Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on January 17, 2012, 08:12:27 AM
-
At least here in Texas, I think we've decided enough bullshit.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/01/14/ron-paul-wins-texas-presidential-straw-poll/
>:D
-
When is the Texas primary?
-
When is the Texas primary?
April 3rd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
-
Kick down the barn doors =D
-
Maybe 03apr, maybe not.
The Holder doj, under the 196x voting wrongs act, disapproved of the tx redistricting plan, so tx went to federal court for relief.
Everything is still tbd.
Regards,
roo_ster
-
Fox (at least our version of it) seems to be virulently anti-Paul at the moment... does this mean he is winning?
-
Fox (at least our version of it) seems to be virulently anti-Paul at the moment... does this mean he is winning?
It means he is challenging the partisan status quo, which is what the media relies on (especially fox), for it's "nooz"
-
It means he is challenging the partisan status quo, which is what the media relies on (especially fox), for it's "nooz"
This.
I have seen and heard folk I always thought as reasonable, rational commentators go completely apeshiite over Ron Paul.
I then look into the reason for the primate poo-plosion and wonder what the big whoop is? Every time one of the usual commentators goes emotionally incontinent over Ron Paul, it makes me want to support him just a little more. If he is causing this level of scrotal torque among so many of the self-appinted elite/establishment, RP must be doing something right.
-
I was never a big Ron Paul for President supporter, but I keep thinking he has to be better than Obama and likely Romney also. At the very least, it would be 4 years of no new laws. I could live with the few things I don't care for.
-
I was never a big Ron Paul for President supporter, but I keep thinking he has to be better than Obama and likely Romney also. At the very least, it would be 4 years of no new laws. I could live with the few things I don't care for.
Ron Paul is dangerously naive in most of his policies. I believe he is one of the worst choices we could have for President.
However, since I think Obama and Romney are worse, I'm likely voting for Ron Paul in the VA primary. (All other choices having been kept off the ballot.)
-
Ron Paul is dangerously naive in most of his policies. I believe he is one of the worst choices we could have for President.
However, since I think Obama and Romney are worse, I'm likely voting for Ron Paul in the VA primary. (All other choices having been kept off the ballot.)
We have tried the common brand of 'realism'. It did not work.
-
I was never a big Ron Paul for President supporter, but I keep thinking he has to be better than Obama and likely Romney also. At the very least, it would be 4 years of no new laws. I could live with the few things I don't care for.
Not to take away anything from RP but a rusted out, bent up trash can would be better than Obama.
Unless things change he will get my vote in the OK primary.
-
Ron Paul is dangerously naive in most of his policies. I believe he is one of the worst choices we could have for President.
However, since I think Obama and Romney are worse, I'm likely voting for Ron Paul in the VA primary. (All other choices having been kept off the ballot.)
What's dangerously naive about following the constitution and intent of the founding fathers? Let me guess.... Thomas Jefferson would totally nuke Iran?
-
What's dangerously naive about following the constitution and intent of the founding fathers? Let me guess.... Thomas Jefferson would totally nuke Iran?
No, Tunisia.
-
If Obama & company get their way, the Texas primary will be held on Nov. 3rd......
-
No, Tunisia.
That bastard would not even ask for Congressional authorization.
You'd wake up one day and Tunis is a smoking hole in the ground.
-
What's dangerously naive about following the constitution and intent of the founding fathers? Let me guess.... Thomas Jefferson would totally nuke Iran?
What's naive is his lack of a plan to incrementally wean the United States off of the welfare state. What is naive is his thoughts that if only we weren't supporting our allies, our enemies would not hate us. What is naive is his thought that a gold standard is a cure-all.
And, yes, if Iran attacked us, TJ wouldn't hesitate to nuke Iran.
-
What's naive is his lack of a plan to incrementally wean the United States off of the welfare state.
John Brown didn't have a plan to incrementally abolish slavery either.
What is naive is his thought that a gold standard is a cure-all.
It's not possible to fix the welfare state without destroying state-issued fiat currency. Ron Paul knows this.
-
John Brown didn't have a plan to incrementally abolish slavery either.
It's not possible to fix the welfare state without destroying state-issued fiat currency. Ron Paul knows this.
Forgive me if I'm not eager to replicate the results from not incrementally ending slavery. Care to scale up the casualties to current population?
-
John Brown didn't have a plan to incrementally abolish slavery either.
It's not possible to fix the welfare state without destroying state-issued fiat currency. Ron Paul knows this.
Also, I note John Brown was never elected president. I guess there's another similarity to Ron Paul.
-
Forgive me if I'm not eager to replicate the results from not incrementally ending slavery. Care to scale up the casualties to current.t population?
How many people died as a result of the end of slavery in England? Which was not incremental.
I don't remember there being many casualties after 13th Amendment either (and we all know the war was not, to the North, mainly about slavery).
Besides, I doubt you'd have this view if you were a plantation slave.
-
Also, I note John Brown was never elected president. I guess there's another similarity to Ron Paul.
Slavery ended up being abolished outright, not gradually done away with.
-
Ron Paul says things that are logical, and not corpo-politically approved. This drives everyone in the establishment nuts, because they've created an environment where any challenge to their power is an outrage to be condemned as ludicrous.
What's that? You don't want wall street bankers controlling the currency through the fed! How dare you suggest that monetary doesn't benefit the people!
And to suggest that Iran is less of a threat things Russia and china! You can't be serious, Russians and Chinese wear suits and read books, them ranians is MUSLIMS!!!!!!
Haha, the most hilarious thing about Ron Paul is that his positions are basic common sense, being portrayed as radically new or out there ideas.
-
Somehow I knew you'd like Ron Paul. [tinfoil]
-
Somehow I knew you'd like Ron Paul. [tinfoil]
I take that as a compliment - the more I learn about his policies the more I like them. Ron Paul wants to demolish state power and increase individual power. That is a good thing.
-
Somehow I knew you'd like Ron Paul. [tinfoil]
Say what you will about De Selby's views, but he's always consistently supported individual liberty.
-
Say what you will about De Selby's views, but he's always consistently supported individual liberty.
This is the other thing that seems to be driving the establishment political structure nuts -- Paul is creating (or perhaps pointing out) common ground among people with otherwise disparate political views.
-
I meant De Selby, but it applies to Ron Paul too. =D
-
I take that as a compliment - the more I learn about his policies the more I like them. Ron Paul wants to demolish state power and increase individual power. That is a good thing.
RP has been consistent in this view, too. Unlike the flim flam artists on the stage with him.
Nancy and Newt, sitting in a tree....
-
I take that as a compliment - the more I learn about his policies the more I like them. Ron Paul wants to demolish state power and increase individual power. That is a good thing.
Too bad his foreign policy is straight out of a TWILIGHT ZONE episode...............[tinfoil]
-
Too bad his foreign policy is straight out of a TWILIGHT ZONE episode...............[tinfoil]
First Lackey: Boss! We gots a war comin'
President: Start up the Congress!
-
First Lackey: Boss! We gots a war comin'
President: Start up the Congress!
I said TWILIGHT ZONE, not RAWHIDE. [popcorn]
-
Fox (at least our version of it) seems to be virulently anti-Paul at the moment... does this mean he is winning?
The more Fox hates him, the more Democrats will vote for him.
-
Too bad his foreign policy is straight out of a TWILIGHT ZONE episode...............[tinfoil]
What, because he doesn't want to preemptively wipe every little despot off the map? ;/
-
What, because he doesn't want to preemptively wipe every little despot off the map? ;/
Obomba announced today the he is going to wipe out* the majority of States that refuse to submit to the mandatory health insurance edict. :mad:
The Dictatorship is getting pretty firmly established :police:
* well, take over those states and make them comply
-
What, because he doesn't want to preemptively wipe every little despot off the map? ;/
NO ONE wants to do THAT. Bizarro strawman argument. [tinfoil]
-
NO ONE wants to do THAT. Bizarro strawman argument. [tinfoil]
Seems to be the accepted right wing response to Iran. :facepalm:
-
??? How many candidates are seriously wanting us to go after every last tinpot dictator?
Seriously, you propose one extreme in response to an imagined extreme on the other side.
Ron Paul seems to want to trust Iran with a nuke. No one has any reason to believe Iran is trustworthy with a nuke. We know Israel is because they have them and haven't used them.
Are we really rady to believe Ahmadinejab is nothing but bluff and bluster?
He may be but I'm not putting any $$ on it.
-
??? How many candidates are seriously wanting us to go after every last tinpot dictator?
Seriously, you propose one extreme in response to an imagined extreme on the other side.
Ron Paul seems to want to trust Iran with a nuke. No one has any reason to believe Iran is trustworthy with a nuke. We know Israel is because they have them and haven't used them.
Are we really rady to believe Ahmadinejab is nothing but bluff and bluster?
He may be but I'm not putting any $$ on it.
Yes it was an over the top shot back to make a point. There is always some bad guy for them to get us riled about. The tail is wagging the dog.
Not quite right. Ron Paul has said we do not have the constitutional authority to stop Iran from acquiring a nuke. That's not the same as trusting them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA&sns=em
-
Iirc, the Constitution says "... reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Individual power is pure democracy at best and chaos at worst. That is why the Founders put together a Federalist system and a representative republic.
Ron Paul's value is the message that he has kept to all these years. Because of Ron Paul, the TEA party became alive again. Because of that some truly libertarian/conservative representatives are beginning to get elected and are sticking to their guns. My guy Justin Amash is one of them. Ron Paul knows he can't be elected but he will go to sleep one day and know the tremendous positive impact he has had.
Our national state of affairs presently has evolved over the last 70 plus years. We cannot expect that damage to be healed in a short time. Obama and his minions need to be ejected next year, in toto. The key is that he must be beaten and a few more libertarian/conservative elected in the legislative branch and trustworthy respecters of the Constitution and B of R be appointed to the SCOTUS. Incremental changes are the best if real patriots are elected. I don't care if they are liberals or conservatives, only that they leave their personal opinions someplace else other than the courtroom.
-
A local conservative talk guy said the other day that he agrees with probably 90 to 95% of what Ron Paul does, but that 5% or so is a doozy. I tend to fit that also. The biggest thing for me right now is I think I would rather deal with that 5% of Ron Paul for 4 years than Obama.
-
Our national state of affairs presently has evolved over the last 70 plus years.
70 plus 80 years =(
-
We cannot expect that damage to be healed in a short time.
Why not?
Obama and his minions need to be ejected next year, in toto. The key is that he must be beaten and a few more libertarian/conservative elected in the legislative branch and trustworthy respecters of the Constitution and B of R be appointed to the SCOTUS. Incremental changes are the best if real patriots are elected.
And a President Romney will weaken these patriots in the long-term.
-
Yes it was an over the top shot back to make a point. There is always some bad guy for them to get us riled about. The tail is wagging the dog.
Not quite right. Ron Paul has said we do not have the constitutional authority to stop Iran from acquiring a nuke. That's not the same as trusting them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDvaTqLlZlA&sns=em
No "tails are wagging" any dogs.
Should we have gotten riled up about Tojo and Hitler before Dec. 7, 1941?
Probably, but we managed to do a pretty good job of avoiding war until ther war found us.
We did a good job of treating Islamic terrorists as a law enforcement problem until Sept. 11, 2001.
And there are plenty of nutcakes in charge of some odd govt. who do kooky things and say or do nasty things about America, like, for example, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.
Before we look for "Constitutional authority" to stop Iran from getting any kind of a weapon, from a squirtgun to a nuke, we have to have the cajones to actually go through with some plan to stop Iran's nuclear program ---and I don't think we do.
The world is full of bad guys and always has been. There's no need to create phony bogeymen when there are real ones out there.
The big question is which ones are truly dangerous to us or to countries of strategic importance to us, or to allied countries. Right now Ahmadinejab qualifies if only because of his antisemitic rantings and nuclear ambitions, as well as his belief in a final apocolypse.
We don't have to look for bogeymen for the politicians to use to get us "riled up," the world is full of them, and they're only "bogeymen" while they're pestering some other people. When they send 19 terrorists to kill 2973 human beings inside our borders they become a national security threat. Bin Laden was a great "bogeyman" before that; right out of central casting.
I am not trying to say we need to TKO Ahmadinejab or do anything so far as Iran is concerned. I've already said I don't think we have the stones to do it. But I am saying that if there is going to be another blow-up in this world .... another Pearl Harbor, another North Korea invading South Korea, another invasion of Poland....I think it's a good bet Iran will be at the center of it.
-
Nearly a trillion a year in defense spending.
15 trillion in debt.
42 million people on welfare.
Actual unemployment in double digits
20 million illegal immigrants
A welfare state run amok.
Patriot act.
Gitmo.
War on drugs.
I reallly don't care if Iran nukes Isreal.
-
I reallly don't care if Iran nukes Isreal.
Yes. It's a good thing the United States has no interests whatsoever in a peaceful Middle East.
On a TOTALLY unrelated note, I've heard predictions gas will be $5 per gallon this summer. That'll sure boost the economy, huh!?
-
Yes. It's a good thing the United States has no interests whatsoever in a peaceful Middle East.
On a TOTALLY unrelated note, I've heard predictions gas will be $5 per gallon this summer. That'll sure boost the economy, huh!?
News flash: Its already not a peaceful middle east.
Re: $5 gas
Obama killing the Keystone pipeline will probably ensure that happens.
-
News flash: Its already not a peaceful middle east.
Re: $5 gas
Obama killing the Keystone pipeline will probably ensure that happens.
News flash: it could be worse still.
And, you are quite right about Keystone. Purposely slowing up drilling permits in the gulf is another factor. (I'm not saying the Middle East is currently causing all our energy woes. But, as a fungible commodity, any problems in the Middle East will be reflected in the price of oil, even if we were able to provide the entirety of our oil needs domestically.)
-
Iran has also been a big issue with oil and gas speculators. Threats to cut of the strait of Hormuz have contributed to a spike in speculative costs.
Which is the sort of blustering that plays well for their domestic audience in response to the wests big talk about them wanting a nuke.
Its funny how everytime we start talking big on Iran, they start acting like a 2 year old. Huh.
-
Nearly a trillion a year in defense spending.
15 trillion in debt.
42 million people on welfare.
Actual unemployment in double digits
20 million illegal immigrants
A welfare state run amok.
Patriot act.
Gitmo.
War on drugs.
I reallly don't care if Iran nukes Isreal.
Oooooookaaaaaaayyyy..... I guess you're out of the argument, then................ [popcorn] ???
-
how'd paul do in his home district this time? thats been a sore spot in the past
-
We already have $5 a gallon gas.
We pay for our gas at more places than the pump.
-
We already have $5 a gallon gas.
We pay for our gas at more places than the pump.
a much ignored truth!
-
Iran has also been a big issue with oil and gas speculators. Threats to cut of the strait of Hormuz have contributed to a spike in speculative costs.
Which is the sort of blustering that plays well for their domestic audience in response to the wests big talk about them wanting a nuke.
Its funny how everytime we start talking big on Iran, they start acting like a 2 year old. Huh.
This is quite true.
It's also why "invasion" has been our modus operandi for the past several decades. That or "targeted strikes".
It's because we can't make a credible nuclear threat. We have the capability, but the world knows we don't have the will for that.
If we WERE a credible nuclear threat, Iran wouldn't be acting like a two year old. As I've said many times, the United States is the most benevolent "empire" the world has ever known. (Please note I put empire in quotes because we don't actually have an empire. Just like with our nuclear response, we have the capability, but not the will. Also note, I'm not interested in an the US having an empire, just pointing this out.)
-
we don't actually have an empire
Somehow we keep forgetting to plunder after we conquer :facepalm:
-
This is quite true.
It's also why "invasion" has been our modus operandi for the past several decades. That or "targeted strikes".
It's because we can't make a credible nuclear threat. We have the capability, but the world knows we don't have the will for that.
If we WERE a credible nuclear threat, Iran wouldn't be acting like a two year old. As I've said many times, the United States is the most benevolent "empire" the world has ever known. (Please note I put empire in quotes because we don't actually have an empire. Just like with our nuclear response, we have the capability, but not the will. Also note, I'm not interested in an the US having an empire, just pointing this out.)
If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now. There's a reason we have a no first-use policy, and it isn't just benevolence. Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you'll use nukes to settle your military disputes is crazy.
I keep hearing about how peaceful the "empire" is - what's the evidence for this? How did that get measured?
-
If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now.
You underestimate how reasonable everybody involve was.
And frankly I doubt this whole 'carving sticks to catch dinner' meme.
-
If there were a credible nuclear threat, the Russians, Chinese, or us would have miscalculated in times of crisis and we'd all be carving sticks to catch dinner by now. There's a reason we have a no first-use policy, and it isn't just benevolence. Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you'll use nukes to settle your military disputes is crazy.
I keep hearing about how peaceful the "empire" is - what's the evidence for this? How did that get measured?
What "empire" are you talking about?
We used to have a "launch on warning" policy which worked. Beyond that we pretty much didn't advertize how we'd play the game. Signaling to nuclear armed rivals that you will use nukes to settle ..."disputes" is only "crazy" when the statement is made outside of any meaningful context.
If the ..."dispute" had been a confirmed first launch of Soviet ICBMs against us, retaliating with our own nukes would be very justified. Thank God it was never necessary.
I suppose I should be used to "lack of context" in DeSelby's posts by now .... though. [popcorn] [tinfoil]
-
Somehow we keep forgetting to plunder after we conquer :facepalm:
....and looting....don't forget the looting.....
....in fact, we should add rape to the list, too....if our SOP was to capture and rape the leaders of hostile nations, they might just settle down a bit....
-
You underestimate how reasonable everybody involve was.
And frankly I doubt this whole 'carving sticks to catch dinner' meme.
Had the US used or threatened nuclear weapons for anything other than a nuclear attack, it wouldnt matter how reasonable we thought were - the other powers would have correctly interpreted that as a sign that we were not reasonable. They wouldve adjusted their policies accordingly, in a way that dramatically increased the odds of a first-strike by them.
How far society falls from a nuke strike depends on how many of the relevant brains get taken out - it isn't just the damage to infrastructure, which would be severe.
-
Had the US used or threatened nuclear weapons for anything other than a nuclear attack, it wouldnt matter how reasonable we thought were - the other powers would have correctly interpreted that as a sign that we were not reasonable. They wouldve adjusted their policies accordingly, in a way that dramatically increased the odds of a first-strike by them.
The USSR had no such no-first-strike policy.
How far society falls from a nuke strike depends on how many of the relevant brains get taken out - it isn't just the damage to infrastructure, which would be severe.
With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.
-
With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.
All we need is a nuke to get civilization back?
-
The USSR had no such no-first-strike policy.
With the proper civil defense measures - which at the time were taken by everybody - there would be no new stone age. There would be widespread horrors of many kinds, of course (think of the starvation seen in Soviet Russia during and after WW2), but civilization would continue.
They did in W Europe, at the beginning of any conflict, to soften up NATO forces.
-
Soviet plans for Western Europe explicitly involved a series of tactical nuclear strikes.
-
A local conservative talk guy said the other day that he agrees with probably 90 to 95% of what Ron Paul does, but that 5% or so is a doozy.
I feel the same about every other candidate, only with the percentages flipped. So the 5% 'doozy' isn't a deal breaker for me.