ron Paul is right on some issues, wrong on many.
I'll point out that in 2001 there wasn't really a housing bubble. Prices today are relatively stable and in October national prices were at 2003 levels. There wasn't an actual bubble in housing until 2004. In 2001, housing prices made relative since compared to median incomes.
this is the most sensible thing you've written in the whole thread. looks like we agree after all!
Have you ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act?
Combine government encouraging FNM or FRE to give loans to people who can't afford them with the Fed's permanent low interest rates = eventual crisis.
Btw, Paul has been too busy in fighting Congress against expanding the role of government so of course you're not going to see him get "anything done" as you said. He's not the one passing bs gov't programs such as universal healthcare, expanding entitlements and welfare, supporting American imperial foreign policy and trying to increase taxes so the most successful people have to pay over a third of their income to the losers of society.
As a conservative I support entitlement, welfare and real health care reform. You won't hear any argument from me.
The Communit y Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Fannie/Freddie/Congress and subprime lending were the culprits, but thanks for your undergraduate insight.
Am i the only one voting for jon huntsman?
Hunntsman would be my second choice behind Paul but he didn't even have enough support to qualify for the debate tonight...
I think Ron Paul is very smart person. But I don't see him winning the election..
That's horrible mentality. He can win.
Obama came out of nowhere. Who thought we would have a black president? Anything is possible man.
Look at how Paul has risen from 2008 to 2012. He was receiving 5% in the polls and is now surveyed at 19% in Iowa, in front of Romney.
Ron Paul 2012
The difference between Obama and Paul is that Obama in 2008 had the media behind, the liberal media at least. Paul doesn't even have his own parties media behind him, They don't let him talk during debates, they don't have him doing interviews...The only time we hear from Paul is on youtube... which is a problem. The problem with that is the old people don't use youtube and the ignorant people who vote wouldn't go on youtube to hear what a candidate said. They just assume I don't hear about them on the TV, this person must not be a serious candidate. The difference between Obama and Paul
This whole 'Obama came out of nowhere, so RP has a chance' mentality is so off the mark. Just look at what Obama brought to the table, he was the opposite of Bush at a time when America hated Bush. He was viewed as charismatic, something not seen in a politician since Reagan or Clinton. He was viewed as a great orator (though I still dispute that, lol) and a newcomer, someone that hadn't been exposed to the 'politics as usual' process that is the mainstay in DC. He was black and garnered a ton of votes simply because of that.
Now, let's look at RP. He's seen by many as old and grouchy. He's a white Republican from Texas and a career politician. He is a horrendous speaker, easily gets flustered and drones on about particular examples of his stance instead of articulating his point and often times he just rants and complains. He has NONE of the qualities that Obama had and this is coming from a guy who has a hard time finding anything redeeming about Obama.
Honestly, there is a part of me that thinks people should vote for those that best serve their interest and another part that says sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils. I really like some of Ron Paul's ideas and stances, but I still maintain that Libertarianism can easily become lazy man's politics. You essentially are not choosing a side and I think that is bad when you live in the world we live in. I'm a very thoughtful person. I go out of my way to help others and I make a conscious effort to not infringe on other people's rights/liberties. But the fact remains, most people aren't that way so when a society of selfish people (read: America) subscribes to a policy that largely functions on mutual respect you are bound to have serious problems. The bottom line is, there are unstated and underlying implications (often moral) to all of our laws and statutes, regardless of whether people obey them or not. Most of us grew up in a dependent society where we are "shielded" from danger by laws and warning labels, etc. and when the government withdraws it's stated position on any given topic, you have essentially given carte blanche to the younger generation who take the basic view, "If it was bad, it wouldn't be legal".
I guess I'm a little confused how you take a very straight forward and literal view/application of the Constitution yet still maintain the ability to regulate the things that need to be regulated. The Second Amendment is a good example. I think Americans have a Constitutional right to have guns, but I don't think they should be allowed to have fully armored tanks, but the Constitution doesn't actually limit their right to do so. Or on the other side, the Constitution says "right" and to some that means the ability to try and acquire them but it doesn't mean actually being allowed to have them. Now I'm certainly no expert but my understand is it's virtually impossible to legally own weapons, guns specifically, in places like NYC or DC. Maybe someone can clarify if they know differently.
Anyways, I'm not trying to instigate a shit throwing contest, I'm merely trying to show that there are some legitimate concerns when in comes to a candidate like RP. As pointed out above, he's spent 30 years in Washington fighting the good fight and he's essentially accomplished nothing. And yes, I do realize that he is fighting against the establishment in DC so that's the reason for his inability to affect change, but how will this be any different if he is president? Will Congress instantly find him credible and his ideas sound? Just curious as to people's reasons things would be different and work this time.
Regards
Ron Paul's fatal flaw is his god-fearing, pro-life stance.
I really like Huntsman, much more so than Newt. But seriously, this country needs a guy like Romney. A really smart, really driven guy who understands how the world works, and has a history of turning around troubled enterprises.
-
-
I agree that RP is not riding as big a wave as O. the anti-bush feeling was very strong at the time and change was the flavor of the year. but, look at how far RP has come along in terms of pushing formerly fringe issues (like auditing or ending the fed). the guy who was polling low single digits 4 years ago is getting 18% in iowa.
i still think O's win was a miracle. and if you look at clinton 1992, it was a miracle (for him at least) as well. crazy things happen.
THis whole "he's not electable" issue is exactly what's wrong with the GOP today. You guys keep sending the status quo to Congress/President and that's exactly what you deserve. Fuck who's electable. How about you vote for someone who has views and stances you agree on. I'll never understand voting for someone because he is the one who will win.
I think a lot of the "not electable" bullshit comes from the media. I have also yet to see a MSM interview with Paul where they don't ask him if he plans to run as independent...such bullshit. Fuck the media.
Ron Paul isn't even a Republican, txjustin! He ran against Ronald Reagan/George H.W. Bush as a libertarian in 1988! Ron Paul wears the GOP badge so that he can keep his congressional seat. If the GOP agreed with Ron Paul then we'd support him. But Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN, NOT a Republican; therefore, Ron Paul will always have trouble getting GOP support.
If you agree with Ron Paul on 95% of the issues then you aren't a Republican either and you should focus your anger elsewhere. The GOP will NOT nominate a non-Republican. The GOP would no more support Obama as it would support Ron Paul. WE DON'T AGREE WITH RON PAUL ON THE ISSUES.
No, Newt and Romney are not Republicans. Ron Paul is a conservative republican and just because the party has lost its way and has been taken over by corrupt, deceitful, sellout extremists doesn't mean it's not still worth fighting for.
-
If you agree with any candidate on 95% of the issues you should probably stop towing the party line and think for yourself.
No, I literally mean Ron Paul is not a Republican. He is literally a Libertarian (as in the party). Ronald Reagan embodies the modern Republican Party and Ron Paul ran against Reagan! Ron Paul's views are literally in contradiction to half of the Republican Party platform.
I'm not making a philosophical point. I'm pointing out that Ron Paul is literally not a an actual Republican. He literally ran against George H.W. Bush and philosophically against Ronald Reagan in 1988 as a Libertarian and he doesn't support the GOP platform.
"Conservative" is a subjective term. "Republican Party platform" is easily identifiable and one can match up Paul's support against the GOP platform.
Just curious VT, who do you like the best? Bachmann?
No, I'm split between Romney and Gingrich. Romney is the exact opposite of Obama--where Obama is an incompetent manager and an ideologue Romney is a supremely competent manager and executive with no clearly defined political philosophy.
Gingrich is an absolute asshole, but he's a student of history, is brilliant and is one of the main reasons the GOP took the House in 1994 for the first time in 40 years. And he's actually the last Republican to balance the budget and he helped reform welfare. He's flawed in many respects, but I hold personal loyalty to the guy who helped oust the far Left from the House for the first time in 4 decades.
That's perplexing to me, surely you don't actually believe that? What about his support for a health care mandate, is that an example of the exact opposite of Obamacare? Starting to think you're trolling because you and me both know that the literal exact opposite of Obama would be Ron Paul and that's not really an opinion.
A state and federal healthcare mandate are fundamentally different. Even a constitutional libertarian would reluctantly agree that a state healthcare mandate is absolutely constitutional even if they don't agree with it in principal. A federal mandate is clearly unconstitutional as the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce does not give it the power to mandate participation in economic activities.
EDIT: Ron Paul and Obama ARE very similar in some respects--both are extraordinarily ideologically oriented, neither has executive experience, and both have a large portion of their support from people under the age of 25. Why? Because both have very naive utopian belief systems.
Love how you totally avoid the vast policy differences between the two and resort to attacking young people. Last time I checked people under 25 didn't get us into this mess.
You're missing my point. I genuinely thought you would understand this point.
When I said Romney and Obama are polar opposites I focused on their personalities and their experiences. Barack Obama is an incompetent man and an ideologue--everything Obama does is based on fitting his public policy into his ideological box. Romney, on the other hand, is a wildly successful and experienced manager and nothing he does is meant to fit inside an ideological box.
Ron Paul and Obama absolutely have vastly different public policy beliefs, but the point I was making was that I don't support Romney for his political platform--I support Romney for his 40 years of executive experience. The guy has proven to be an incredibly competent executive. We haven't seen a real competent manager since George H.W. Bush was in the White House.
Yes, I do attack young people. Young people got us Barack Obama.
You don't support Romney for his political platform because he doesn't have one, you know that.
And young people as you know are a very little portion of the voter turnout, the reason we got Obama was all the backlash from the disastrous presidency of Bush, who I'm sure you thought deserved a third term.
No, I think George W. Bush set the conservative movement back a generation. I think the only thing worse than Bush was Obama. Two big government, status quo politicians. The only real difference is that Obama has been selecting incredibly left-wing judges and Obama has been outpacing even Bush in his ability to create debt.
At least the very least both Romney and Gingrich have attemped reform. Gingrich actually has a track record of successful reform. Herein lies the difference between a Gingrich and a Paul--Gingrich accomplished reform--budgetary reform, welfare reform. As far as I know Ron Paul has not accomplished any meaningful reforms in Washington. Why? His personality is ill suited for it. Paul is far too arrogant to make allies in Congress. Unfortunately, the game in Washington isn't utopian, but if you aren't willing to deal with people then you ought not be a Congressman.
I believe you mean far too honest.
Whatever you want to call it, your hero has had no more influnece over Washington, D.C. than I have had as a resident of Washington, D.C. No one on the ideological extreme is going to transform Washington. When you believe in and publicly acknowledge abolishing the CIA and FBI and SS and Medicare, right or wrong, you will not stand a chance to affect change in this city.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Ironic that this quote is from one of my favorite politicians ever- Barry Goldwater- but I fear a Ron Paul nomination would lead to a similar outcome as Goldwater's.
VT4ever, we'll have to agree to disagree. I understood you what you meant about saying RP is a Libertarian and not a Republican. I myself am a registered Republican but consider myself Libertarian.
I will vote for Ron Paul until I think he has an actual chance of winning. I agree with a lot of his views, but a Ron Paul presidency could literally tear this country apart (in line w/ VTech's thoughts). I just want to scare the shit out of the political establishment so each party has some incentive to abandon their sacred cows.
Romney/Gingrich is probably the best ticket (puke). Romney is competent and Newt knows the system / history better than anyone else. Just can't give Newt the reigns after the he engineered the previous gov't shutdown. Still leery of any party having full control of Washington though
Wait, RP would tear this country apart? Where the fuck have you been the last 3 years?
I don't disagree with the overall message of the video, but the fact he talks about homosexuals is a desperate hail mary in politics. He is trying hard to get the religious conservatives on his side by saying Obama is anti-religion (as I think all hard left pols are) and comparing it to the "gays". He would engender far more for me if he said that the government should stop intervening in religion. If a private company wishes to have a Christmas or Hanukah party- it's not gonna get them sued. If a city wishes to have a Christmas parade, they should subject it to referendum (because the city's budget is begin used). Overall the ad is just sad IMHO.
Ok, that completely misses the point of what I was saying, but thanks for your thoughts.
Van Buren Yeah, it's strange to see a former doctor that doesn't believe in evolution. That means he's either: bi-polar, disingenuous on this one topic, or slightly older than we thought (lol).
Did he actually say he didn't believe in evolution or did you infer that because he's a theist? Wasn't sure if you had other information or are just another twentysomething in need of a Venn Diagram. Sorry to hijack the hijack of a thread hijack.
And yes OP I agree and wish Perry would go away.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/18118.html
RP surging in Iowa
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-closes-in-on-gingr…
see you all at the polls
Non voluptas velit doloremque veritatis cupiditate aut. Asperiores est repellat temporibus veritatis culpa atque. Et aspernatur deserunt sequi numquam et.
Et et quod reprehenderit iure rerum. Nobis incidunt incidunt neque praesentium numquam tempora occaecati eveniet. Vitae atque nisi qui et ipsum sit earum quos. Nisi adipisci est laudantium saepe harum eveniet.
Qui nostrum animi et non sed esse. Omnis omnis animi aut quis explicabo nihil sit voluptatem. Ea sunt sed sint voluptatem accusantium.
Rerum adipisci sapiente vel. Explicabo autem consequuntur consequuntur in et totam rerum esse.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et aliquam aut dolore. Voluptas omnis et rerum architecto illum consequatur. Voluptatem voluptatem modi esse neque excepturi qui dolores eius. Vel error dignissimos sed dicta sequi error. Ipsum neque rem repellat beatae voluptas eaque nesciunt et.
Suscipit vel cumque aliquam non vel in. Sit porro iusto voluptates debitis. Consectetur deleniti et totam nihil porro autem. Et eligendi non magnam. Velit veritatis et consequatur voluptatem.
Incidunt occaecati nulla modi at. Quam saepe deserunt quidem eius quia in maxime.
Voluptas impedit occaecati officia et. Voluptatem doloribus in incidunt sint dolor dicta atque. Facere mollitia eaque consequatur soluta aut mollitia quos nisi. Veritatis nihil aut totam natus quo dignissimos tempore. Eveniet ab laudantium est quos et ullam unde. Sint doloribus delectus voluptas sunt aliquam ullam.
Est aperiam fugit optio. Et repudiandae est qui est vel rerum labore.
Dolores quos doloribus autem occaecati officiis. Fuga eos consequatur fugiat.
Vel magnam et commodi laborum temporibus fuga et. Laborum reiciendis et neque harum. Sequi possimus sunt nostrum inventore ipsum. Sit qui ut vel ex ab.
Officiis et non perferendis assumenda est. Ex impedit vel assumenda reprehenderit reiciendis omnis.
Mollitia hic corrupti quia quos tempore. Ipsa nostrum adipisci vero repudiandae vel. Cum neque earum vel est consequatur. Dolor debitis explicabo eveniet numquam ratione nemo. Quibusdam ea at qui cumque.
Rerum nobis tenetur nihil totam. Voluptates velit optio expedita dolorem sit est. Et reiciendis qui repellat perferendis voluptatem nihil provident. Voluptates culpa eos dolorem id.
Impedit vel cumque repellendus aliquam id. Ut id ad voluptatibus deleniti recusandae sit corporis optio. Tempora ullam itaque ea accusantium nisi eos libero ab. Perferendis commodi illo aut iste.
Aut numquam ut ipsa consequuntur. Fugit ex quidem debitis nihil sit delectus. Dolor ipsa voluptatem aut aspernatur quisquam suscipit accusantium.