Post by: tmg19103 on September 28, 2007, 04:56:57 PM
Note the web traffic to his campaign website compareded to the other front runners. He is having a fundraising push to end the quarter and just raised about $250,000 online the last 24 hours. End of 2nd quarter he was second to Romeny and Giuliani with cash on hand and ahead of McCain. There is talk he raised more money than any other GOP candidate this past quarter.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?site0=www.ronpaul2008.com%2F&site1=www.mittromney.com%2F%20&site2=www.joinrudy2008.com%2F&site3=www.johnmccain.com&site4=fred08.com&y=r&z=3&h=300&w=610&range=1m&size=Medium&url=http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
His position on gun rights (which no other candidate can touch):
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/gunowners/
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 28, 2007, 06:14:49 PM
Post by: thebaldguy on September 28, 2007, 06:34:18 PM
Name recognition is everything; most people I run into have never heard of Ron Paul. These people, like the vast majority of Americans, get the majority of their news from the above sources. That is who they vote for. I think that most Americans view elections like they were wagering on the horse track; they vote for who they think will win more than who may be the best person for the job.
How can Ron Paul get mentioned on the above media sources listed above? He can't. He won't. They ignore him as they support other candidates directly/indirectly. One hope is that millions turn out to vote in the Republican primaries to get him on the ticket. However, most Republicans don't support Ron Paul.
That being said, I will vote for Ron Paul even if I have to write him in. Republicans and Democrats who know me (I'm a solid independent with libertarian leanings) each coach me to vote for their candidate as they are not as bad as the other candidate.
Post by: Bogie on September 28, 2007, 06:44:22 PM
If it hadn't been for the first Bimbo Alert, Clinton wouldn't have been elected... The democrats were pushing a good dozen candidates (about like the Republicans this time), and he got a LOT of media attention. At the same time that folks were feeling forgiving - this was after Clarence Thomas, and a coupla other prominent sex/politics things... So, instead of being a career limiting move, that got him RECOGNITION, which got him more publicity to start out, which ended up getting him into the white house. I think that Hillary is ahead right now because of the name recognition, and the fact that NOBODY really wants to vote for someone named Obama, but that can go away - folks are more fickle now...
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 28, 2007, 06:46:37 PM
Post by: Boomhauer on September 28, 2007, 07:22:53 PM
They go in, select "Straight Democrat" or "Straight Republican" to select the party they prefer. They don't stop to read the names and positions and think about who they are voting for.
Unless Ron Paul is the republican nominee, and he won't be (he is going up against Guiliani, Romney, and McCain), he doesn't stand a chance. You don't hear about Fred Thompson much, either, but you hear about him a lot more than Ron Paul.
Electing the president is a popularity contest. And that still hinges on the Mainstream Media.
Do you hear about Richardson or any of the other Democrats running? No. You only hear about Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. One of those three (leaning towards Clinton or Obama as the likely candidate) will get the nomination.
I don't care how much money RP has raised, or how many supporters he has on the internet. I don't hear his name mentioned when talking to other people, nor do I hear about him when the morning news comes on.
So, while he is qualified under the Constitution and there is the possibility that he could be elected, it probably ain't going to happen.
Post by: tmg19103 on September 28, 2007, 07:36:38 PM
Here is a link to each and EVERY GOP straw poll held this year. If you scroll down you will see Ron Paul head-to-head with the other GOP candidates. Why is it that Ron Paul's campaign website gets 20 times the traffic of the other candidates, why is it that overall he is #1 in straw poll wins, yet these supposed "scientific" Gallop polls of 400 people who answer their listed landline phone and who are registered and voted in the last election are so different in their outcomes?
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/
Also, watch, listen and learn about Ron Paul from the Rev. John Killian, where Ron Paul won the western Alabama straw poll with 81% of the vote.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZTpYTQLz6c
Ron Paul's position on the 2A, which no other candidate can touch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWbvtePgT90
Post by: Finch on September 28, 2007, 08:15:35 PM
"I support him but he will never get elected" type stuff that will prevent it. I think he has a chance. Everyone I tell about him loves his stance on most things, its just a matter of getting the word out. In an age such as ours, there is no reason to continue saying that the MSM controls everything. There are plenty of ways around them.
Post by: Bogie on September 28, 2007, 09:45:08 PM
Post by: Euclidean on September 28, 2007, 10:05:59 PM
Sure he could, but it's attitudes like:
"I support him but he will never get elected" type stuff thatwill could prevent it. I think he has a chance. Everyone I tell about him loves his stance on most things, its just a matter of getting the word out. In an age such as ours, there is no reason to continue saying that the MSM controls everything. There are plenty of ways around them.
"I support him but he will never get elected" type stuff that
Ron Paul is not perfect, but no one has given me a reason beyond they don't like his foreign policy to support anyone else when I asked. Finch is absolutely right in his appraisal of the situation. When a rational person looks at the current situation, it's apparent who the best choice is at this time in history. The opposition to his candidacy seems to consist of an irrational, emotional reaction Finch has so elegantly summarized in so few words.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on September 29, 2007, 03:30:49 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 04:34:00 AM
Quote
Ron Paul is not perfect, but no one has given me a reason beyond they don't like his foreign policy to support anyone else when I asked. Finch is absolutely right in his appraisal of the situation. When a rational person looks at the current situation, it's apparent who the best choice is at this time in history. The opposition to his candidacy seems to consist of an irrational, emotional reaction Finch has so elegantly summarized in so few words.
What the? His foreign policy is reason enough. It's idiotic and dangerous.
Post by: ilbob on September 29, 2007, 07:08:43 AM
I don't think he has much chance, but you just never know.
He is trying the same tact that Howard Dean did, and showing much the same results. Lots of Internet and political groupie buzz, lots of money, but not much outside that limited arena. If nothing else, he forces the other more mainstream candidates to address some of the issues in a more realistic way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 07:27:11 AM
He is trying the same tact that Howard Dean did, and showing much the same results. Lots of Internet and political groupie buzz, lots of money, but not much outside that limited arena.
I already said that, but much more succinctly.
Post by: tmg19103 on September 29, 2007, 09:49:27 AM
Post by: Euclidean on September 29, 2007, 10:00:15 AM
What the? His foreign policy is reason enough. It's idiotic and dangerous.
You can say that, but you haven't (and can't) substantiate it. It might look that way if you just look at parts of it out of context, sure, but when you look at the whole platform it makes sense. You can make anything sound bad or stupid (or good and wise) by pulling out small snippets that sound bad (good) out of context.
Dr. Paul has at least researched his stance thoroughly, and has even had to go so far as to give his opponents a list of recommended reading on the topic. I doubt any other candidate has any thoughts on the topic beyond "I'll make it up as I go along." He's also talking about American sovereignty, the elephant in the room as far as foreign policy is concerned, which no one else has even mentioned in their campaign. But we already argued this in the other thread.
Again, Ron Paul supporters seem to be forming arguments, critics, the same insults.
Post by: wooderson on September 29, 2007, 10:07:34 AM
Post by: tmg19103 on September 29, 2007, 10:56:45 AM
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/015722.html
http://commentsfromleftfield.com/2007/09/ron-paul-really
Post by: tmg19103 on September 29, 2007, 11:10:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 11:31:32 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 29, 2007, 12:16:31 PM
What the? His foreign policy is reason enough. It's idiotic and dangerous.
You can say that, but you haven't (and can't) substantiate it....Ron Paul supporters seem to be forming arguments, critics, the same insults.
Oh, heavens. One could say that about anything. Both of us are offering opinions, so mine hardly suffers from the fact that I didn't "substantiate" it. You didn't "substantiate" yours, either.
Post by: Sergeant Bob on September 29, 2007, 01:41:52 PM
I think the thread title is a bit misleading.
It should be called....
The Ron Paul Campaign Thread. Vote for Ron Paul!!
Post by: Waitone on September 29, 2007, 04:40:52 PM
Post by: Fly320s on September 30, 2007, 11:11:58 AM
BTW, Ron Paul's campaign raised over $1,000,000 ths past week.
Post by: Bogie on September 30, 2007, 11:48:03 AM
Primaries will basically leave him sitting. He'll get a little bit more publicity, but the #2 (or 3, or 4, or 5...) candidate won't get a lot of time... True Believers will draft him for a third party, or will organize a national write-in candidate campaign.
Hillary will have 49% of the vote, the Republican challenger 45%, and independents, including Paul, will split 6%.
Post by: brer on September 30, 2007, 12:34:12 PM
The neocons currently run the party but they cannot win without the Goldwater type conservatives. Might be after a loss they may start getting back to actual conservatism.
May be that the republicans will start fielding candidates that I can vote for if this happens.
Post by: Bogie on September 30, 2007, 02:56:03 PM
Last time the party got split, we had Perot, and Clinton got elected.
Then Bush was the best the Republicans could get to run against Gore.
Sheesh.
I predict that in 2012, if they're still having elections, that the Republicans figure that if what they did this time didn't work, they need to do it twice as hard, and they'll try to elect some backwoods snake handlin' nutjob...
In actuality, the Republicans _really_ need to lose the religious right. There are a LOT of people who are fiscally and politically conservative, but they get REALLY turned off by the rhetoric from all the folks who defected from the democrats... Or maybe that was the plan... Hmmm...
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 30, 2007, 03:01:25 PM
Quote
In actuality, the Republicans _really_ need to lose the religious right. There are a LOT of people who are fiscally and politically conservative, but they get REALLY turned off by the rhetoric
Can't keep from pimping that line at every opportunity, can you?
Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with. Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans. Good luck with that. The social-issue, values-voter issues attract far more than they repel.
Post by: brer on September 30, 2007, 04:23:18 PM
If you actually want to do a relative set of judgements, Bill Clinton's presidency was actually far more conservative than Bush's is.
If the republican party does not want to follow classic Goldwater conservatism in lieu of neoconservatism, that is fine. I will vote democrat just to oppose them. I find neoconservatism far more distasteful than most democrat viewpoints.
Post by: Paddy on September 30, 2007, 06:53:57 PM
Quote
Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with. Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans
Sorry to bust your bubble. dude, but the 'religious right' has long since been marginalized to the lunatic fringe.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 30, 2007, 07:12:20 PM
brer, I hope you can also expand on your point of view, if you please.
Post by: Paddy on September 30, 2007, 07:17:34 PM
Quote
their views on abortion, homosexual marriage and other issues are shared by a great many not-so-religious conservatives - such as Ron Paul.
Not federal issues, see the 1st Amendment. Also, Ron Paul is a nonstarter.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 30, 2007, 07:18:30 PM
Post by: Paddy on September 30, 2007, 07:21:41 PM
Quote
Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with. Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans. Good luck with that. The social-issue, values-voter issues attract far more than they repel.
Apparently, you believe the hype from the pulpit.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2007, 01:47:45 AM
Post by: brer on October 01, 2007, 02:23:37 AM
Expand on what? Conservatism?
Most republicans are the same as liberals in their views of how much power the federal government should have.
Just usually the way they want that power expressed is much different. Generally these are the neocons.
Most conservatives want the federal government relegated solely to its constitutionally defined duties. That is one of the big reasons RP is such a beacon to conservatives.
The republican party?
The republican party started courting the religious right back in the seventies. Nowadays it is almost a religious duty for many to vote republican.
The republican party also courted the conservatives. But strayed from classic conservatism into the neoconservatism that guides it now.
I do not know what percentage of the party are from the religious right, but they have enough presence to swing policy. Take a look at how many people in the current administration graduated from baptist colleges.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 01, 2007, 05:08:27 PM
It's true that the Religious Right hasn't been so good at getting the Republican Party to effectively address their more obvious agenda items (abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, etc). But what is often missed is the fact that the Religious Right has other, not so religious, goals, both as a movement and as individuals. Religious conservatives were among those pressuring Bush to appoint more conservative/libertarian justices to SCOTUS. And I think most conservatives and libertarians agree that he has at least made some major improvements to the Court. This has been a major goal of the RR for some time, seen in many of the mailings I've received, and heard in the RR talk shows to which I listen. I've even heard about in sermons, I think. The RR is also very vocal on education reforms, and in opposing McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, and hate crime laws. These are areas where they are very close to conservatives and/or libertarians. The same would be true of educational vouchers, faith-based initiatives, trade with China (where Christians are persecuted), and other issues which divide the Religious Right, just as they divide Republicans in general.
In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives. Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.
The point, again, is that the religious right are not some fringe group of fanatics. Most of them are mainstream conservatives with the standard conservative helping of libertarianism.
Post by: roo_ster on October 01, 2007, 07:28:38 PM
Quote
Ron Paul is not perfect, but no one has given me a reason beyond they don't like his foreign policy to support anyone else when I asked. Finch is absolutely right in his appraisal of the situation. When a rational person looks at the current situation, it's apparent who the best choice is at this time in history. The opposition to his candidacy seems to consist of an irrational, emotional reaction Finch has so elegantly summarized in so few words.
What the? His foreign policy is reason enough. It's idiotic and dangerous.
In a world where A lunatocracylike N Korea can sling a missile with a nuke at the USA, sitting back behind one's borders and hoping for the best in folks is one of the signs of rectal cranial inversion.
I have a soft spot for Paul, but he's gonna have to clean the *expletive deleted*it outta his ears before I'll take him seriously.
---------
To answer the OP.....
Elected to what? He gets elected to the US House every two years from his district. That is the limit of his electoral competence.
Post by: roo_ster on October 01, 2007, 07:50:38 PM
I can give you an idea of what the country would look like without religious conservatives: UK.
Post by: Bogie on October 01, 2007, 07:52:03 PM
Prior to around 1976 or so, the "religious right" were almost exclusively democrats... Who defected en masse to the Republicans during the reign of Jimmy Carter...
Post by: Archie on October 01, 2007, 09:46:59 PM
Having said that, if Ron Paul is the Republican nominee, I'd happily vote for him rather than Senator Clinton, Senator Obama or - the dark horse - Albert Gore. But I don't think Ron Paul will get the nomination.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 01:53:08 AM
Fistful, how old are you?
Prior to around 1976 or so, the "religious right" were almost exclusively democrats... Who defected en masse to the Republicans during the reign of Jimmy Carter...
Prior to around 1976 or so, the "religious right" were almost exclusively democrats... Who defected en masse to the Republicans during the reign of Jimmy Carter...
I was born in 76. Why do you ask? Why do you talk about that all the time?
Post by: brer on October 02, 2007, 02:36:04 AM
You are confusing the classical definition of a conservative with the modern definition.
I am a Goldwater type conservative, nowadays I would be called a constitutionalist. Neo means new, thus a neocon is a new conservative, generally one holding socially conservative values.
Just as an example. A person with conservative social values would do his best to outlaw gay marriage on the federal level. This would effectively make him a neocon. A person with conservative political views would say that the federal government has no authority under the constitution to regulate marriage. This would make him a conservative.
The problem with the religious right is that they often have conservative social values that they wish to enforce with the liberal use of government. They tend to also promulgate candidates whose primary qualifications are their religious views.
The republican party does not have a stranglehold on the conservatives. There are many conservative democrats. Remember LaRouche just as a for instance? Or the many midwest and southern democrats that are also very conservative?
I can easily find me another candidate to vote for if Ron does not get the nod, but it will not be for a republican for the next few election cycles.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 12:09:34 PM
Quote
Neo means new, thus a neocon is a new conservative, generally one holding socially conservative values.
Neo does mean "new." The rest of your sentence is simply incorrect. Neo-conservatism has little to do with "socially conservative values." Your definition is so far off the mark, that even the most basic research would have been helpful. Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Nor is your view of the Religious Right very sophisticated. It is more stereotype than reality. You may feel free to lecture me on American conservatism, but only after you figure out what you're talking about. Thank you.
Post by: Matt King on October 02, 2007, 12:56:56 PM
Quote
Bogie, the Religious Right is a HUGE chunk of the conservative and libertarian base that you identify with. Lose them, and you'll be lost in a sea of one-worlder, RINO neo-con-type "moderate" Republicans
Sorry to bust your bubble. dude, but the 'religious right' has long since been marginalized to the lunatic fringe.
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, no one can deny that the religious right holds enormous power within the Republican Party. Bush won both times due in large part to the RR.
Post by: Len Budney on October 02, 2007, 01:06:20 PM
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, no one can deny that the religious right holds enormous power within the Republican Party. Bush won both times due in large part to the RR.
I have no trouble believing that. But it makes me sad to think that Christian should be spelled s-u-c-k-e-r.
--Len.
Post by: Physics on October 02, 2007, 01:40:13 PM
What the? His foreign policy is reason enough. It's idiotic and dangerous.
I'm sorry, but isn't this a little bit like endorsing gun control? I say this because both gun control and "bringing the fight to the terrorist" are meant to make us FEEL safer. My question is: Does bringing the fight to them MAKE us safer?
Dr. Paul has a good point in my opinion. What reason would the terrorists have to attack us if we are not involved in the M.E.? If America were to stop funding global police actions, what reason would they have to attack us? Isn't the entire reasoning behind 9/11 (According to the 9/11 report) because of our foreign policy in the Middle East? I'm not trying to justify their reasoning, just see what it is, so we can learn from it. Because making the terrorist not want to be a terrorist would be the best outcome. You think the terrorists would still attack us if we had dropped food into Baghdad instead of bombs?
Also, how are they going to attack us if our borders are secure?!? In addition, what is the point in "bringing the fight" if we aren't securing the border?
"It is far better to focus our efforts on immigration reform and ridding our country of suspected terrorists than to restrict the constitutional liberties of our own citizens. The fight against terrorism should be fought largely at our borders. Once potential terrorists are in the country, the task of finding and arresting them becomes much harder, and the calls for intrusive government monitoring of all of us become louder. If we do not want to move in the direction of a police state at home, we must prevent terrorists from entering the country in the first place."
-Ron Paul
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=234
"Noninterventionism is not isolationism. Nonintervention simply means America does not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the internal affairs of other nations. It does not mean that we isolate ourselves; on the contrary, our founders advocated open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations."
-Ron Paul
http://ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=491
^^^^ That last quote is beautiful. Other countries can do what they want, we can do what we want.
My last point on Ron Paul's foreign policy, and non-intervention in general: When was the last time Switzerland was attacked?
Let's lead by example, making America great, rather than by force.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 01:55:38 PM
Post by: Physics on October 02, 2007, 02:03:53 PM
Again, idiotic and dangerous.
If you disagree, by all means, tell me why I am misled.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 02:16:48 PM
Post by: roo_ster on October 02, 2007, 05:27:43 PM
Quote from: Physics
If America were to stop funding global police actions, what reason would they have to attack us?
Why would anyone attack the US?
Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse? Why rape a high school freshman? Why embezzle money? Why sleep with the wife of your friend? Why kill a random stranger? Why lynch a black man?
You don't have to do anything for some folks to want to hurt you or take your stuff. Being alive and having something, anything, others want, fear, or despise has been reason enough throughout history.
The veneer of civilization is thin, but some can not see through it to the human nature that lies beneath.
I would suggest you spend some time with folks less educated and well-mannered than yourself.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 02, 2007, 05:44:47 PM
Quote
I would suggest you spend some time with folks less educated and well-mannered than yourself.
That's why he (or she) is talking to us.
Post by: roo_ster on October 02, 2007, 05:50:06 PM
You are confusing the classical definition of a conservative with the modern definition.
Yep, there sure is some confusion. Most of that post was a fine example of such.Almost as good as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3U49S5NltM
(Hit tip to mbs357)
Post by: brer on October 03, 2007, 02:45:17 AM
http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Conservative-Madison-American-Politics/dp/0691131171/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1140055-7179109?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191410039&sr=8-1
Good book by the way. Nowadays he is considered a libertarian by wiki while in the same wiki article is credited with bringing back the conservative movement of the sixties. I wish wiki could figure out if he was libertarion or a conservative in the same article. But then, information from wiki is worth what you pay for it.
BTW Goldwater is the one who pretty much indoctrinated Reagan with many of his views.
The reason I bring up Goldwater is that he was the epitome of a conservative. Nowadays he is considered as either a libertarian or a constitutionalist just as Ron Paul is by many.
The definition of what a conservative is has changed a lot in the past forty five years. The guy in office now and the majority of the folks backing him are not conservatives.
Post by: Len Budney on October 03, 2007, 04:33:45 AM
Why would anyone attack the US?
Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse? Why rape a high school freshman? Why embezzle money? Why sleep with the wife of your friend? Why kill a random stranger? Why lynch a black man?
Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse? Why rape a high school freshman? Why embezzle money? Why sleep with the wife of your friend? Why kill a random stranger? Why lynch a black man?
All of those things have one thing in common, which differs greatly from "attacking the US": they aren't guaranteed suicide. For your analogy to work, you should be asking things like, "Why dive in front of a freight train? Why pour gasoline on yourself and strike a match? Why coat your naked body in bacon grease and sneak into a polar-bear cage?"
And yes, people do do those things. But it's a lot less common than your examples above. And more importantly, the folks connected with suicidal maniacs are mighty reluctant to go down with them. Even the folks in the suicide-bombing business aren't suicidal: they find and groom unstable persons to commit suicide, but they don't do so themselves. If Ahmedinejad were a suicidal maniac, determined to go out in a blaze of glory, his countrymen are not. They realize that the "blaze of glory" is a US-launched nuke that will take them all down together.
--Len.
Post by: Mabs2 on October 03, 2007, 01:39:09 PM
http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_raises_5_million_in_3rd_quarter_up_114
And yes, Mars IS amazing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2007, 02:23:46 PM
My point in regards to the religious right, if you have any desire to hear me, is that they are much closer to your definition of a conservative than many people give them credit for, and that they keep the party much closer to those conservative/libertarian goals than it would otherwise be. To ditch them, or their more controversial planks, would alienate many non-religious people and make the Republican Party safe for big-government moderates like Bush.
Quote from: fistful
Religious conservatives were among those pressuring Bush to appoint more conservative/libertarian justices to SCOTUS. And I think most conservatives and libertarians agree that he has at least made some major improvements to the Court. This has been a major goal of the RR for some time, seen in many of the mailings I've received, and heard in the RR talk shows to which I listen. I've even heard about in sermons, I think. The RR is also very vocal on education reforms, and in opposing McCain-Feingold, the Fairness Doctrine, and hate crime laws. These are areas where they are very close to conservatives and/or libertarians. The same would be true of educational vouchers, faith-based initiatives, trade with China (where Christians are persecuted), and other issues which divide the Religious Right, just as they divide Republicans in general.
In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives. Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.
The point, again, is that the religious right are not some fringe group of fanatics. Most of them are mainstream conservatives with the standard conservative helping of libertarianism.
In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives. Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.
The point, again, is that the religious right are not some fringe group of fanatics. Most of them are mainstream conservatives with the standard conservative helping of libertarianism.
The definition of what a conservative is has changed a lot in the past forty five years. The guy in office now and the majority of the folks backing him are not conservatives.
The definition has also changed over the centuries and across national boundaries. Yes, I agree that Bush is not very conservative. I thought that was common knowledge by now. Yes, Conscience of a Conservative is a good book. I read it a while back. But no, Barry Goldwater is not the epitome of a conservative or a libertarian. He was simply one kind of conservative, or one kind of libertarian, and not the best kind, either. As we have seen, you don't have the bona fides to tell me about conservatism.
Post by: roo_ster on October 03, 2007, 03:22:32 PM
Why would anyone attack the US?
Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse? Why rape a high school freshman? Why embezzle money? Why sleep with the wife of your friend? Why kill a random stranger? Why lynch a black man?
Why climb Mt Everest? Why steal an old lady's purse? Why rape a high school freshman? Why embezzle money? Why sleep with the wife of your friend? Why kill a random stranger? Why lynch a black man?
All of those things have one thing in common, which differs greatly from "attacking the US": they aren't guaranteed suicide.
Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11. We didn't do much about them.
Even if it was suicide, you'd still find folks to do it.
Anyway, that is beside the point. Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping. Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults. Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm. No provocation is necessary.
Post by: Len Budney on October 03, 2007, 03:40:56 PM
Since when is attacking the US a suicidal act? Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 and we don't do much about them.
That's a bait-and-switch: there's a world of difference between "been at war with" and "attacked." Most importantly, "been at war with" is basically a bit of rhetoric: over that entire 28-year period Iran has barely conducted any actions against the US, direct or indirect. The only notable exception was the "hostage crisis." Iran has never attacked the US.
From that you're making the leap to something like setting off a nuke in the US? They're well aware Iran would be sterilized of everything bigger than a sand flea if they nuked the US. And no other sort of attack would mean a thing: Iran has no offensive capability at all. They lack any naval or air forces with which to project any force into the Western hemisphere.
Quote
Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11. We didn't do much about them.
Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)
Quote
Anyway, that is beside the point. Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping. Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults. Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm. No provocation is necessary.
To convert that observation into a practical scenario requires assuming an astonishing number of people be astonishingly stupid, plus suicidal.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2007, 05:20:22 PM
Quote
Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)
A) There were many attacks besides that on the WTC.
B) Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities? If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.
C) Oh goodness gracious. You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11. I wish I knew how to help you people.
Post by: Len Budney on October 03, 2007, 05:30:40 PM
B) Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities? If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.
3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?
Quote
C) Oh goodness gracious. You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11. I wish I knew how to help you people.
Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?
--Len.
Post by: roo_ster on October 03, 2007, 07:12:39 PM
Since when is attacking the US a suicidal act? Iran has been at war with the USA since 1979 and we don't do much about them.
That's a bait-and-switch: there's a world of difference between "been at war with" and "attacked." Most importantly, "been at war with" is basically a bit of rhetoric: over that entire 28-year period Iran has barely conducted any actions against the US, direct or indirect. The only notable exception was the "hostage crisis." Iran has never attacked the US.
From that you're making the leap to something like setting off a nuke in the US? They're well aware Iran would be sterilized of everything bigger than a sand flea if they nuked the US. And no other sort of attack would mean a thing: Iran has no offensive capability at all. They lack any naval or air forces with which to project any force into the Western hemisphere.
I listen and take seriously when folks threaten me or others with bodily injury. The Iranian president has stated in speeches that he intends to wipe Israel (Little Satan) off the map. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out what he'd like to do to the Great Satan.I doubt they would use a manned vehicle to deliver a nuke. A ballistic missile or, better yet, smuggle it into the 'States via porous borders.
Quote
Al Qeda made several attacks on the US before 9/11. We didn't do much about them.
Small potatoes--a failed attempt to sabotage a building on a coward's watch. Consider the US response to even a marginally successful attack: 9/11, while dramatic, involved the same loss of life as one month's traffic fatalities in the US. We have twelve 9/11s every year on our highways, and we don't bat an eye. But we responded by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)
1993 WTC bombing
African embassy bombings
USS Cole bombing
Our politicians count on us not remembering their promises and perfidies. Our enemies count on us not remembering their attacks against us.
Quote
Anyway, that is beside the point. Human nature is what it is: corrupt and grasping. Only constant socialization will ensure that most folks will play well with others as adults. Even then, some will revert back to their corrupt nature and kill, steal, and generally abuse those who did them no harm. No provocation is necessary.
To convert that observation into a practical scenario requires assuming an astonishing number of people be astonishingly stupid, plus suicidal.
Len, wake up and smell reality.Are you in the same population I am? "Cause the one I am in has 1/2 of that population mustering less than median intelligence. A goodly proportion of those 150+ millions (in the USA alone) would qualify as, "sand-poundingly stupid." I don't know if that number would be "astonishing. It sure is real.
Do we need to be convinced that a lot of folks are willing to condemn themselves to certain death to advance their cause? Great masses of them shriek their willingness to do so in front of witnesses with recording devices. A significant number follow through on their threats.
From your posts, it seems you have some familiarity with the Bible. I would suggest taking to heart its findings on human nature. Heck, the nature of human nature was known by teh ancient pagans:
"HUman nature is bad. Good is a human product...A warped piece of wood must be steamed and forced before it is made straight; a metal blade must be put to the whetstone before it becomes sharp. Since the nature of people is bad, to become corrected they must be taught by teachers and to be orderly they must acquire ritual and moral principles."
----Sun Tzu
Post by: roo_ster on October 03, 2007, 07:30:01 PM
3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?
Not too swift on the concepts of good & evil, maybe?
Here is one tidbit: The murder of 3000 has infinitely more moral weight than 3000 who die by accident.
So, you think our troops are engaging in mass slaughter of innocents? Care to back that up?
I think your moral compass is being effected by Dr. Paul's magnetic personality. Might want to give it a whack or five to get it pointing magnetic/moral north.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 03, 2007, 07:30:26 PM
B) Do you really not understand the difference between terrorist attacks and traffic fatalities? If not, you must be a Ron Paul supporter.
3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?
Uh, one was an act of war? But the yawn business is a lie. People who are at fault in traffic accidents are held liable. Duh.
Quote
Quote
C) Oh goodness gracious. You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11. I wish I knew how to help you people.
Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?
--Len.
Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities? Apparently so.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 01:51:03 AM
3,000 dead is 3,000 dead. Can you explain why twelve such death-tolls merits a yawn, while one such merits a trillion-dollar invasion and mass slaughter of people who had nothing to do with it?
Uh, one was an act of war?
Absolutely true. I merely point out that the death toll was quite small; while tragic, it's hardly an existential threat to America. And it hardly justifies the level of fear that the administration has milked it for. Responses out of all proportion to the threat are counterproductive, because they stand in the way of dealing with the more significant threats. In this case, many of the responses are far more dangerous to the average American than the threat they supposedly address.
Quote
Quote
Quote
C) Oh goodness gracious. You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11. I wish I knew how to help you people.
Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?
Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities? Apparently so.
Obviously not. But you clearly are saying that between 30,000 (Bush's last count) and 1,000,000 (the Lancet's last count) Iraqis are guilty of terrorist activities. That's absolutely nuts.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2007, 02:09:13 AM
With regards to the 9-11 death count, you are judging a terrorist attack by the standards of judging a conventional military attack. This is a mistake, stemming from a lack of understanding.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 02:24:38 AM
Len, you're changing your standard. First, you were offended that most of the war on terror casualties had nothing to do with 9-11.
That's true. "Or any other terrorist activity" is also true. But the administration attempted to link its invasion of Iraq with 9/11, so it's valid to point out that no such link exists, which I did.
Quote
That's what I responded to - the implication that it was unjust to make war on anyone who had not been involved in one particular attack.
I never really made that implication, though.
Quote
Now, you're shifting from "they didn't do 9-11" to "they didn't do anything at all."
I'm clarifying that "slaughtering innocents" really means "slaughtering innocents." You interpreted it to mean, "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others." In my earlier post, "innocent" means "innocent."
Quote
With regards to the 9-11 death count, you are judging a terrorist attack by the standards of judging a conventional military attack. This is a mistake, stemming from a lack of understanding.
Please explain where the mistake lies. It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.
My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong. Measures that actually increase security, in other words. Suspending habeas corpus and invading Iraq would not appear at the top of my list, nor at the bottom, nor anywhere else.
--Len
Post by: brer on October 04, 2007, 02:52:06 AM
Quote from Fistful
Quote
To ditch them, or their more controversial planks, would alienate many non-religious people and make the Republican Party safe for big-government moderates like Bush.
Sorry to bring this to your awareness, but the religious right were the ones responsible for getting Bush elected in the first place. I remember the campaign very well back, in 2, towards the end, they were both trying to outpious each other.
They still have not realized their mistake considering most of the front running GOP candidates for presidency are also big government moderates.
Quote from Fistful
Quote
In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives. Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.
Considering the many conservative democrats that vote for these things that are not part of the religious right that also vote that way, it really does not prove much.
I guess my experience with members of the religious right is a bit different than yours, or I just asked different questions.
The examples you provided are the instances where the interests of the RR overlap. But there are many more issues where their interests diverge.
For the most part, the RR want the government out of their lives, as do the conservatives. But when it comes to passing laws to enforce religiously based moral stances or policy that effectively brings the government back into their lives, what does the RR do more often than not?
Again if RP does not get the not, I will vote democrat just to punish the republicans for not keeping him in check. Might be if the republicans sit out of the presidency for a while they may start rethinking the platform a bit.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2007, 01:22:02 PM
It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.
How do you presume to know if I am terrified? That's just silly. You can think I am, if it makes you feel better. I could just as easily claim that you are so terrified that you want to bring all our troops home, and cower behind our national borders. But such a claim would be pretty silly, wouldn't it?
When did I call you a kook, with regards to habeas corpus? Speaking of lashing out randomly.
Just so you know, while I'm not buying into every allegation of infringement of rights by Bush, I have repeatedly said, elsewhere, that I'm with-holding judgment until I can study these issues more fully. That will take many years. If you feel that you have a good enough grasp of constitutional law to make such judgments, by all means go ahead. Quote
My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong.
Like Ron Paul, I am lovin' your domestic policy. It's just your foreign policy that is completely backward.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 01:27:59 PM
It seems to me that Bin Ladin wanted terror, and you're obliging him: you're terrified. Terrified enough to respond out of all proportion to the actual effect of the attack. Terrified enough to kiss habeas corpus goodbye and call me a kook for complaining about it. Terrified enough to lash out randomly, slaughtering innocents and swelling the ranks of the terrorists, rather than acting rationally to reduce the threat. In other words, Bin Ladin won, and you're the one handing him the victory.
How do you presume to know if I am terrified? That's just silly. You can think I am, if it makes you feel better.
So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.
Quote
When did I call you a kook, with regards to habeas corpus? Speaking of lashing out randomly. Just so you know, while I'm not buying into every allegation of infringement of rights by Bush, I have repeatedly said, elsewhere, that I'm with-holding judgment until I can study these issues more fully.
Just so you know, while I'm not buying into every allegation of infringement of rights by Bush, I have repeatedly said, elsewhere, that I'm with-holding judgment until I can study these issues more fully.You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.
Quote
Quote
My initial reaction, rather than bombing the crap out of innocents and suspending habeas corpus, would have been to repeal all gun control (which is unconstitutional anyway) by executive order, deregulate and privatize airport security (in particular, granting airlines full discretion concerning armed guards and/or flight crews), and redeploy US troops along the US border where they belong.
Like Ron Paul, I am lovin' your domestic policy. It's just your foreign policy that is completely backward.
Well, having armed Americans to the teeth, fortified the borders, and vastly improved airport security, most of the reason for foreign adventurism is obviated.
Note that I insist invading Iraq was wrong, but I'm less definitive about Afghanistan. Initially the US demanded extradition of Bin Ladin, which was the right thing to do. The Afghan government demanded evidence of Bin Ladin's guilt, which was in keeping with international law. The US said "screw that" and invaded; I think that was definitely premature. If the US had handled the matter completely correctly, it might still have led to a conflict with Afghanistan, and I would not shrink from that. (Neither, BTW, would Ron Paul.)
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2007, 01:59:45 PM
So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.
I'm sorry. Where did I decide to slaughter innocents? Please explain. Quote
You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.
Well, the Constitution allows for it, so I do give some weight to that. The larger question is whether that is actually happening. Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is. But you can understand that I'm wary of taking lectures in law from Random Internet People. So don't. Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth? Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 02:07:48 PM
So you're not terrified, but unafraid, cold and rational, you've decided that slaughtering innocents is the way to go? That's much worse.
I'm sorry. Where did I decide to slaughter innocents? Please explain.
My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else.
Quote
Quote
You're entitled. But I don't think it takes deep analysis to decide that suspending a vital civil right is a bad thing.
Well, the Constitution allows for it, so I do give some weight to that.
Granted. I suggest a cold hard look at what "temporarily in time of war" means. And remember that the administration itself admits that there's nothing "temporary" about the war on terror. The Constitution doesn't say "eternally, while waging the forever war."
Quote
The larger question is whether that is actually happening. Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is.
Please note that I made no claims whether people have been detained without habeas corpus. Some have, but lets pretend that none have. If another civil right were suspended--the freedom of speech, say--but as of the time of our conversation nobody had yet been imprisoned for exercising speech, would you conclude that suspending the 1st Amendment were no big deal?
Quote
Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?
First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks, so it's clear that I was not attempting a verbatim quote. Are you of the opinion that I have misrepresented your position? So far you haven't said so; you've only denied using the specific words I did, which we both already knew.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2007, 02:26:57 PM
I'm clarifying that "slaughtering innocents" really means "slaughtering innocents." You interpreted it to mean, "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others."
Actually, the reverse is true. I spoke of killing people who were not involved in 9-11, and you interpreted that to mean "slaughtering innocents," rather than "killing terrorists who weren't involved in X attack but were involved in others." The latter would be the obvious interpretation. Though I would add the slight modification that, in warfare, one usually kills or captures the enemy on sight, rather than waiting for them to commit a bombing or other act of war.
Len, I've got a few days off, so let's go over this again. You said:
Quote from: Len
But we responded [to 9-11] by killing tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands depending who's counting. (Most of them had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's another matter.)
What does this mean? Why would you say this, except to allege that we have no business killing anyone who was not involved in those specific attacks? That would be a very strange view of foreign policy, were it not so commonplace among the anti-war folk. That is why I replied thus:
Quote from: fistful
Oh goodness gracious. You think we're not allowed to kill anyone who wasn't involved in 9/11. I wish I knew how to help you people.
To which you responded:
Quote
Help us get used to the idea of slaughtering innocents? No thanks. Is there a way we can help you?
You make a huge leap from terrorists who weren't part of 9-11, to innocent people. And you accuse me of endorsing the latter. To make sense of this oddity, I asked you to clarify:
Quote
Are you saying that anyone who didn't plan, fund or carry out 9-11 is innocent of any terrorist activities? Apparently so.
Your rebuttal:
Quote
Obviously not. But you clearly are saying that between 30,000 (Bush's last count) and 1,000,000 (the Lancet's last count) Iraqis are guilty of terrorist activities. That's absolutely nuts.
Now, where did I allege that everyone who has died in our recent military campaigns was a terrorist? I've never seen anyone make that claim.
Quote
But the administration attempted to link its invasion of Iraq with 9/11
How so?Post by: Perd Hapley on October 04, 2007, 02:35:28 PM
I'm sorry. Where did I decide to slaughter innocents? Please explain.
My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else.
Invading Iraq is clearly not a slaughter of the innocents. Please don't waste my time with any more such childish rhetoric.
Quote
Quote
The larger question is whether that is actually happening. Your temptation now will be to assure me that it is.
Please note that I made no claims whether people have been detained without habeas corpus. Some have, but lets pretend that none have. If another civil right were suspended--the freedom of speech, say--but as of the time of our conversation nobody had yet been imprisoned for exercising speech, would you conclude that suspending the 1st Amendment were no big deal?
I didn't say the suspension of habeas corpus would be "no big deal." I said I was not convinced it had been suspended. I've heard it and read it on the internet tubes, but that proves nothing. Note that I'm not denying that it has been suspended, just saying that I don't know.
Quote
Quote
Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?
First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks blah, blah, blah.
My goodness gracious. You accused me of calling you a kook, over an issue I don't recall even addressing with you. Just admit you were wrong.
Post by: Len Budney on October 04, 2007, 03:24:36 PM
I'm sorry. Where did I decide to slaughter innocents? Please explain.
My mistake. I thought you were a defender of the Iraqi invasion. I must have been thinking of someone else.
Invading Iraq is clearly not a slaughter of the innocents. Please don't waste my time with any more such childish rhetoric.
You are claiming that the tens (or hundreds) of thousands of dead are all, or even mostly all, terrorists. Talk about childish rhetoric!
Quote
Quote
Quote
Anyway, are you going to apologize for putting words in my mouth?
First it must be established that I have. I didn't use quotation marks blah, blah, blah.
My goodness gracious. You accused me of calling you a kook, over an issue I don't recall even addressing with you. Just admit you were wrong.
I think you do dispute my assertion that habeas corpus has been suspended, and regard me as a kook for getting so worked up about it. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't think I am.
--Len.
Post by: K Frame on October 04, 2007, 05:00:21 PM
HINT HINT
Post by: Finch on October 04, 2007, 07:13:38 PM
Post by: Bogie on October 04, 2007, 07:35:50 PM
I'd do a Hillary speaking tour, accompanied by every previous American Idol contestant I could dig up....
Post by: Paddy on October 04, 2007, 07:37:41 PM
Post by: brer on October 05, 2007, 02:18:10 AM
Vegas just changed his odds from 8-1 to 6-1, from an original 20-1.
His ability to raise money has gone up in stark contrast to most of his opponents in the GOP's which have gone down.
I do not think he is a shoe in. But he is running a strong campaign. If he keeps up with what he is doing his odds are going to do nothing but get better.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2007, 04:28:23 AM
Post by: Bigjake on October 05, 2007, 08:04:52 AM
Merle Haggard put it best: " Now we're rolling downhill like a snowball headed for hell..."
He'll be the Ross Perot that ushers in yet another Klinton Presidency
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2007, 09:49:04 AM
Here's a rant from a local paper from someone who is a Ron Paul disciple. And they wonder why we say his followers are freaking NUTS?
Quote
September 11th was manufactured by the U.S. government. Did you know that some of the supposed named terrorists that were said to be flying the planes are still alive? Did you know that no evidence of a plane ever having crashed into the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania was ever found? Did you know that the WTC buildings 1 and 2 were bombed before they started collapsing? Building 7 collapsed as well, and no planes ever crashed into it, and this event was mysteriously missing from the 911 report. Why did Bush refuse to appear alone before the 911 commission? I encourage you to verify all of these facts for yourself, and realize, like I eventually did one sad, sad day, that the there are some very powerful, corrupt people in the U.S. government, and they are the men behind the curtain pulling the strings for all of us puppets.
- Jaime, Baltimore, Maryland
- Jaime, Baltimore, Maryland
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 09:53:12 AM
snicker...
Here's a rant from a local paper from someone who is a Ron Paul disciple. And they wonder why we say his followers are freaking NUTS?
Here's a rant from a local paper from someone who is a Ron Paul disciple. And they wonder why we say his followers are freaking NUTS?
Your quote doesn't mention RP once. How do you know the writer is a "Ron Paul disciple"? RP is not a 9/11 truther, but it looks as if you might be trying to make that insinuation without evidence.
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2007, 09:55:30 AM
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2
Post by: GigaBuist on October 05, 2007, 10:37:00 AM
The loonies have to vote for _somebody_
Post by: Len Budney on October 05, 2007, 10:53:40 AM
Fine, Len, since someone doubted your Holy Political Messiah without a citation, here ya go.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=337db256-d684-4098-a896-7bc5fe6123b2
That's better. So he really is a Ron Paul supporter. That doesn't make Ron Paul, or anyone else, a 9/11 truther, however. Nor would I call RP "my holy political messiah." One, only God is holy. Two, "political messiah" is as oxymoronic as "satanic messiah." Three, I like RP's positions, but if he turns out to be a neonazi who sodomizes puppies, it won't affect me any: his positions will still be right; and if he's a scoundrel, he's a scoundrel. I don't worship humans or participate in cults, thank you.
--Len.
Post by: Finch on October 05, 2007, 01:13:35 PM
He'll be the Ross Perot that ushers in yet another Klinton Presidency
Right, because the Bush presidency is so much better. Atleast we had Habeus Corpus under Clinton.
And Manedwolf, in my experience following Ron Paul, I bet you he is looking at packed house with standing room only.
Post by: Balog on October 05, 2007, 06:07:04 PM
I read an article by Dan Savage the militant gay sex advice columnist about Ron Paul's surprising level of support among liberal types. It seems a lot of people are so against the war they hear "He wants to pull out right away" and cut him a check.
You gotta realize, we're the minority. Joe sixpack doesn't think you should have machine guns etc. Not to mention that RP is basically telling large segments of the voting public "Elect me and I'll either get you fired (.gov employees) when I get rid of your agency or I'll stop sending you money." Are those good things? Sure. Will the many people who receive that money vote to stop getting it? Nope.
And the far right sort who might be tempted to vote for him because of the libertarian type stuff are largely turned off by the foreign policy rhetoric that endears him to liberals and moderates.
Post by: Manedwolf on October 05, 2007, 06:31:12 PM
And Manedwolf, in my experience following Ron Paul, I bet you he is looking at packed house with standing room only.
Following. Key word says more than you know.
It HAS become a cult.
Post by: Finch on October 05, 2007, 07:40:28 PM
It HAS become a cult.
Please, go on. Do elaborate on how you think Ron Paul supporters are apart of a cult. Would you think the same about supporters of Romney or Ghouliani if they had the same enthusiasm about their campaign?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2007, 10:17:51 PM
Again if RP does not get the not, I will vote democrat just to punish the republicans for not keeping him in check.
Yet Ron Paul's stance on the issues reads like a Religious Right wish list. He's anti-abortion, opposed to homosexual marriage, and stands for all the low-tax, small-government issues I mentioned earlier. The only real difference is that he usually wants to do things at the state rather than national level. And most religious conservatives would accept that. As a Religious Rightarian, I've never seen a politician who's domestic program I am more in love with.
My father is an anti-Iraq-war Religious Rightist who has supported everyone from Pat Buchanan to Alan Keyes to John McCain to the Constitution Party, and even voted for Bush in 2000. He is now in the Ron Paul camp. I would be there, too, but for my total disagreement with his foreign policy. And the Religious Right is by no means united on the issue of the Iraq war. There are plenty of them, like my father, who oppose it. But in any case, it is not a religious issue, nor is it one that the RR talks about much.
You've got me really intrigued that you consider Ron Paul conservative or libertarian enough to get your vote, yet you say the RR are not conservatives because they favor "passing laws to enforce religiously based moral stances or policy that effectively brings the government back into their lives." I assume you're talking about issues like abortion and homosexual marriage. What makes Paul's opposition to these things so much less theocratic than mine?
Quote
Fistful, Sorry to disappoint you, I do have my bonafides as a conservative, but I have some serious doubts about yours.
I don't recall questioning your own personal conservatism. I pointed out that you have a poor understanding of the various "conservative" groups, such as neo-cons, the Religious Right, etc. And now you think that Lyndon LaRaouche represents some great reservoir of Democratic conservatives?
You are very confused. You could at least acknowledge that you were wrong about what neo-cons are. Quote
Quote from Fistful
Sorry to bring this to your awareness, but the religious right were the ones responsible for getting Bush elected in the first place. I remember the campaign very well back, in 2, towards the end, they were both trying to outpious each other. They still have not realized their mistake considering most of the front running GOP candidates for presidency are also big government moderates.
Quote
To ditch them, or their more controversial planks, would alienate many non-religious people and make the Republican Party safe for big-government moderates like Bush.
Sorry to bring this to your awareness, but the religious right were the ones responsible for getting Bush elected in the first place. I remember the campaign very well back, in 2, towards the end, they were both trying to outpious each other. They still have not realized their mistake considering most of the front running GOP candidates for presidency are also big government moderates.
I was talking about intra-party politics. In terms of the Presidential election, you can hardly say that the RR are less conservative because they voted against Al Gore. You could claim that if they were more conservative, they would have voted third-party, but then you'd be confusing political ideology with practical politics. The fact that most of the religious right voted for a main-party candidate doesn't make them non-conservative. It simply means that most of us, like most Americans, vote against a bad candidate who may actually win (Gore), rather than voting for a dream candidate who will certainly lose.
Or are you saying that the Religious Right chose George Bush over that noted libertarian, John McCain, or some other primary candidate that might have won? Let's say they had thrown their support behind McCain. Is he more of a Goldwater disciple than Bush? Or do you think that the RR had enough pull to nominate someone like Ron Paul? I don't think they did. And if they could have, would he have won it for us, or just led to eight more years of Clinton - I mean Gore?
brer, I don't know how much the RR had to do with choosing Bush in the primary. But I do hope that, if you're going to wade in these waters of discussion, you at least know that Bush, like Clinton, campaigned toward the right in order to win the presidential election. That had as much to do with courting religious conservatives as with any other kind.
You are apparently not aware of how the Bush Administration has alienated the Religious Right in any number of ways. By averring that Christians and Muslims worship the same god, by being the first president to fund embryonic stem cell research, by calling Islam "a religion of peace," and on and on.
Quote
Quote from Fistful
Considering the many conservative democrats that vote for these things that are not part of the religious right that also vote that way, it really does not prove much.
Quote
In areas other than social or religious issues, the religious right also tend, in my judgment, to be just as "true conservative" as non-religious conservatives. Religious conservatives are just as likely to favor lower taxes, liberalized gun laws, border enforcement, etc. and to oppose the Kyoto treaty, the U.N., the welfare state, etc.
Considering the many conservative democrats that vote for these things that are not part of the religious right that also vote that way, it really does not prove much.
What did you think I was trying to prove? I'm not sure what democrats have to do with the discussion. I was talking about the Goldwater-conservative views held by the majority of the religious right. Whether or not they are your kind of conservative, they make the Republican Party more conservative, not less. I'm addressing the notion that "losing the religious right" will somehow attract hordes of secular conservatives and libertarians that will help the Republican party to win. In fact, the opposite is true.
Post by: brer on October 05, 2007, 11:50:06 PM
He has his personal religious beliefs. He is a religious man.
But he tends to vote no on almost everything unless it is a law concerning a constitutional role of the federal government. He does not vote based on his religious values and his record shows this. this is what makes him different from most of the RR.
As far as abortion and a lot of the other issues go, he believes they are state issues, not federal.
This is what is refreshing about him. Every other candidate likes to talk about how they will make new laws to fix problems. RP's overall philosophy is that most of the problems that the fed tries to fix are either problems the feds caused in the first place or not the feds problem.
Fistful
You did question my personal conservatism. My response was a direct response to yours. I used pretty much the same words you used. The definition of conservatism has changed a lot in the past 45 years, it has changed even more in the last 20. I already stated in my first post in this thread I was a Goldwater conservative. If you do not understand that Goldwater was a conservative as you denied in an earlier post, there is no further point arguing with you.
Back onto main thread
Ron Paul is electable. His odds are getting better all the time. He now has money to buy air time which should see his popularity explode. Once his message gets out to everyone, he will likely do nothing but get more popular.
His transparent campaign finances are also a bonus. He is beholden to no one but the people trying to elect him. No favors owed, no Halliburton sitting in the back room with orders.
Post by: LAK on October 06, 2007, 05:13:11 AM
Quote
I will say this. With over 70% of the country against the Iraq War, IMHO, Ron Paul is the only Republican with a chance to beat Hillary. Ron Paul voted against the war from the start, while also voting against the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act. Hillary voted for all those - including increased funds for the war. She will no doubt get the Democratic nomination, and a pro-war Republican has no chance against her.
A very accurate assessment. Very troubling is hearing some people I see from time to time (locally) who I would have thought knew better saying things to the effect that they might vote for Hillary Clinton. More troubling than Hillary Clinton though is another of her fraternal oligarchy friends wearing another "republican" suit.Ron Paul is very, very unlikely to get the Republican party nomination - unless their is a radical power change within the party leadership. Equally unlikely to happen.
Ron Paul is our last chance to get our country back at the executive level. Win or lose he has my vote and support.
----------------------------------------
http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2007, 01:15:41 PM
Fistful
You did question my personal conservatism....If you do not understand that Goldwater was a conservative as you denied in an earlier post, there is no further point arguing with you.
You did question my personal conservatism....If you do not understand that Goldwater was a conservative as you denied in an earlier post, there is no further point arguing with you.
brer, I never said those things. I think you are a conservative. I think Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are/were conservatives. I never said otherwise. But if you can't understand my very clear statements, then maybe we can't really carry on a discussion.
But can you clarify something for me? Goldwater is your gold standard for conservative ideology and so far as I can tell, he believed abortion should be legal. You would vote for Ron Paul, yet, to me, he seems very much anti-abortion. You say that he doesn't base his politics on his religious beliefs, which you accuse the Religious Right of doing. Yet the only difference, on abortion, seems to be that Paul is reluctant to address such issues at the national level.
Why does Ron Paul get a pass for straying from the Goldwater line?
Is this state/national issue the only thing that, in your view, separates Paul from the Religious Right?
Post by: roo_ster on October 06, 2007, 05:21:56 PM
Heck, it depends on which Goldwater brer is modeling himself after. Old Gold was pro-life. New Gold was pro-abortion. There were several other issues Goldwater flip-flopped on in his later years.
Many somewhat deceptive libertarian-types call themselves, "Goldwater Conservatives," while referring to the post-Senate AuH2O. Most folks understand Goldwater conservatism as that he espoused during his run for POTUS.
Truthfully, I don't think you can have a fruitful discussion with brer, due to his--ah--confusion on the various strains of conservatism over the years.
Post by: tmg19103 on October 06, 2007, 05:24:53 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCiCBjhNR78
Post by: tmg19103 on October 06, 2007, 05:45:10 PM
He is also on record as saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned, but not based on his personal beliefs, but because it is unconstitutional. Ron Paul strictly follows the constitution (which is rather refreshing, IMHO), and any authority that is not expressly granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution is by default granted to the states.
Thus, Ron Paul believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that each state should decide on the abortion issue, and as president he would have no authority over this issue. This is one general reason I like Ron Paul. He is for returning to constitutional principles and having the president act within his authority - not as some king or dictator.
As for straying from the "Goldwater line", Ron Paul has been compared by others to Goldwater, Sen. Taft and Reagan in his political leanings, but he is his own man and has never stated he 100% follows the doctrines of these individuals, but rather that our country needs to return to the general values that these great men preached.
Fistful
You did question my personal conservatism....If you do not understand that Goldwater was a conservative as you denied in an earlier post, there is no further point arguing with you.
You did question my personal conservatism....If you do not understand that Goldwater was a conservative as you denied in an earlier post, there is no further point arguing with you.
brer, I never said those things. I think you are a conservative. I think Ron Paul and Barry Goldwater are/were conservatives. I never said otherwise. But if you can't understand my very clear statements, then maybe we can't really carry on a discussion.
But can you clarify something for me? Goldwater is your gold standard for conservative ideology and so far as I can tell, he believed abortion should be legal. You would vote for Ron Paul, yet, to me, he seems very much anti-abortion. You say that he doesn't base his politics on his religious beliefs, which you accuse the Religious Right of doing. Yet the only difference, on abortion, seems to be that Paul is reluctant to address such issues at the national level.
Why does Ron Paul get a pass for straying from the Goldwater line?
Is this state/national issue the only thing that, in your view, separates Paul from the Religious Right?
Post by: brer on October 06, 2007, 05:51:40 PM
The constitution defines some very narrow duties for the federal government. Anything outside of that scope is not within the constitutional scope of the federal government.
Ron Paul votes based whether or not the law he is voting on is within the federal governments constitutional duties.
He is pro life. Since it was never in the federal governments powers under the constitution to control abortion, he will never vote for abortion control on a federal level.
Goldwater's views were similar.
Jfruser
You would rather have a candidate whose views never change over the course of a long life?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2007, 08:05:27 PM
Both of you missed my point, so I guess I'll give up. I am well aware of Paul's stance on abortion and the narrow scope the Constitution grants to the national government. I agree with Paul on both counts.
As jfruser points out, I probably did misjudge Goldwater's stance on abortion, as he apparently was anti-abortion in his earlier years and pro-abortion later on. But I will point out again that Goldwater was not an infallible guide to conservative thought. He was only a man.
If you need an infallible guide to conservatism, I am available for a modest fee.
Post by: Paddy on October 06, 2007, 08:17:09 PM
Quote
If you need an infallible guide to conservatism, I am available for a modest fee.
Conservatism does not include Christian activism. That is a phenomena that has only existed in your short lifetime, fistful. If you want some Barry Goldwater quotes on the subject, I'll be happy to provide them. In the meantime, please understand that the decline of the Republican Party began with the infestation of the RR in the late 70's and early 80's.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2007, 08:40:11 PM
What Christian activism are you talking about?
Post by: Paddy on October 06, 2007, 09:12:48 PM
Quote
What Christian activism are you talking about?
My dear Mr. fistful,
Do you really want me to get into the disgraced Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition? His arrest record, his affiliation with Enron, his direct mail overbilling scandal, his connection with Abramoff, the graft, corruption, money laundering schemes? Or the paranoid Pat Robertson, who thinks Freemason, the Illiuminati and Jewish bankers are the root of all evil?
How far do you want me to go, fistful? Think carefully, you're way more vulnerable than your pastor there in Misery has told you.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2007, 09:37:43 PM
But I asked about what you consider to be Christian activism, as opposed to normal political activism. Ralph Reed's misdeeds and the lunacy of Pat Robertson, who very few Christians take seriously anymore, doesn't answer the question. Please see my new thread, so we can talk about it.
Quote
Think carefully, you're way more vulnerable than your pastor there in Misery has told you.
I'm "vulnerable"? To what? I haven't discussed my "vulnerability" with my pastor. Should I? Riley, you really kill me.
Post by: tmg19103 on October 07, 2007, 07:04:49 AM
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/JudgeNapolitanoNationofSheepinterviewDavidAllenShow092007.mp3
Post by: brer on October 07, 2007, 08:51:39 AM
Post by: tmg19103 on October 07, 2007, 09:37:22 AM
wrong thread
If you are referring to my above link, the judge speaks to Paul's electability, so I see it as relevant, since the title and topic of this thread I started is "can Ron Paul get elected". That also goes beyond a "yes" or "no" answer, but rather the reasons Ron Paul may or may not get elected. The above link speaks to this, and even though it links to Ron Paul Radio, the actual interview is a tape from an independent radio station and show. Judge Nap is a regular on Fox News and highly regarded for his political views.
Post by: roo_ster on October 07, 2007, 09:40:01 AM
Jfruser
You would rather have a candidate whose views never change over the course of a long life?
You would rather have a candidate whose views never change over the course of a long life?
I made no value judgment as to AuH2O's positions over his lifetime or the changing of them in my post. My point was, you claim to be a "Goldwater Conservative," but do not tell us which AuH2O you reference.
This is of a part with your general confusion about the conservative movement. Perhaps you don't even know yourself which Goldwater (AuH2O) is your, ah, lodestone (Fe3O4)*.
* Yes, I am not above chemistry humor.
Post by: brer on October 07, 2007, 10:26:14 AM
My fault, not an attack on you, I accidentally posted a reply to this thread when I was looking at another.
Post by: brer on October 07, 2007, 10:32:54 AM
Fistful has a new thread on the religious right. This thread is not the place for this debate. Either place it there or start a new thread on Goldwater.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 07, 2007, 11:32:58 AM
But thanks, as I do appreciate jfruser's comments on the other thread.
Post by: brer on October 07, 2007, 11:54:41 AM
Either it is apropriate or not to argue Goldwater in a Ron Paul thread. It is one thing or the other. If you and Jfruser want to continue the arguement, start a new thread. I am not playing in this one.
I am not giving orders, I am simply telling you and him that this thread is not the place to argue it out. Allowing you to get a thread about a candidate you do not like, shut down over thread drift is in your best interest, not mine.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 07, 2007, 12:34:19 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on October 09, 2007, 06:02:35 PM
Other reasons:
Supporters have a bad habit of putting him in a bad light by their behavior and background. Maybe that is just a Libertarian Party thing. Unfortunate since there are a lot of good ideas that should get serious discussion. Probably just a few people I know, but it still doesn't help.
He argues absolutes too much. I haven't heard him lately, but it seems to me he needs to list out all his major issues and ask himself a question: "If I don't have a libertarian Congress, what can I get done on each of these that will move the govt in the direction I want it to go?" Think baby steps. Then campaign on those changes, not the end point he envisions. Talking about eliminating the Federal Reserve might be a good discussion topic, but not a good Presidential campaign item. People don't want their happy lives changed or messed with. They don't want a President who is going to change the world if they think the world is okay.
Is that on topic?
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 09, 2007, 06:34:05 PM
Is that shallow? Yes and so are the voters.
Post by: Paddy on October 09, 2007, 06:39:42 PM
All libertarians sound that way.
Quote
I sympathize with that. But it doesn't sound Presidential, whatever that means.
Is that shallow? Yes and so are the voters.
Is that shallow? Yes and so are the voters.
Perception is reality.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on October 10, 2007, 02:09:25 PM
Like all Libertarians and most libertarians, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning anything more than a seat in the House.
Post by: tmg19103 on October 10, 2007, 05:17:40 PM
All libertarians sound that way.
Quote
I sympathize with that. But it doesn't sound Presidential, whatever that means.
Is that shallow? Yes and so are the voters.
Is that shallow? Yes and so are the voters.
Perception is reality.
[/quote]
I agree perception is reality. Just depends on your reality.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071010/cm_thenation/1241385
Post by: Paddy on October 10, 2007, 05:28:01 PM
Quote
Asked whether he would obey the Constitution and consult Congress before sending US troops into combat, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney says he would consult his lawyers first.
That's it. I don't have to read beyond that. A candidate who can't read and comprehend the Constitution without 'his lawyers' is spectacularly unqualified to be POTUS. He's done.
Post by: yesitsloaded on October 11, 2007, 06:27:04 PM
Post by: v35 on November 01, 2007, 07:55:15 AM
How sad it is when people base their decisions on who "looks Presidential" or "sounds Presidential". What the heck is that supposed to mean? Abraham Lincoln certainly didn't meet those requirements. If he were campaigning today he'd be laughed at for his high squeaky voice. Beneath Lincoln's gangly appearance and ill-fitting clothes was a superior mind one can only appreciate through his writing. I'm certain there are many well-qualified people today who unfortunately could never get elected to public office because they're simply too bald, or too fat, or too old.
Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate. His writing indicates clearly developed positions, all of which have been consistently grounded in Constitutional law. The one absolute requirement for President ought to be one who will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Ron Paul has consistently demonstrated that he would fulfill that requirement. Photogenic (and now, "telegenic") personalities are nothing but a distraction. If you doubt that ask yourself why Barack Obama has become so popular. Good looking, glib, personable, check. Beyond that he's an empty suit. His popularity began its decline the moment he attempted to communicate his positions. Fortunately it seems Clinton is beginning to expose the same flaws.
I like Fred Thompson but his voting record isn't as consistent as Paul's. Giuliani comes across as a leader but he equivocates on Constitutional issues.
I'm voting for Ron Paul. My conscience will be clean. If you vote for someone else, you can't tell me you won't be holding your nose while you do so. If you do, I submit you're part of the problem that has brought us to where we are today.
And to answer the question, no, I don't think Ron Paul stands a chance of getting elected. Most people are too lazy to weigh all the issues, or are simply incapable of independent thought. Most people will follow the herd. Folks, we're not cattle. Stop thinking like livestock. Challenge the status quo, or live with it. Your choice.
Post by: Len Budney on November 01, 2007, 08:15:23 AM
How sad it is when people base their decisions on who "looks Presidential" or "sounds Presidential". What the heck is that supposed to mean? Abraham Lincoln certainly didn't meet those requirements. If he were campaigning today he'd be laughed at for his high squeaky voice. Beneath Lincoln's gangly appearance and ill-fitting clothes was a superior mind one can only appreciate through his writing...
Some of us would consider that an unfortunate example. Lincoln did more to damage the Constitution than anyone before or since, including Bush. Though the parallels between Bush and Lincoln are quite striking, including the suspension of due process and habeas corpus.
--Len.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 01, 2007, 09:30:57 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 01, 2007, 02:29:07 PM
Quote
Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate.
That is the funniest thing I've read today.
Post by: Soybomb on November 01, 2007, 09:43:07 PM
Quote
No. I'm voting for him anyway.
Of course the reality is he won't get the republican nomination, will you be taking the appropriate measures to be sure a write in vote for ron paul gets counted in your election area? I don't believe ron paul can get elected at this time. I'm not happy about that because he is the candidate I agree with the most, but not enough americans share my political ideology. The concept of freedom is relatively dead to most Americans. Even on alot of the gun forums people talk big about it but at the end of the day they still want to force their values on others with the war on drugs, banning flag burning, worrying about whats going on in other people's bedrooms, even look at the thread on THR right now where people think it would be a great idea to mandate gun ownership. Many americans don't think there is any way to help the poor or invalid without the government being involved even though most of them would probably also say the government is incredibly incompetent and wasteful. Eventually people might change, but I think its going to be a while. In the meantime RP will be looked at by most people as a nut, the republicans and the democrats will each run more of the same, and americans will vote for the person that isn't a republican as bush backlash.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 02, 2007, 08:04:50 AM
they still want to force their values on others
The way human society works, there is always a dominant system of values, which reflects itself in laws and customs. The lack of values is not a value, and therefore is quickly displaced by any value. The only way to de-value the system is to do away with laws and customs, which ultimately means doing away with society itself. That's one of the chief reasons Libertarianism is impracticable. What is practicable is a small-gov self-reliant family-centric conservatism strengthened by common goals and cultural heritage. Interestingly, it functionally achieves most of what Libertarianism advertises but cannot deliver.
Post by: v35 on November 08, 2007, 06:26:57 PM
Quote
No. I'm voting for him anyway.
Of course the reality is he won't get the republican nomination, will you be taking the appropriate measures to be sure a write in vote for ron paul gets counted in your election area? I highly doubt Paul will emerge the Republican nominee. I expect he'll eventually run as an independent.
Regarding my Lincoln comments, well, mea culpa. I conveniently forgot some of his actions, taken in desperation to preserve the Union. As most desperate acts they were indefensible. If he had lived perhaps he would have had to answer for them, and my image of him might not have been so rosy. I stand behind my assertion that his was a superior mind, though.
While I'm on the subject of Lincoln, I'd point out an unfortunate fact: any government, including ours, will simply ignore the Constitution when the inconvenience of law threatens its existence. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is but one reprehensible example. Acts of war not authorized by Congress are another that have become commonplace, and as unjust. I don't see any of the Democrat or Republican front runners take a position against such illegal acts. Ron Paul has, and his voting record shows he would continue to do so.
Congress is bleeding us to death. This hasn't been much of a problem in the few recent decades they've been doing it, but now it's only a matter of time before it seriously starts to affect you and me. The effects may not be immediately obvious, but $100 oil is a symptom of a cancer that must be excised for the US to survive. The cancer is runaway inflation that threatens our sovereignty. Ron Paul asked Fed chairman Ben Bernanke about this today, which I heard broadcast live on the radio. Bernanke's comments indicated he hasn't a clue how to solve the problem, and fairly danced about an answer:
Quote from: Ben Bernanke
If somebody has their wealth in dollars and they’re going to buy consumer goods in dollars, then as a typical American … then the decline in the dollar – the only effect it has on their buying power is that it makes imported goods more expensive.
I could almost hear him squirm. Imported goods, like, everything we buy, Mr. Chairman? Bernanke attempted to dodge the question about rapidly devaluing US currency by answering it in the context of a local economy. Sorry, but as my daugher would say that's so 20th century. I'm not the only one who started to sweat -- "panic" is how Barron's described the market reaction to his comments today, before traders apparently swallowed a Prozac and decided to panic another day. Get used to it - more pain is on the way. I can't blame Bernanke though, it's not his fault that Congress is spending us into oblivion. All he can do is attempt to prop up a very sick economy, as the Fed did last week by adding another $41 billion of liquidity into the hundreds of billions added since the credit markets collapsed. This is the largest infusion of cash since 9/11. Folks, this is money taken directly from your pocket, your investments, your retirement, your estate. You just don't know it yet.
Ron Paul gets it. Unfortunately no one else on the Joint Economic Committee seemed to have a clue. Such luminaries as Chuck Schumer were probably trying not to yawn, while another (Loretta Sanchez?) seemed intent on placing blame. Ron Paul understands the problem, which is the first step toward solving it. There is a looming economic crisis on the horizon that no one - absolutely no one - in government would like to admit. They certainly don't want you to know. All they're hoping for is to drop the mess into someone's lap before it blows up, as it surely will, sooner or later.
Has Rudy spoken on this topic? No but I'm sure he'd sound all Presidential if he did. Romney? Checking with his lawyers. Clinton? Waiting for the poll results. Obama? Too busy getting buff for the next photo op. Fred? Hello??
Sure, Ron Paul has some wacky ideas. He wants to abolish the IRS. The US existed for about 130 years before the IRS, and it can again. He wants to get out of Iraq. Who doesn't? It can't be done overnight even if he wanted. I doubt he can accomplish half of what his stated objectives are, but so what? We're only talking about a President, not a monarch. What I expect him to do is what the job is supposed to entail: preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. I am confident Ron Paul would do exactly that. I am less confident about the others, no matter how "presidential" they appear to be.
Much as we'd like to think so, Americans are no different from any other human beings in other societies who have faced economic destruction. There's nothing genetically different about us. All of us will walk, sheep-like, to the slaughter, as your Constitution is suspended for the common good. All you have to do is stand by and let it happen. Preventing this unacceptable outcome will take action. Someone needs to act.
Having said that I also agree there's no way RP can get elected, and here's why:
- Some people think.
- Other people think they think.
- Most people would rather die than think.
This last category is the one that decides elections.
Yes, I believe Ron Paul is the thinking man's candidate. Which is exactly why he won't get elected.
Post by: oldfart on November 09, 2007, 08:14:27 AM
But people still have that unholy fear of being wrong and then having to admit it to the world. So those who are so fervently bashing Ron Paul now will - if he does get the nomination - either sit out the election or just not vote for President. Of course that course of action might strengthen the Democratic chances. But those who would do it claim they have no choice even though they tell us (those of us who support Ron Paul) that our stance will ensure a Hillary victory.
I will vote for Paul if he is on the ballot. He will most likely be on the primary ballot so my choice will be a simple one. I believe TPTB (networks, industrialists, etc.) will not allow him to be nominated as the Republican candidate so when the general election comes around I will have a much more difficult choice. Once again, as I have done twelve times already, I will hold my nose and vote for the candidate I feel will do the least damage. There are some I know I will not vote for: Hillary, Obama, Guliani, Romney, McCain and Brownback all fall into that group. There are still a few Republicans that I might be able to support though some of them are already busily shooting themselves in the foot.
What is this world coming to when we measure our successes in negatives?
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 06:24:13 PM
Post by: oldfart on November 09, 2007, 06:48:23 PM
I've always held that a major reason divorces are so bitterly contested is because no one wants to admit a mistake, thus each party claims the other is at fault. Now most states have "no fault" divorce so it's made the process a bit more civilized.
(There's #1)
But people still have that unholy fear of being wrong and then having to admit it to the world. So those who are so fervently bashing Ron Paul now will - if he does get the nomination - either sit out the election or just not vote for President. Of course that course of action might strengthen the Democratic chances. But those who would do it claim they have no choice even though they tell us (those of us who support Ron Paul) that our stance will ensure a Hillary victory.
(And here's #2)
I will vote for Paul if he is on the ballot. He will most likely be on the primary ballot so my choice will be a simple one. I believe TPTB (networks, industrialists, etc.) will not allow him to be nominated as the Republican candidate so when the general election comes around I will have a much more difficult choice. Once again, as I have done twelve times already, I will hold my nose and vote for the candidate I feel will do the least damage. There are some I know I will not vote for: Hillary, Obama, Guliani, Romney, McCain and Brownback all fall into that group. There are still a few Republicans that I might be able to support though some of them are already busily shooting themselves in the foot.
(I believe this is #3)
What is this world coming to when we measure our successes in negatives?
(#4)
Ok?
Post by: Paddy on November 09, 2007, 07:05:25 PM
Quote
Ok?
No.
Not Ok.
You hit 'space' after each paragraph.
Ok?
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 09, 2007, 08:50:01 PM
Post by: oldfart on November 10, 2007, 06:17:26 AM
Post by: ilbob on November 10, 2007, 06:56:37 AM
Post by: Tecumseh on November 10, 2007, 09:08:48 PM
Anybody but a neo-con in 2008.
Post by: CAnnoneer on November 11, 2007, 02:26:40 AM
Post by: DBabsJr on November 11, 2007, 05:02:46 AM
See the end of this video - http://youtube.com/watch?v=CSvobOHNDVc and the beginning of this video - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wVxRArH6vQw for examples of him speaking about the CIA. He also spoke about this yesterday at a rally in Philadelphia. From the video, speaking of secret CIA activity:
Quote
I think all of that stuff should be either stopped or absolutely open.
These videos are number 4 & 5 from an interview in New Hampshire on 11/7. The beginning video is at - http://youtube.com/watch?v=hx2vLUMmSiA
Post by: Matt King on November 12, 2007, 02:44:31 PM
If Ron Paul doesnt get the nomination I will vote for anybody other than a Republican. I personally would like to see Kucinich as the Democrat nominee. I think he is better than the rest of the democrats. If Thompson, McCain, Romney, or Guiliani gets the nomination I will campaign for the LP against them. And if the LP doesnt put anyone on the ballot I will vote Green.
Anybody but a neo-con in 2008.
Anybody but a neo-con in 2008.
Why Kucinich? Isn't this the same guy that proposed a bill banning handguns?
See Paragraph #8
http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2007/04/kucinich_packed_heat_after_197.html
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 12, 2007, 06:31:27 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on November 13, 2007, 06:00:21 AM
Why Kucinich? Mind whence comes the recommendation.
He could use his fleet of UFOs to make all the icky warlike people in the world behave.
Post by: Antibubba on November 16, 2007, 08:34:20 PM
It's pure, no-nonsense, and it'll strengthen anything its added to.
But drink it straight and it'll probably kill you--or make you wish it had.
I'll add my one vote for Paul in the primaries, but I do so knowing he hasn't a chance of getting the nomination. I want the Republicans to notice how many of us are discontented with their politics of late.