Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: wmenorr67 on August 13, 2011, 01:47:55 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/08/13/perry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Can he actually win?
-
Do we want him to? My impression is he's like Bill Clinton, but on the other side of the "moderate" aisle on some social issues. Not what we need. :/
-
From what I could tell, he was pitching a 'de-regulation' message and saying that DC is not america. He was also openly insulting Obama, which was refreshing.
-
He's done a decent enough job here in Texas, trying to get us back on track financially (and not winning many friends doing it). Definitely opinionated as hell and not afraid of speaking his mind. He ain't perfect but we could definitely do a lot worse.
Brad
-
He's done a decent enough job here in Texas, trying to get us back on track financially (and not winning many friends doing it). Definitely opinionated as hell and not afraid of speaking his mind. He ain't perfect but we could definitely do a lot worse.
Brad
This. We have done worse. And we never will elect "perfect" as POTUS (Rand Paul would be close enough. IMO).
I voted for Debra Medina in the Texas Republican primary, last election, but voted for Governor Goodhair in the general without too many qualms.
Where Perry will get squirrelly, will be illegal immigration, despite being born again hard on the issue. Gotta keep up the pressure, there.
I have my reservations WRT Perry, but his record is really strong, results-wise.
-
He's done a decent enough job here in Texas, trying to get us back on track financially (and not winning many friends doing it). Definitely opinionated as hell and not afraid of speaking his mind. He ain't perfect but we could definitely do a lot worse.
Hmmm....
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/12/120509/texas-perry-to-enter-presidential.html (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/08/12/120509/texas-perry-to-enter-presidential.html)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304760604576428262897285614.html)
....and as for speaking his mind....I can see that....esp. considering all the speaking he's done lately has been in short, scripted sound-bites....
-
He's not my most preferred candidate. He is, however, acceptable and the best in the race officially so far.
As stated, we could do much worse.
-
This. We have done worse. And we never will elect "perfect" as POTUS (Rand Paul would be close enough. IMO).
I voted for Debra Medina in the Texas Republican primary, last election, but voted for Governor Goodhair in the general without too many qualms.
Where Perry will get squirrelly, will be illegal immigration, despite being born again hard on the issue. Gotta keep up the pressure, there.
I have my reservations WRT Perry, but his record is really strong, results-wise.
And he shot a coyote with his CCW mousegun (don't remember if it was a LCP or a P3AT) while out walking his dog. How could ya not vote for him after that?
-
And he shot a coyote with his CCW mousegun (don't remember if it was a LCP or a P3AT) while out walking his dog. How could ya not vote for him after that?
LCP
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-25/news/27065381_1_coyote-great-gun-pistol
-
We could do better but we could also do much worse. Texas right now is leading the nation in job creation (even if you don't count local/state/fed jobs). I'd imagine if we can flush the house and senate, Perry would go along with a conservative congress.
-
I'd imagine if we can flush the house and senate, Perry would go along with a conservative congress.
A lot more Dem. Senate seats up for re-election next year, than last time around.
-
We could do better but we could also do much worse. Texas right now is leading the nation in job creation (even if you don't count local/state/fed jobs). I'd imagine if we can flush the house and senate, Perry would go along with a conservative congress.
That is how I see it. If he ends up in the hot seat with a Dem Congress or a bunch of country club republicans, I fear he would not stand for principle real well and be influenced by lobbyists too much. However, I fear that because I have seen him for 10 or 11 years. I haven't see those other candidates that much. They may be the same or worse.
He is a big step up from President Ego in D.C. right now.
-
Yeah, we could no doubt do a whole lot worse, from either party. And that may be why he will skate on a whole series of unacceptable positions. We'll hear during the republican primary "Thank goodness he ain't <insert unacceptable candidate name>. So we'll take him as he is." Then during the general election it shifts to "Well, at least he ain't <insert unacceptable democrat candidate of choice>."
Meanwhile he has no reason to explain why he went from "US/Mexico, what's the diff?" to his hard border stance. Or his edict to require HPV vaccination of teenagers as a governmental edict (something the UN has pushed). Or has active work for the trans Texas corridor. All three mentioned issues strike at the heart of the concept of the nation state.
Perry may be the next Reagan; he may also be the next W Bush. For now I assign him to the later category
<Cue the Lesser-of-Two-Evils Debate>
-
When I first heard about Perry, I thought his running would be a really good thing, but then some of you Texans posted in the thread I had going on it, saying that maybe he wasn't "all that". From the current bunch of contenders, I see him somewhere near the front re: those I could vote for.
My general voting criteria are:
1) My ideal candidate, but likely not able to win.
2) I could live with the candidate winning, and they have a good chance to win.
3) Voting for them only because they're not candidate "X", and if they're crappy enough, see #1.
For CA state elections, I've completely given up on 2 & 3, and I only vote for #1. For national elections, I'm still kind of wishy-washy on voting on my principles only. Right now I see Perry in category #2. Romney is in category #3.
-
The media must not like him, the stock photo they used of him was horrific. He looked like Sam Kinison screaming. The local paper kept using a photo of GWB that made him look retarded. I like how the media is so impartial.
-
You should've seen the ranting from the DNC strategists on MSNBC this morning.
You see, Texas may be the best state economically, but we're nearly last in education and healthcare spending and the jobs we create are either minimum wage or "stolen from other states." I take that to mean that we don't tax the hell out of our people and businesses and are thus more attractive, but Governor Goodhair may be going on midnight raids to steal factories and offices from Illinois. He's sneaky like that.
-
I think most of the jobs created in TX lately have been in road construction crews.
Perry's a hell of a good campaigner who could presumably beat Obama. He's always willing to change his rhetoric - and not so willing to change his actual policy. Note the TSA bill. He endorsed Giuliani in the '08 primaries, which might be a hint as to his actual beliefs.
Also, could somebody say what the big deal is on the Trans-Texas Corridor? Not familiar with it.
-
You should've seen the ranting from the DNC strategists on MSNBC this morning.
You see, Texas may be the best state economically, but we're nearly last in education and healthcare spending and the jobs we create are either minimum wage or "stolen from other states." I take that to mean that we don't tax the hell out of our people and businesses and are thus more attractive, but Governor Goodhair may be going on midnight raids to steal factories and offices from Illinois. He's sneaky like that.
That is a good sign.
-
Or his edict to require HPV vaccination of teenagers as a governmental edict (something the UN has pushed).
On this one, the explanation I heard soon after it happened was that by Texas law, the only way to make the vaccine available for free to people who couldn't afford it was to make it "mandatory". Also note that "mandatory" under the same law isn't. But that is just what I heard. If true, they didn't explain it very well.
I didn't like the Texas Trans corridor thing either, but I figured if that was only one of a few things across 12 years, I can live with it. That issue was my main concern about him getting influenced by special interests.
However, if we are going to give Perry the probe, should we line up the negatives on the other candidates also? Maybe make a big chart like the one for AR manufacturers.
-
Perry may be the next Reagan; he may also be the next W Bush. For now I assign him to the later category
Perry's closer to Clinton than any of those two....he panders a lot to special interests and cronies than he does standing on any type of principal. My prior posts on him pretty much show that....
....as for the Trans-Texas Corridor, here's some info....
http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/trans-texas-corridor-routes-moving-at-freight-train-speed (http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/trans-texas-corridor-routes-moving-at-freight-train-speed)
http://texasturf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=789&Itemid=2 (http://texasturf.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=789&Itemid=2)
-
Better than Romney. Worse that most of the other choices. Better than Obama.
-
LCP
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-05-25/news/27065381_1_coyote-great-gun-pistol
He's got my yote! :cool:
-
If the ultimate choice lies between a Marxist con man another Karl Rove love-child give me the Texan. At least we can all make a few bucks while he's running things and stop the economic hemorrhaging. The liberty part, in the end, is up to us, not to them.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi265.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii210%2FLaRueTactical%2FGovs_Visit%2FP5159429.jpg&hash=726765511a6fb3486dae60b7918a9561bdae49cb)
drive me closer so i can hit them with another grenade
-
In New Hampshire the third question he fielded was on his EO on vaccination of females for HPV .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61323.html
Evidently he made no attempt at a shuck-and-jive.
-
In New Hampshire the third question he fielded was on his EO on vaccination of females for HPV .
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61323.html
Evidently he made no attempt at a shuck-and-jive.
I think his answer was the very definition of "shuck-&-jive"..... ;/
-
Sorry, I'm not seeing any shucking or jiving.
“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with our citizenry,” he said
What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did...
-
I agree, Ron. He said he did something wrong, and was corrected for it. If he's being coy about something, maybe the Texans with more detailed knowledge could enlighten us.
Now, let's bring on the real opposition research, like they used against Sarah. "That ain't yo' baby!" :laugh:
-
Sorry, I'm not seeing any shucking or jiving.
Let me use my Perry-to-English Dictionary.....
“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research hide my financial ties with Merck well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with cover story for our citizenry,” he said
What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade in bed with big donors without having a better spin on the move they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did...
....and, of all the baggage that Perry has attached to him, this is the least of his worries.... ;/
-
This:
Maybe make a big chart like the one for AR manufacturers.
And using these categories.
-Budget
-Reduction of scope of government
-two wars
-Wo(s)D
-GWoT
-Patriot Act
-Space dominance
-Eliminating government-induced distortion on free markets
-Currency stabilization
-TSA
It's the only way I can keep up with who's for or against what.
-
Let me use my Perry-to-English Dictionary.....
“I signed an executive order that allowed for an opt-out, but the fact of the matter is I didn’t do my research hide my financial ties with Merck well enough to understand that we needed to have a substantial conversation with cover story for our citizenry,” he said
What we should have done was a program that frankly should have allowed them to opt in, or some type of program like that, but here’s what I learned — when you get too far out in front of the parade in bed with big donors without having a better spin on the move they will let you know. And that’s exactly what our legislature did...
....and, of all the baggage that Perry has attached to him, this is the least of his worries.... ;/
Gonna give examples or just stick with drive-by vitriol?
Brad
-
....and, of all the baggage that Perry has attached to him, this is the least of his worries.... ;/
Gonna give examples or just stick with drive-by vitriol?
http://www.google.com/search?q=Perry+Merck+tie&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7ADRA_en (http://www.google.com/search?q=Perry+Merck+tie&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7ADRA_en)
Here's some light reading for you....though I'm surprised that, being a Texan and all, you didn't see it the first time around....
I've said all I can about Perry but this....if the Republicans coronate Perry as their POTUS candidate and he wins, I'm OK with that....if Perry's baggage causes him to give Obama a second try at gutting this nation, I'm pretty much done with the GOP and the political process in general....and I'll be more concerned with laying low and surviving the next October Revolution.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Revolution)
-
We could do better but we could also do much worse. Texas right now is leading the nation in job creation (even if you don't count local/state/fed jobs). I'd imagine if we can flush the house and senate, Perry would go along with a conservative congress.
And has since Ann Richards was Gov. [barf]
Can the country make it thru another Compassionate Conservative?
Why is Ron Paul being ignored? It must be too scary to even think about going back to the original intent of the Constitution?
-
We don't know yet who and what Rick Perry is or whether we would prosper with him if he becomes President, but we DO know what we're facing if Obama gets a second term. And THAT prospect should give us all grave pause.
And we know this too: Perry's only had his hat in for four days and already the armies of the night are gathering to utterly destroy him with all guns locked and loaded. Already it's been implied he's a mad man, maybe a terrorist, and a racist. That's in four days.
Can't wait for what lies ahead.
I think Seeker Two is articulating what a lot of us feel. And that's that politically we're at the brink. Either we see "the process" really begin to work again for the American people or a lot of us will be in hunker-down mode.
-
I actually think that if Obama wins (ideally barely squeaking in with lots of voter fraud allegations and a conservative equivalent of "Bush stole the election") that would be about the best possible outcome. Tea Party terrorist hobbits would be righteously pissed, the House and Senate might actually get people who want smaller .gov in, and 2016 would be lined up for a candidate I'm actually enthusiastic about instead of this field of bozos. 4 years of gridlock and prepping the field for actual change.
-
You have a very sanguine view of a second Obama term. If conservatives--not the GOP per se--control Congress, Obama would be neutralized. Not otherwise. That's not a bet I want to make.
-
You have a very sanguine view of a second Obama term. If conservatives--not the GOP per se--control Congress, Obama would be neutralized. Not otherwise. That's not a bet I want to make.
And a squishy "conservative" like Romney [barf] with a Congress controlled by socialists and country club Republicans would kill us just as surely as the Obamessiah.
-
True, but we've been basically buying time in this country since the Founding Fathers, no? The kind of liberty they envisioned was always an anomaly, swimming against the tide. We're going to have to become much stronger swimmers, all of us, if we want this Republic to continue much longer except as a shadow of itself. I think reforming what we have now will eventually prove to be impossible, and everyone will see this, probably sooner rather than later. America One cannot carry America Two on its back much longer. Perry's candidacy might be important less for the man himself than for what people at large want to read into it: the desire to emancipate the people who still believe in America from those who do not.
-
And has since Ann Richards was Gov. [barf]
Can the country make it thru another Compassionate Conservative?
Why is Ron Paul being ignored? It must be too scary to even think about going back to the original intent of the Constitution?
Because Ron Paul is not electable.
I'd vote for RP in a heartbeat if he got the nomination, but everyone who likes to harp on how RP gets an unfair deal in the media and the electoral process is forgetting his huge negatives. Namely, old, kooky and un photo/telegenic and can be tripped up with the American middle where elections are decided in a five minute interview with questions about WOD/Pot, prostitution, and how 9/11 was "America's Fault". And he'll be done for.
I have much higher hopes for Rand Paul, who seems to have a much better understanding of how to play the "Libertarian double-agent wolf in Conservative sheep's clothing"-game much better.
We have a choice between making a principled stand with RP, and getting four more years of Obama and probably continued Democrat control of the Senate because there's no "coat tails" to ride with a POTUS electoral victory. And avoiding driving over a cliff into another Great Depression, and permanently cemented socialist control of the U.S. because we've finally tipped over the 50/50 line of no-return between "eaters" and "producers".
Frankly, RP is the exception that proves the rule to me that the Libertarians "Orange cheetos fingers in mom's basement"-image is largely an earned one, because they can only get ginned up for a Hail-Mary end-zone 100yard play for POTUS, and not make significant gains in city and state politics and actually build a base.
-
Unelectable?
What you are doing is pointing out not Ron Paul's "negatives" but the negatives of today's American voter and why the electoral process has become all but meaningless. I'm not saying I agree with all of R.P.'s positions, but if the American people cannot see beyond the fact that he is "old, kooky, and un-telegenic" we should save a lot of time and trouble and do this thing by how many hits someone gets on YouTube.
-
Is Ron Paul ignored because he's "unelectable", or is he "unelectable" because he's being ignored?
RP and everything he stands for is a clear and present danger to the status quo. First, he doesn't dumb down his positions to itty bitty sound bites for the unwashed masses and the Media to consume. People don't understand him and are afraid of him.
He doesn't kowtow to the powers that be in the GOP. So they're afraid of him.
He actually believes in social liberalisim/libertarianisim. There is no underlying wish to use social liberalisim to control people. So the left is afraid of him.
As for his followers, I've never donned a wookie suit. I've never left mountain dew bottles strewn over my front yard. I've never lived in my parents basement. The most vocal of his supporters may fit that stereotype. They are out front making the most noise. So what? It doesn't diminish his message in the least bit.
Can the country make it thru another Compassionate Conservative?
Perry is making alot of noise about putting DC under his thumb. We can only hope he plans on using tea party sentiment to be the driving force behind his positions. I have a sneaking suspicion the fix is in and its Perry.
-
Ron Paul is the most dangerous sort of man: the kind who takes seriously the ideals that others profess to believe in but expediently ignore. In other words, he is a man who really believes in liberty and points out what means and where it leads. Nothing scarier. I suspect the Founding Fathers, were they alive today, would get the exact same cold shoulder.
-
I would vote Ron in a minute but I don't think I'll be given a choice.
There is no longer a primary in NV which gives the old boy network here free reign
Rommney will will NV caucus even if every single registered R wants Paul, it happened that way lest time & will this time - a fair election in NV & RP would be a shoo in for the Republican Presidential candidate.
The Republican old boy network backed Reid in the Angle/Reid race and is corrupt as hell.
I have heard the neg's about Perry but I would rather have him then Rommney-better on the gun issue. We can not let BO select any more judges for SCOTUS or we are doomed when it comes to more favorable decisions. We need a few more to get nationwide reciprocity & class three for regular folks
-
Unelectable?
What you are doing is pointing out not Ron Paul's "negatives" but the negatives of today's American voter and why the electoral process has become all but meaningless. I'm not saying I agree with all of R.P.'s positions, but if the American people cannot see beyond the fact that he is "old, kooky, and un-telegenic" we should save a lot of time and trouble and do this thing by how many hits someone gets on YouTube.
Well get out there then... all you have to do is convince a few hundred million people. =)
And by that standard I bolded above, the Republic/American Voter has been a lost cause since the Kennedy/Nixon debates. The first significantly televised POTUS race.
Until they work from the ground up and build a significant block in the representative branches of state and the federal .gov, and so that perhaps they can build a plurality out of various groups that might gravitate towards them, it's all in vain.
-
Ron Paul is the most dangerous sort of man: the kind who takes seriously the ideals that others profess to believe in but expediently ignore.
QFT.
This liberty thing we all profess to believe in is a fallacy. We live in an illusion of freedom, of choice, and of liberty. Ron Paul, he actually has a road map for that freedom to exist.
-
This liberty thing we all profess to believe in is a fallacy. We live in an illusion of freedom, of choice, and of liberty. Ron Paul, he actually has a road map for that freedom to exist.
Those words you're saying. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Try again.
-
Frankly, RP is the exception that proves the rule to me that the Libertarians "Orange cheetos fingers in mom's basement"-image is largely an earned one, because they can only get ginned up for a Hail-Mary end-zone 100yard play for POTUS, and not make significant gains in city and state politics and actually build a base.
I think this statement is true. Even if RP could get elected, who would he have to deal with to get anything done? All those same D's and R's y'all keep complaining about. Sure, there are lots of things he could do, but not as much as you all seem to dream about.
-
I actually think that if Obama wins (ideally barely squeaking in with lots of voter fraud allegations and a conservative equivalent of "Bush stole the election") that would be about the best possible outcome. Tea Party terrorist hobbits would be righteously pissed, the House and Senate might actually get people who want smaller .gov in, and 2016 would be lined up for a candidate I'm actually enthusiastic about instead of this field of bozos. 4 years of gridlock and prepping the field for actual change.
If Obama were to win, what makes you think the Democrats wouldn't win Congress back? If Republicans or the Tea Party win more seats in the House and Senate, it will likely coincide with a Repub Presidential Win. Obama's popularity at the present time is unlikely to inspire any voter effort on his side.
-
Those words you're saying. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. Try again.
Keep telling yourself you're free. The fix is in, and you are not that.
-
Keep telling yourself you're free. The fix is in, and you are not that.
You think I'm telling myself that I am free? Free in what sense? When did I say I was a fix?
Are you free when you vote for Ron Paul, or what? Is it agreeing with longeyes that makes you all cryptic-like?
-
Ron Paul has a plan to grant freedom. Jamis probably has a plan to talk his wife into a threeway with Morena Baccarin. Having a plan != being able to accomplish that plan.
MechAg: unpopular presidents spawn backlash Congressional elections. If this was "Bush stole the election"with the parties reversed, I think you'd see more terrorist hobbits in Congress.
-
You think I'm telling myself that I am free? Free in what sense? When did I say I was a fix?
Are you free when you vote for Ron Paul, or what? Is it agreeing with longeyes that makes you all cryptic-like?
What's "cryptic" about bluntly saying that we are bystanders, almost all of us, in the current political process. We do not set the rules any more, and that means the scope of our "freedom" is decided by higher-ups. This isn't new, but never has it been more blatant, more pervasive.
Is there a way out? Everything comes to an end. Cultural entropy will probably drive us toward localism.
-
What's "cryptic" about bluntly saying that we are bystanders, almost all of us, in the current political process. We do not set the rules any more, and that means the scope of our "freedom" is decided by higher-ups. This isn't new, but never has it been more blatant, more pervasive.
Is there a way out? Everything comes to an end. Cultural entropy will probably drive us toward localism.
He didn't say that, bluntly or otherwise. And if that's what he meant, it still doesn't explain why he thinks that some people are deluded about how free they are.
-
Having a plan != being able to accomplish that plan.
Step 1: Steal underpants
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit
I really haven't had much use for Ron paul in the past, but I think the time of the American Republic is running out, voting another neocon is only slightly better than voting for Obama.
Ron has Ideas and a plan- something sorely lacking in most of our 'leaders.'
-
Ron Paul has a plan?
I know he has ideas, but what's his plan?
-
The only plan I know of has Paul auditing the FED, something that will never happen. Bad things happen to people who go nose to nose with the FED.
-
His plan is to apply Constitutional standards to what goes on in political life.
And that will never happen either, it appears.
The Federal Reserve is the Holy of Holies; all those who enter unanointed vanish.
-
He didn't say that, bluntly or otherwise. And if that's what he meant, it still doesn't explain why he thinks that some people are deluded about how free they are.
Maybe he's been observing human nature for a few years? No slave wants to believe he's a slave. I recommend you read Kafka's story "Investigations of a Dog." It is very droll.
-
His plan is to apply Constitutional standards to what goes on in political life.
And that will never happen either, it appears.
The Federal Reserve is the Holy of Holies; all those who enter unanointed vanish.
Oh. My. Spaghetti Monster! And all this time I thought I was free. :'( Help me Jamis!
-
Maybe he's been observing human nature for a few years?
Well, me too. How do I attain this level of secret knowledge where I know how much of a slave I am? ;/
-
His plan is to apply Constitutional standards to what goes on in political life.
And that will never happen either, it appears.
That's not a plan. That's a goal. A plan includes the steps by which we would attain that goal.
What's his plan?
-
Don't look for a "plan." That's socialism, top-down stuff. Just start behaving like a free citizen and the rest will follow. Liberty is a bubble-up process from a few basic principles. And we have all the roadmap we need in the Constitution.
-
Don't look for a "plan." That's socialism, top-down stuff. Just start behaving like a free citizen and the rest will follow. Liberty is a bubble-up process from a few basic principles. And we have all the roadmap we need in the Constitution.
No, a plan is not socialism.
A plan is leadership.
Allow me to illustrate a plan:
I will order the head of the Department of Energy to immediately begin cutting the DoE workforce by 20% every year in office, regardless of the funding provided by congress. The same will be done with the other DoE, the EPA, HUD, and other agencies. I will eliminate (X) program within the department that is useless and will integrate other functions within (the Department of the Interior, Defense, State...) until the government is back down to it's constitutionally granted powers.
That's a plan. That's what I was asking for.
"I will get the government back to its constitutional limits" is not a plan, it's a goal and a promise.
-
"I will get the government back to its constitutional limits" is not a plan, it's a goal and a promise.
So is "Hope and Change."
And we have gotten that.
-
So is "Hope and Change."
And we have gotten that.
Quite. Hope and Change is not a plan.
Neither is "Constitutionally limited government".
I applaud that as a goal. However, I just read the claim that Ron Paul has a plan. I want to know that plan.
-
I wasn't saying Hope and Change was a plan, it was a promise, and Obama and Congress has fulfilled that promise. Every American "HOPES" they have "CHANGE" leftover after paying bills and living.
-
No, a plan is not socialism.
A plan is leadership.
Allow me to illustrate a plan:
I will order the head of the Department of Energy to immediately begin cutting the DoE workforce by 20% every year in office, regardless of the funding provided by congress. The same will be done with the other DoE, the EPA, HUD, and other agencies. I will eliminate (X) program within the department that is useless and will integrate other functions within (the Department of the Interior, Defense, State...) until the government is back down to it's constitutionally granted powers.
That's a plan. That's what I was asking for.
"I will get the government back to its constitutional limits" is not a plan, it's a goal and a promise.
This. A goal is not a plan. It's a subtle, but crucial distinction many politicians don't understand.
-
Don't look for a "plan." That's socialism, top-down stuff. Just start behaving like a free citizen and the rest will follow. Liberty is a bubble-up process from a few basic principles. And we have all the roadmap we need in the Constitution.
I disagree with the first, but there's much wisdom in the second.
And I think it points out what is so fundamentally wrong with so many pinning their hopes on Ron Paul. They're pinning their hopes on a top-down imposition of liberty. They want Uncle Ron to tell them "it's okay to do XYZ" instead of just having the balls to go do it.
It's always gutsy to "be first", I won't deny that dynamic, but it's what has to happen.
This has always been my prime criticism of the gay rights/gay marriage movement, regardless of the actual merits of the subject. All of their strategies to date have essentially been different forms of whining to the .gov hat-in-hand for "their rights".
If you want to "be married", well then be married. Simply declare that you're married. File jointly and pay only those taxes you'd pay if you were married. Your gay husband is in the hospital dying of AIDS, and his fundo parents show up and get you excluded? Kick their ass and force your way into the room. You get excluded in probate? Take the stuff you know your dead partner wanted you to have.
Take your rights. Begging for them just defines you by what your enemies have laid out for you. Don't play their game. Just flip the damn checkerboard off the table entirely.
That's what Rosa Parks and the Freedom Riders did. They quit whining, and just went and sat in the white-seats.
Did they get beat, fire-hosed, imprisoned, and chewed on by dogs for their trouble? Sure. The Founders got even worse than that. The majority of them wound up dead or destitute for their trouble.
Ultimately, that's what's wrong with Ron Paul. His followers astroturfing their way through the GOP primary process and straw polls is an attempt at an end-run to impose a top down solution to what at it's core is a bottom-up problem.
-
^^great post^^
OTOH, I'm pretty much done with tax and spend/socialist-lite republicans.
Short of people 'going Galt' there is not much that can be done to stop the growth of the fed government leviathon if we keep electing tweedle -dee and tweedle-dum to the top offices.
-
Did they get beat, fire-hosed, imprisoned, and chewed on by dogs for their trouble? Sure. The Founders got even worse than that. The majority of them wound up dead or destitute for their trouble.
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your overall point, but I'm not sure the bolded part is correct. There is a story that makes the rounds about how most of the signers of the Declaration lost their lives, their families, their homes, etc. I am not sure how reliable that information is. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp
Ultimately, that's what's wrong with Ron Paul. His followers astroturfing their way through the GOP primary process and straw polls is an attempt at an end-run to impose a top down solution to what at it's core is a bottom-up problem.
In a similar vein, many of them brush aside concerns about Paul's image, the weakness of his campaigning strategy, and the way he presents himself by insisting that everyone should vote for him because he is right. No. You can't win in American politics by being right or having a good plan, and that is as it should be. You have to convince other Americans that you are right and/or have a good plan. It's called "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
-
You have to convince other Americans that you are right and/or have a good plan. It's called "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Nope. To be elected President, you only need to convince your base that you will pander to them when its convenient and give a 'tingle down the leg' of enough wishy-washy people in the middle.
-
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your overall point, but I'm not sure the bolded part is correct. There is a story that makes the rounds about how most of the signers of the Declaration lost their lives, their families, their homes, etc. I am not sure how reliable that information is. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp
Well, uh... I'm pretty darn sure all of the founders are dead, now, Mr. smarty-pants. =D
-
Nope. To be elected President, you only need to convince your base that you will pander to them when its convenient and give a 'tingle down the leg' of enough wishy-washy people in the middle.
same-same
-
Perhaps Ron Paul's real aim is not to win the majority--he's old enough to be a realist--but to protect the minority--as per our Constitution. That would be the first step in relaunching the greatest plan in history.
There's a lot of hating on Ron Paul in these pages. Just prying the bunker doors off the Federal Reserve and exposing what's inside to the light would, I believe, have a salutary shock effect on the American polity. Before people can opt for freedom they must first realize they are slaves.
-
There's a lot of hating on Ron Paul in these pages.
Such as?
-
Sometimes hate is damning with faint praise or less faint dismissal. I don't see a lot of politicians saying a word about The Federal Reserve much less reminding Americans, ceaselessly, of what our liberties are really all about. If some of his policy views are debatable--and I don't deny that--Paul deserves not only to be taken seriously but to be applauded. R.P. is not, admittedly, glamorous, but we have quite enough of that, don't we, in a society where most of our kids put "fame" as number one on their wish list?
-
Oh, I take him seriously. I also applaud him. There are equally serious and laudable people who don't see the Fed. Reserve as the locus of evil, and so far I find them more convincing. I guess the fact that I won’t jump on the anti-Fed bandwagon until I've studied the issue for myself makes me one of slaves who thinks I'm free. Goodness knows I'm a Pollyanna about this utopia of perfect freedom in which we live.
-
The Fed is a windmill for Mr. Paul and his acolytes to tilt at.
The Fed is not the problem. Yes, we may be better off without the Fed and returning to a gold standard. That's a matter FAAAAAAAAAAAR removed from the situation we are in now.
Re-instituting the gold standard would do nothing to affect our currently bloated government and coming entitlement meltdown. (And, without the Fed, congress would be free to debase the currency as they see fit.)
Honestly, what do Paulians expect to come about from auditing the Fed?
-
Sometimes hate is damning with faint praise or less faint dismissal. I don't see a lot of politicians saying a word about The Federal Reserve much less reminding Americans, ceaselessly, of what our liberties are really all about. If some of his policy views are debatable--and I don't deny that--Paul deserves not only to be taken seriously but to be applauded. R.P. is not, admittedly, glamorous, but we have quite enough of that, don't we, in a society where most of our kids put "fame" as number one on their wish list?
No, it isn't hate. If it was hate, we would be much more vicious. It is just taking a realistic view of his ideas and actions applied to actually accomplishing something in today's political climate. I think it is great that he is trying to bring these ideas into the public forum, but I think people like you need to be realistic and understand that he is not going to win, and we won't be better off electing Obama over a Not-Paul Republican. The tea party stuff has shown that it is possible to elect at least some Republicans who might actually try to cut spending and get things started. We need to keep that going. Just because we can't do it all at once, we don't need to give up and let the other side win.
-
The Fed is no windmill. Maybe a threshing machine? It is not just about the pros or cons of the gold standard or arguments about monetary policy mismanagement, it is about having America controlled by a clandestine criminal operation that arose under dubious circumstances, operates non-transparently, and has self-serving interests. The Federal Reserve is nothing like than a dynastic oligarchy that is hidden in plain sight. Everyone knows the great Mafia families of New York; how many Americans know the families behind the Federal Reserve? It is not the only problem in America but it is certainly symptomatic of where we began to go gravely wrong a century ago.
-
Sometimes hate is damning with faint praise or less faint dismissal. I don't see a lot of politicians saying a word about The Federal Reserve much less reminding Americans, ceaselessly, of what our liberties are really all about. If some of his policy views are debatable--and I don't deny that--Paul deserves not only to be taken seriously but to be applauded. R.P. is not, admittedly, glamorous, but we have quite enough of that, don't we, in a society where most of our kids put "fame" as number one on their wish list?
SO if we don't show sufficient adulation for your boy that means we hate him? Wow...
-
Re-instituting the gold standard would do nothing to affect our currently bloated government and coming entitlement meltdown. (And, without the Fed, congress would be free to debase the currency as they see fit.)
Gotta disagree. A hard commodity based currency would immediately affect our government in that it would remove easy access to credit. Yup, congress would still be free to debase the currency but it would do so at no interest. There is no reason Treasury could not do exactly what FED does at a significantly reduced cost to taxpayers. When congress debases the currency we have the opportunity to get at 'em periodically. We have no such opportunity WRT the FED. We can't even get a list of the FED's stockholders much less conduct moonshots such as audits.
-
Gotta disagree. A hard commodity based currency would immediately affect our government in that it would remove easy access to credit. Yup, congress would still be free to debase the currency but it would do so at no interest. There is no reason Treasury could not do exactly what FED does at a significantly reduced cost to taxpayers. When congress debases the currency we have the opportunity to get at 'em periodically. We have no such opportunity WRT the FED. We can't even get a list of the FED's stockholders much less conduct moonshots such as audits.
Your little handwaving about congress debasing the currency is not inconsequential. When a legislature has control over the value of a currency, the currency tends to have more inflation than one controlled by an "independent" body like the Fed.
I'm no Fed defender, but it's a very messed up set of priorities to think the Fed is the great problem in our country.
There's no grand conspiracy. The Fed doesn't have the power its detractors believe. NUMEROUS other problems should be addressed long before dealing with a fiat currency and the Fed.
Of course, the Fed provides a nice focal point for those that tend to believe in grand conspiracies. Perhaps that is why Ron Paul chose it as his windmill- he knows how to play to his base.
-
Of course The Fed isn't the only problem, but it's a black cloud that's been hanging over America for a century.
Ron Paul is hated--yes, and as I say, there are many levels of hatred--because he's rejected the whole Neo-con gospel that has gotten America into such trouble. Detractors want to accuse him of being anti-military, but our numerous wars of attrition are themselves anti-military.
Who is more quixotic, you or Ron Paul?
-
Of course The Fed isn't the only problem, but it's a black cloud that's been hanging over America for a century.
Ron Paul is hated--yes, and as I say, there are many levels of hatred--because he's rejected the whole Neo-con gospel that has gotten America into such trouble. Detractors want to accuse him of being anti-military, but our numerous wars of attrition are themselves anti-military.
Who is more quixotic, you or Ron Paul?
Racist! OK, lulz aside, don't pull this false dichotomy garbage here. No one here is stupid enough to believe that the alternative to Ron Paul-ism is neo-conservatism.
-
Yeah, but the people who are most uncomfortable with him are those in the Neo-con camp.
-
Perry may not be the GOP's "golden boy" after all....
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/bruce-bartlett-perry-idiot/41489/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/bruce-bartlett-perry-idiot/41489/)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/karl-rove-calls-rick-perrys-bernanke-comments-unpresidential/41349/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/karl-rove-calls-rick-perrys-bernanke-comments-unpresidential/41349/)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE77D0ZW20110819?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE77D0ZW20110819?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News))
-
Perry may not be the GOP's "golden boy" after all....
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/bruce-bartlett-perry-idiot/41489/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/bruce-bartlett-perry-idiot/41489/)
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/karl-rove-calls-rick-perrys-bernanke-comments-unpresidential/41349/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/08/karl-rove-calls-rick-perrys-bernanke-comments-unpresidential/41349/)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE77D0ZW20110819?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News) (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/19/us-usa-campaign-obama-idUSTRE77D0ZW20110819?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/topNews+(News+/+US+/+Top+News))
I wonder if this is more damaging than Obama claiming that the USA has 57 states??? :laugh:
-
The fix is in. Problem is, there's more than one "fixer." =|
-
The beltway types want Romney. He'll get the nomination.
-
The beltway types want Romney. He'll get the nomination.
Is Karl Rove not a beltway type?
-
JEB
2012
-
JEB
2012
Some people said voters weren't ready for another Texas Gov. I think they definitely would not be ready for another Bush. Not anytime soon.
-
There's no grand conspiracy. The Fed doesn't have the power its detractors believe. NUMEROUS other problems should be addressed long before dealing with a fiat currency and the Fed.
Ah, a strawman.
I do not need to believe in a deliberate conspiracy to believe that there are in the West social elites - of bureaucrats, of politicians, of corporate leaders - who work to maintain the status-quo. Some of them do it on instinct - a reading of Mises' The Anti-Capitalist Mentality elaborates on this far better than I ever could. Others do it simply because they want to maintain some narrow selfish interest. Yet others openly and fully believe in the System.
There really is, after all, a Bilderberg hotel, and wealthy and powerful people do meet at it- not as a united conspirator force, but simply because it is a designated hangout for the social elite.
Just because I do not believe in deliberate Black Castles of Evil housing Black Lord Conspirators with Mind Control Rays, does not mean that I do not believe that there is a system, and that system includes central banking and the state as a lender of last resort.
-
No, it is not a straw man. He was addressing someone who has portrayed the Fed. Reserve as a conspiracy.
It...is about having America controlled by a clandestine criminal operation that arose under dubious circumstances, operates non-transparently, and has self-serving interests. The Federal Reserve is nothing like than a dynastic oligarchy that is hidden in plain sight. Everyone knows the great Mafia families of New York; how many Americans know the families behind the Federal Reserve?
-
Thanks for quoting me. There was a typo there: I meant to write that the Fed is nothing more than a dynastic oligarchy that is hidden in plain sight. We can play semantic games about what is and isn't a conspiracy, what is and isn't collusion, what is and isn't a happy confluence of interests, etc., but The Fed is, was, and has been the financial plaything of a small group of people united by philosophy, values, and, often, marriage. I'll stand by my analog of the NY "crime families." Perhaps you believe that the Warburgs are really superior to the Gambinos. Keep thinking that.
-
I wasn't disputing anything you said about the Federal Reserve.
-
The FED is a cartel.
-
From a friend on FB who is in the higher echelons of SC GOPdom.
Myrtle Beach Tea Party
Myrtle Beach Tea Party August Straw Poll - 8/22 Meeting
Rick Perry - 55%; Michele Bachmann - 26%; Rick Santorum - 13%; Herman Cain - 3%; Mitt Romney - 3%; Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman and Ron Paul - 0%
-
Myrtle Beach Tea Party
Myrtle Beach Tea Party August Straw Poll - 8/22 Meeting
Rick Perry - 55%; Michele Bachmann - 26%; Rick Santorum - 13%; Herman Cain - 3%; Mitt Romney - 3%; Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman and Ron Paul - 0%
Looking at SC demographics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina#Religion
http://www.statemaster.com/state/SC-south-carolina
45% of people are Southern Baptists, according to Wikipedia... and only 6% are non-religious. Wiki lacks citations for that section, but the second "statemaster" link corroborates the Wiki 6% assertion with a close number... 7%.
A wiki article with much better sourcing for American religious demographics shows:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Main_religious_preferences_of_Americans
15% non-religious population.
Anywhere from 59-76% christian, with only 5.3% of that being members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
SC is not representative of the US electoral demographic. It is succeptible to Perry's jeebuzing (http://blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2011/08/04/perry-comfortable-with-support-of-marriage-abortion-constitutional-amendments.aspx).
Sounds like the Myrtle Beach TEA Party has forgotten what "TEA" means.
http://blogs.cbn.com/beltwaybuzz/archive/2011/08/04/perry-comfortable-with-support-of-marriage-abortion-constitutional-amendments.aspx
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8714-rick-perry-and-the-largest-tax-hike-in-texas
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=56615334&category=views&id=20100726090644
-
SC is not representative of the US electoral demographic....It is succeptible to Perry's jeebuzing.
Sounds like the Myrtle Beach TEA Party has forgotten what "TEA" means.
These were my thoughts almost to the letter.
-
SC's elected government is a herd of rampaging RINOs. The SC TEA party sunk the leading republican primary candidate (Gresham Barrett) for daring to defend his vote in favor of the bailouts. The national TEA party in the form of Palin endorse a down ticket candidate who sounded OK but had zero experience. Said candidate (Nikki Haley) won the primary handily then proceeded to squeak by in the statewide election. Ever since she has made kissy-kissy with the state RINO establishment losing a lot of her TEA rhetoric.
What you are seeing in SC is the cold hand of establishment republicanism (RINO) compromise and co-opting the state TEA organization which is the same battle going on at a national level. I have yet to see or hear of any bloviating by the TEA group condemning Haley for her RINO actions. I have yet to hear any pronouncement from national TEA types condemning Haley for her proclivities. Matter of fact what we do see and hear in SC is evidence Haley is positioning herself for VP slot. She has a biography being ghosted and now we hear her book pimp is none other than the same person who pimped GW Bush's memoirs. That is some pretty heavy establishment aid.
The fact that Perry comes out looking good in a TEA poll is not surprising given Perry's establishment cred and TEA rhetoric.
-
"Tea Party" is a reference to the Boston Tea Party, in which "Tea" stood for tea.
We are puzzled to learn that Rick Perry's success in a South Carolina Tea Party poll is being credited to (or blamed on) a high incidence of Christian self-identification in that state. Puzzled, because we were earlier informed that the ever-spooky religious right was but a fringe movement that should be shoved aside to make room for the overwhelming numbers of religiously-indifferent "TEA Party" voters obsessed with social issues.
Yet Perry's success doesn't seem to be viewed as a refutation of the theory, apparently because of unsubstantiated claims (from Wikipedia) that South Carolingians are more religious than denizens of other states.
-
Actually, I've always understood "TEA" to stand for "Taxed Enough Already"
As for "religious demographics", something tells me they are all but impossible to really sort out. How many people have you met that claim "Christian", but really aren't?
-
Actually, I've always understood "TEA" to stand for "Taxed Enough Already"
Backronym. The Tea Party was originally focused on high levels of spending. Not to say that tax rates aren't part of the complaint, of course. This has kind of annoyed me, ever since I heard some news-monkey say that the Tea Party events kicked off on 15 April, with the implication that Tea Party-ers just don't want to pay their fair share in taxes. The Tea Party events actually began in February.
As for "religious demographics", something tells me they are all but impossible to really sort out. How many people have you met that claim "Christian", but really aren't?
There is that.