View Full Version : Why I now support Ron Paul
variablebinary
08-14-11, 05:40
In the last election, I wrote Ron Paul off as an un-electable kook.
Now I know better. The man is incredibly smart and has been dead on in his criticisms of government, globalism, the federal reserve, banking cartels and national debt.
For those that don't know who Ron Paul is, take a moment and hear what he has to say. You might actually learn something and rethink what you think you know about Ron Paul.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPQs6ri7Dt0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NJnL10vZ1Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1e9HCNh4qQ&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btg0Qdsf40o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUU27CZsJDE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oK9FnhEC6U&NR=1
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-2oaRGz0oMhc/Thx7EIQQFwI/AAAAAAABHpU/nn4j9T7feYE/s1600/RonPaul.jpg
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 05:48
Agreed. I have had enough of the republican party; their religion, their spending, their BS.
Agreed. I have had enough of the republican party; their religion, their spending, their BS.
RP is a republican.
He has some good ideas, but he is not my first choice due to foreign policy positions. Honestly, I don't see a viable path to the Republican ticket, nor do I see him running as an independent.
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 06:41
RP is a republican.
He has some good ideas, but he is not my first choice due to foreign policy positions. Honestly, I don't see a viable path to the Republican ticket, nor do I see him running as an independent.
I know he is and I am also sure you know what I am getting at.
I know he is and I am also sure you know what I am getting at.
There are a number of RP supporters who want him to run as an independent should he loose the republican primary race. I'm not sure if you fall into this camp or if that is what you are getting at. If so, I suspect that it will split just enough of the conservative vote to insure another 4 more years of Obama.
I like RP and think that he is an honorable man. I sure he knows that such a switch would do irreparable harm to his legacy.
variablebinary
08-14-11, 07:06
RP is very proud to be a republican and says so openly.
He is not leaving the party, and will not run as an independent.
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 07:08
I see what you are getting at, Lane. Honestly, I am not sure what I intend to do if RP splits. That is a measure of how disgusted I am with the other Republican front runners.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 07:11
Good to see others getting it.
Irish had him nailed some time ago.
imo, he is the best hope for our types of belief system.
The best you can do is edify others to the awakening reality that if we don't get rid of the corruption, congress etc. our destiny is preordained after a fashion.
The slackers will never get it. To busy spouting off for their bigger uttered candidates. The key is to codify / galvanize the common good agenda for a majority. It would need to be a massive ephipany / awakening for many......
Nice to see the original spirit of our founding cadre (the new terrorists) catching on.
ForTehNguyen
08-14-11, 09:05
libertarians are what classical republicans used to be: small govt, non interventionalist, personal liberties, etc.
polymorpheous
08-14-11, 09:33
He would have been my pick in 2008.
Unfortunately Wisconsin did not allow him on the ballot.
So Bob Barr took my vote.
My ex and I watched the 2008 Republican debates, (hosted by the NAACP! So no McCain, Romney, Gulliani...)
We were like, "who is this guy?"
A quick Google search turned up his Libertarian background.
I don't agree with 100% with his ideas, but out of all the mainstream politicians he comes closest to my views.
I hope to see him do well in 2012.
He will likely have my support.
montanadave
08-14-11, 09:51
The current two-party system is nothing more than political Kabuki theatre and has been for more than a generation. The Republicans and Democrats turn the voters inside out over marginal (though highly emotionally charged) wedge issues while maintaining the status quo in Washington.
Witness the decisive action taken in Washington to address the Wall Street banksters and their trashing of the world economy. A Republican administration sends its Treasury secretary to Congress threatening an economic apocalypse if they don't hand over $700 billion dollars to be passed out to his Wall Street cronies. And let's not even mention the trillions in loan guarantees and free money tossed out by the Federal Reserve to keep the financial house of cards standing.
So the American public elects a Democratic president who has campaigned on "Hope and Change," an end to business as usual in Washington, and... puts in place a group of economic advisors, Treasury personnel, and a Federal Reserve chairman who may as well have been delivered from the central casting department at Goldman-Sachs.
While the American middle class withers on the vine, choked by debt and stagnant wages, the Wall Street banksters go about doing "God's work" (as JPMorgan Chase CEO and chairman Jamie Dimon so eloquently put it), paying themselves multi-million dollar bonuses as their investment banks continue unobstructed the same financial double-dealing that took the economy over a cliff, albeit now financed in part by the taxpayer.
The plutocracy that owns 90% of the wealth in America owns the Republican and Democratic parties. And until a third party can emerge to break the stranglehold these political parties hold on our democracy, the average American is going to see his stake in this nation continue to dwindle and his ability to effect substantive change in how this nation is governed diminish.
Every time a viable third-party candidate emerges, we will hear the same chorus from the Republicrats, "You're throwing your vote away. You might as well vote for the opposition." And you know what, the first few times it might be true. But the sad reality is that there is little or no substantive difference in how either of the two parties do business now.
A third party has to emerge to challenge the oligarchy which now controls the one masquerading as two-party system which is currently choking us to death.
If you believe in Ron Paul and his message, have the courage of your convictions and vote for the man. At least you can go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Even if he fails to make any progress towards being elected, hopefully keeping him in the public eye will help with the spread of many of his ideas.
It is frustrating though that most people's only exposure to him will be through the filtered lens of the media, where I believe he will be given some visibility as long as he is only seen as dividing the base against the "front runners", but he will be marginalized quickly if he starts to gain any real traction.
RogerinTPA
08-14-11, 10:21
I've always liked Ron Paul, but his Libertarian views do not sit well with today's Republican Party as they are too extreme. Which makes him
unelectable as a Republican.
The current two-party system is nothing more than political Kabuki theatre and has been for more than a generation. The Republicans and Democrats turn the voters inside out over marginal (though highly emotionally charged) wedge issues while maintaining the status quo in Washington.
Witness the decisive action taken in Washington to address the Wall Street banksters and their trashing of the world economy. A Republican administration sends its Treasury secretary to Congress threatening an economic apocalypse if they don't hand over $700 billion dollars to be passed out to his Wall Street cronies. And let's not even mention the trillions in loan guarantees and free money tossed out by the Federal Reserve to keep the financial house of cards standing.
So the American public elects a Democratic president who has campaigned on "Hope and Change," an end to business as usual in Washington, and... puts in place a group of economic advisors, Treasury personnel, and a Federal Reserve chairman who may as well have been delivered from the central casting department at Goldman-Sachs.
While the American middle class withers on the vine, choked by debt and stagnant wages, the Wall Street banksters go about doing "God's work" (as JPMorgan Chase CEO and chairman Jamie Dimon so eloquently put it), paying themselves multi-million dollar bonuses as their investment banks continue unobstructed the same financial double-dealing that took the economy over a cliff, albeit now financed in part by the taxpayer.
The plutocracy that owns 90% of the wealth in America owns the Republican and Democratic parties. And until a third party can emerge to break the stranglehold these political parties hold on our democracy, the average American is going to see his stake in this nation continue to dwindle and his ability to effect substantive change in how this nation is governed diminish.
Every time a viable third-party candidate emerges, we will hear the same chorus from the Republicrats, "You're throwing your vote away. You might as well vote for the opposition." And you know what, the first few times it might be true. But the sad reality is that there is little or no substantive difference in how either of the two parties do business now.
A third party has to emerge to challenge the oligarchy which now controls the one masquerading as two-party system which is currently choking us to death.
If you believe in Ron Paul and his message, have the courage of your convictions and vote for the man. At least you can go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
If given the choice, would you vote for Ron Paul or Obama?
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 10:26
The current two-party system is nothing more than political Kabuki theatre and has been for more than a generation. The Republicans and Democrats turn the voters inside out over marginal (though highly emotionally charged) wedge issues while maintaining the status quo in Washington.
Witness the decisive action taken in Washington to address the Wall Street banksters and their trashing of the world economy. A Republican administration sends its Treasury secretary to Congress threatening an economic apocalypse if they don't hand over $700 billion dollars to be passed out to his Wall Street cronies. And let's not even mention the trillions in loan guarantees and free money tossed out by the Federal Reserve to keep the financial house of cards standing.
So the American public elects a Democratic president who has campaigned on "Hope and Change," an end to business as usual in Washington, and... puts in place a group of economic advisors, Treasury personnel, and a Federal Reserve chairman who may as well have been delivered from the central casting department at Goldman-Sachs.
While the American middle class withers on the vine, choked by debt and stagnant wages, the Wall Street banksters go about doing "God's work" (as JPMorgan Chase CEO and chairman Jamie Dimon so eloquently put it), paying themselves multi-million dollar bonuses as their investment banks continue unobstructed the same financial double-dealing that took the economy over a cliff, albeit now financed in part by the taxpayer.
The plutocracy that owns 90% of the wealth in America owns the Republican and Democratic parties. And until a third party can emerge to break the stranglehold these political parties hold on our democracy, the average American is going to see his stake in this nation continue to dwindle and his ability to effect substantive change in how this nation is governed diminish.
Every time a viable third-party candidate emerges, we will hear the same chorus from the Republicrats, "You're throwing your vote away. You might as well vote for the opposition." And you know what, the first few times it might be true. But the sad reality is that there is little or no substantive difference in how either of the two parties do business now.
A third party has to emerge to challenge the oligarchy which now controls the one masquerading as two-party system which is currently choking us to death.
If you believe in Ron Paul and his message, have the courage of your convictions and vote for the man. At least you can go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
In reality you could leave RP out of the equation it's the same analysis which is spot on target.
Excellent post.
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 10:28
What bothers me about the folks that are afraid to vote their conscience because of realpolitik is that effectively guarantees the status quo. Except for unions and gun rights, I don't see any real difference between the two parties.
Good to see others getting it.
Irish had him nailed some time ago.
imo, he is the best hope for our types of belief system.
The best you can do is edify others to the awakening reality that if we don't get rid of the corruption, congress etc. our destiny is preordained after a fashion.
The slackers will never get it. To busy spouting off for their bigger uttered candidates. The key is to codify / galvanize the common good agenda for a majority. It would need to be a massive ephipany / awakening for many......
Nice to see the original spirit of our founding cadre (the new terrorists) catching on.
This is why I get on the General Discussion of M4C. I rarely have time to follow up on all the news after I get done with work and family. Reading the various opinions and links from all the other members opens up my news access a bit.
Like Variablebinary, I am starting to see it. Ron Paul never seemed "kooky" to me, just unelectable due to some of his more libertarian views that would never allow him to get out of the primaries.
The bolded statement rings so true. As a country, we have no future if we can't take control back from the corrupt politicians and their financiers.
Ron Paul will likely have my vote in the primaries.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 10:39
Littlelebowski & uwe1
Bingo Spot on.
Have to throw in some of the various religious beliefs/sects/factions in there as well. Your not going to convince them of most of this. That is part of the control facter they already know.
Their agneda is in full swing. They know they are exposed and want to wrap it up quickly as possible with Executive Orders, Martial Law etc. That way they disarm the people & have complete control make no mistake.
montanadave
08-14-11, 10:54
If given the choice, would you vote for Ron Paul or Obama?
Given my current level of rabid cynicism towards the politicians in Washington and their overlords, coupled with my profound disappointment in President Obama, I would likely vote for Ron Paul.
In my view, the system is irretrievably corrupted by the seemingly endless flow of money into and out of the government, the revolving doors that exist between government and corporate America, and the coercive and disruptive power of lobbyists to force their agenda down the glutinous throats of our ravenous politicians.
I am currently reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. Let me get back to you when I finish. :)
Littlelebowski & uwe1
Bingo Spot on.
Have to throw in some of the various religious beliefs/sects/factions in there as well. Your not going to convince them of most of this. That is part of the control facter they already know.
People have to understand how to separate the big issues versus the little issues.
The biggest issue of all is getting our country back from the corrupt politicians and their globalist financiers. Unfortunately, the well financed make it the furthest in our system so the cycle perpetuates itself. I would love to see congressional term limits, but soon after that is instituted we will start seeing "candidates" groomed earlier and earlier to take the place of the departing candidates. I'm not sure how to fix our elections process to ensure that good people make it to the top. How do we end the damn cycle?
The recent market volatility had my wife and I shaking our heads, thinking someone is getting rich, it's just not the average person. When hedgefunds have hundreds of billions at their disposal, they can start to effect trends. It's all a ****ing game to them.
The abortion issue, gay rights, and other religious issues just confuse those that don't see the big picture.
I won't compromise on the second amendment.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 11:18
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
Ayn Rand
Given my current level of rabid cynicism towards the politicians in Washington and their overlords, coupled with my profound disappointment in President Obama, I would likely vote for Ron Paul.
In my view, the system is irretrievably corrupted by the seemingly endless flow of money into and out of the government, the revolving doors that exist between government and corporate America, and the coercive and disruptive power of lobbyists to force their agenda down the glutinous throats of our ravenous politicians.
I am currently reading Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick. Let me get back to you when I finish. :)
Wow Dave. I never thought you would dream of switching sides. :haha:
So many on the left had such high hopes for Obama. He turned out just as most of us who didn't support him thought he would.
But, hey, Bush was a frkn moron as well and I'm sure many of the members voted for him. *moron here raising his hand* But, I sure as hell wasn't going to vote for Al Gore or John Kerry and had to make the best of a shitty situation.
The problem is not many good, upstanding people make it to the presidential ticket. This leaves us fighting over who sucks less.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 11:31
The biggest issue of all is getting our country back from the corrupt politicians and their globalist financiers.
I won't compromise on the second amendment.
That would job #1 & the second quote should be your mantra because after that it's all over.
There is another wild card to this that's possible true Democrats will see the direction, figure it out & go WTF over ?
Not sure how many, but it is a possibility.
"It's better to die upon your feet than to live upon your knees!"
ˇPrefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!
"I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men."
Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas
Land and Liberty!
ˇTierra y Libertad!
NAMASTE !
If given the choice, would you vote for Ron Paul or Obama?
I would hope the masses are of the same thinking as I am. I'll vote for 'anyone' vs Obama...the history books will show him as a man who did all he could to undermine the founding fathers and constitution. His objectives are pretty clear & I cannot imagine any candidate taking the same path.
I'm tired of life long politicians & pretty much feel that all of washington needs an enema...I would think RP is electable if it comes down to those 2 but have lost some faith in the voting public.
The thought of any split ticket is very scary. God I hope we don't self destruct.
Agreed. I have had enough of the republican party; their religion, their spending, their BS.
I agree, Paul would be a valuable course correction.
Cagemonkey
08-14-11, 11:57
I've been on the Ron Paul bandwagon for a short time now. The effects of the Federal Reserve and our Foreign Policy have recently born fruit and show many of his views to be prophetic. I recommend reading The Revolution, End The Fed and Liberty Defined.
I like RP and think that he is an honorable man. I sure he knows that such a switch would do irreparable harm to his legacy.
RP has good ideas. But he is a hypocrite. Railing against spending etc and then securing millions in earmarks for his constituents.
His claims that he is just helping his constituents get back what was stolen from them is very disingenuous. He is NOT getting back for his constituents what was stolen as the money is only going to certain constituents (shrimp farmers and other special groups earmarked) and the amounts they are receiving are not in any way proportional to what was "stolen" through taxation.
He is feeding at the trough as well.
Too bad as he has some good ideas. But he is just like all the other politicians. A big hypocrite.
What bothers me about the folks that are afraid to vote their conscience because of realpolitik is that effectively guarantees the status quo. Except for unions and gun rights, I don't see any real difference between the two parties.
Well, then you are blind.
The amount of spending and etc is radically different. The Democrats could never even have conceive of the Paul Ryan plan.
Thoughts on immigration. The parties are way apart on that as well. And many other issues.
There is a more liberal wing of the RP and the RP supports spending way too much. But it is still much less then the Democrats. And usually slightly more Constitutional spending.
The RP has plenty of problems but there are light years between the parties.
What bothers me about the folks that are afraid to vote their conscience because of realpolitik is that effectively guarantees the status quo.
In the primaries, you are correct. In the general election, you are 180 deg off.
Except for unions and gun rights, I don't see any real difference between the two parties.
Every time a viable third-party candidate emerges, we will hear the same chorus from the Republicrats, "You're throwing your vote away. You might as well vote for the opposition." And you know what, the first few times it might be true. But the sad reality is that there is little or no substantive difference in how either of the two parties do business now.
A third party has to emerge to challenge the oligarchy which now controls the one masquerading as two-party system which is currently choking us to death.
If you believe in Ron Paul and his message, have the courage of your convictions and vote for the man. At least you can go to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Civics 101. There is no such thing as a viable 3rd party. Due to the way the system was structured from the very beginning, as a winner takes all system, there is only room for 2 parties. This is college civics 101 btw.
The changes that happen come through the existing parties. We have had instances of the dominate two parties changing, but the change did not come through a 3rd party taking over. The change came through one of the existing parties breaking up.
If you want to change things, don't look for a third party. Get one of the existing parties to break up and form a new second party. Get your people into positions of power in the party.
If you want a more libertarian Republican Party, then get your delegates at your county and state levels elected instead of the fundamentalist Christian delegates you rail against (stupidly IMNSHO, and I am not a fundamentalist Christian).
Get your people supported at the dog catcher, city council, and other local and then state levels. You won't change a party from the top. It has to come from the bottom -- from an overall perspective and expectation of the people.
People who vote for Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann will vote for Perry or Bachmann type people at the local and state level to. Change who they vote for at the local and state level, and they will vote different at the national level too.
montanadave
08-14-11, 12:31
Wow Dave. I never thought you would dream of switching sides. :haha:
A small personal confession. I missed being able to vote in the '76 election by a couple of months, but would have voted for Ford. I voted for Reagan twice, Bush Sr. once, Perot in '92 (in my defense, I had voted an absentee ballot and was likely intoxicated :rolleyes:), Dole in '96, and Dubya in 2000.
After 9/11, I felt President Bush had a "once in a generation" opportunity to pull this nation together in common cause, a common cause which would extend beyond seeking retribution against al Queda and Osama bin Laden. He had a chance to ask Americans to participate in a shared sacrifice to strengthen this nation by instituting tax, regulatory, entitlement, and healthcare reforms that would have promoted a sound economy, secured financial security for millions of Americans, and built a solid foundation for this nation to enter the new century with a renewed spirit and sense of unity.
Instead, bin Laden slipped out of Tora Bora and across the border into Pakistan (hard to prosecute the GWOT if you've caught Public Enemy #1, right?) and the Bush administration ginned up evidence to pursue an invasion of Iraq. I know, I know, lots of controversy here and I don't wish to rehash the whole cluster****. Let's just acknowledge it's been a cluster**** and move on. And Bush, rather than asking for any shared sacrifice, tells Americans to "go back out to the mall" and continue wracking up consumer debt with the free money Greenspan and the Fed are shoveling out the door to keep the economy humming along. And to pay for this whole ****ing shit storm (and an unfunded Medicare prescription drug plan to lock up some senior votes), the Bush administration cuts taxes, keeps the war costs off the books, the borrows a trillion dollars from the Chinese. Enough is enough. I'd had all of Bush and his cronies I could stomach.
So I jumped ship. Throw the bums out. A pox on their house. Anybody's gotta be better than these yahoos, right? I voted for Kerry in '04 which was really nothing more than an anti-Bush vote.
And I supported Obama in '06. I drank the Kool-Aid. I really wanted to believe that a young black president could invigorate the youth in this country, bring them into the electoral process, and convince the moribund Washington establishment that they needed to stop lining their pockets for a moment and listen to the people in the streets.
Whether Obama was just a show pony trotted out by the Democratic establishment to grab the White House or, as I still want to believe, a pragmatist who naively thought he could act as an effective power broker in Washington, he has largely been impotent as a leader. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, was acquiescing to the Democratic Congressional leadership instead of sitting them down in the Oval Office and showing them the polls (i.e. "The public likes me, they hate you, now get in line"). He let Max Baucus and the health insurance lobby write the health care bill and got a total abortion, no pun intended, which is going to end up in the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority will strike down the individual mandate and, thus, nullify the whole nine yards. And he got completely rolled by the Wall Street banksters, just like Bush. The Republicans smell blood in the water and have no intention of dealing with Obama on anything. Why should they? Obama can't even back down a populist mob of freshman representatives in the House who seem eager and willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Four more years of Obama seems to me a recipe for four more years of government gridlock and partisan gamesmanship at a time this country can ill afford to dither about. There are serious issues which need to be addressed and the current crop in Washington do not appear to be serious about anything other than reelection.
And what is the GOP offering up? Romney, Bachmann, and Perry. Oy vey! This is a group of presidential candidates who, when asked if they would accept $9 in spending cuts if offset with $1 in revenue enhancements, said NO. WTF? These aren't serious people, these are people willing to sell their soul for a vote.
I'm so sick of the lot of them I could puke. Actually, I think I did just puke. But somehow I don't feel any better. :shout:
Rmplstlskn
08-14-11, 12:43
The whole Ron Paul race depends on THINKING people rather than "group think" herd movements... Just the fact that those reading this comment are here, on this forum, puts you into a THINKING classification, one that sees the dire reality of our situation.
Yet I work at a major University, with both students, staff and educators (indoctrinators), and from what I see daily, my fear is like my tagline below, but with stupidity and inability to THINK added in...
I'm not sure enough "good, thinking citizens" exist anymore to overcome the MOB RULES structure of our gov't anymore... We are a DISTANT minority, and the window to our society, YouTube, even further cements it.
I fear the ballot box has become the enslaver, the tyranny so feared by our Founders.
Rmpl
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 13:26
The whole Ron Paul race depends on THINKING people rather than "group think" herd movements... Just the fact that those reading this comment are here, on this forum, puts you into a THINKING classification, one that sees the dire reality of our situation.
Yet I work at a major University, with both students, staff and educators (indoctrinators), and from what I see daily, my fear is like my tagline below, but with stupidity and inability to THINK added in...
I'm not sure enough "good, thinking citizens" exist anymore to overcome the MOB RULES structure of our gov't anymore... We are a DISTANT minority, and the window to our society, YouTube, even further cements it.
I fear the ballot box has become the enslaver, the tyranny so feared by our Founders.
Rmpl
Excellent post and TRUTH.
The first part is to get it out there. It either works or doesn't. No need to get "wrapped around the axle" or "spooled up" & name call or insulting diatribes. That is clearly counterproductive.
Thinking people will either figure it out as you commented correctly or they don't.
Then when the consequences of that reality hits they can look at themselves in the mirror for their choices. It's completely within their rights as such.
Believe it or not I'm not a political person at all. My past posting history proves that. I researched all I could, completely absorbed my energy into uncovering what was going on because it doesn't past my smell test.
I try to share my facts & results. People either get it or they don't. I know how to take care of myself no worries there.
Pick anyone you want to. I could care less.
I'm trying to find a solution to the real core of the problem. That is worth it to me.
To stop the insanity & plundering going on has to be a index or starting place that puts it on track. That is the task at hand as I see it.
Insulting people's beliefs, getting thread locked etc. serves no useful or utility that I can think of.
Attempting to solve the identified problems at least attempts to address the issues for a unified purpose does.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 13:43
Obama got elected 3 years ago. Not enough time for the public to un**** themselves. Ive liked Ron Paul for a long time, and he most closely fits my beliefs. But I also have to look at the reality of the situation, and the people who bankroll elections will leave people like him sitting on the side of the road.
Look at what Obama has been doing....35k a head dinners. That dude is gearing up big time and will raise a billion dollars to get a 2nd term.
This is something Ive been saying for a long time but if you're a libertarian a conservative can be just as dangerous to you as a liberal. CAN BE. I get a long with conservatives far better but look at the candidates running. Half of them want their personal religious beliefs to be the law. I don't believe for a second they think liberty means live and let live. They'll impose their beliefs on you just as fast as Obama.
If you want to see how spooky good our Founding Fathers were look up some of their quotes on bankers. When the politicians have gotten in bed with the bankers we have lost the republic. Now most people are in a lifelong game of revolving debt and paying huge sums of money to the banks. The banks are in one pocket and the gov is in the other.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 13:57
The fact is APATHY & ignorance got us here.
Now we have the facts & knowledge otherwise. You either take the postion that it's worth it to fight for the Republic or your of the opinion it's not.
It really is that simple.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/eastandard.net/headlines/news26060403.htm
Agreed. I have had enough of the republican party; their religion, their spending, their BS.
Other than the religion part, I agree.
I see no religion in either party except that they both are more along the lines of a "god"vernment than a government. They both worship at the altar of spending someone else's money.
Unlike the Dem Socialists, I do feel their may be hope for the Reps...maybe, but its going to take some major league house cleaning.
RP is very proud to be a republican and says so openly.
He is not leaving the party, and will not run as an independent.
Exactly. Paul's stance is that his platform is the true Republican party. Why should Ron Paul have to bail and become an independent when it's the neocons and fascist theocrats that have corrupted the party?
threeheadeddog
08-14-11, 15:31
I am not an English major or an acomplished writer so please just leave my faults in those reguards out of your comments.
This is a bit of a derail as far as the Ron Paul topic(I have supported him since the last election though I do not agree with his forein policy), but it is worth stating.
It is very interesting to look at the current state of the USA in parallel to 1930' Nazi Germany. Forget for a moment the racist issues with NG(Nazi Germany) and just look at what the goverment acomplished with consolidation of power by using the chaos around them. I dont think that anyone who believes (I do not but humor me) in the consolidation of power to a "ruling class" would vew NG as anything but a success. They had everything someone wanting an elite "ruling class" could want. Where they failed was Hitler and WW2. If you want a world wide power(imperialism) you cannot go about it as bluntly as Hitler did. He failed. Anyone trying it today with the USA would fail.
So how would one pull of the goals of imperialism and rule by this ambitious select few.
Look at what we are doing as far as foreign politics. Our current administration is seen as weak by many but the fact is they have a very strong determined policy. We have a leader who is constantly trying to appear weak to our enemies. The govt have strained relationships with what little support we would have in the world as far as recognizing the freedoms the people of the USA have. They have toppled goverments only to possible put in anti-Americans in there place. These pawn will give the leaders in the USA whatever leverage they need to consolidate power.
The way the USA has the choke hold on world economies is impressive. The US elites can constrict the cash flow to almost any enemy(not to mention the control we have over crops due to our "green" use of them as alternative fuels). All the while having an impressive reserve of necessities at home(look at all the cries to drill here). It just gets deeper and deeper the farther one looks.
Simply put. Read Sun Tsu and see just how far in that rabbit hole the USA has placed itself. Now stop and look at the parrallels to 1930's NG and ask yourself if you think that the liberties of the US people are on the list of desired casualties or not.
End rant... Ron Paul is one of the few people in politics who does not wish to be a cog in this machine(or at least I hope so because if he is and is just playing it we really have no hope)
RP is very proud to be a republican and says so openly.
He is not leaving the party, and will not run as an independent.
Just informationally, he tried that already.
In 1988 he was the Libertarian Party candidate for President.
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 15:40
In the primaries, you are correct. In the general election, you are 180 deg off.
I know. We've already discussed that and I agreed with you.
If you want a more libertarian Republican Party, then get your delegates at your county and state levels elected instead of the fundamentalist Christian delegates you rail against (stupidly IMNSHO, and I am not a fundamentalist Christian).
Good attitude.
I don't so much have a beef with fundamentalist Christians, but with religious people who want the whole country to give up their liberties and bow down to their fundy superstitions.
Good attitude.
I don't so much have a beef with fundamentalist Christians, but with religious people who want the whole country to give up their liberties and bow down to their fundy superstitions.
Is this something new developing? I haven't heard that before...we have radical jihadis moving in?
The abortion issue, gay rights, and other religious issues just confuse those that don't see the big picture.
I won't compromise on the second amendment.
I think those issues can be used as a smoke screen/polarizing issue to keep people from looking closely at where their candidate stands on others and who he/she really is (eg, their actual voting records, performance, etc), but I also consider them basic human rights, as is the right to self defense, which are neither small or something I personally can overlook.
I'm close to an old school Repub, which was socially "liberal" and fiscally "conservative" and I find neither party "gets it" for me as neither follows that basic concept.
The Dems just don't have a clue and the Repubs allowed the religious right to essentially take over the party.
No thanx
Libertarians are as close as it gets on most issues, and I will vote my conscience as I have in the past.
I know. We've already discussed that and I agreed with you.
You're right. I forgot that the last time this was discussed on M4C it ended up like that with you. I apologize.
Good attitude.
I don't so much have a beef with fundamentalist Christians, but with religious people who want the whole country to give up their liberties and bow down to their fundy superstitions.
And who might that be? I know of NO one running on a platform that would create a state religion, force people to believe in their superstitions, etc.
Everyone who runs wants to try to make the country a better place according to their own personal value system. That includes the "right wing religious", the atheists, the LBGT vote, the feminists, etc.
Why are the "right wing religious", who base their value system on their religious beliefs, immediately disqualified in your mind because they want us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions" but the guy who wants to legislate atheism or LBGT rights or feminist rights gets a pass for trying to get us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions"?
Especially when you probably agree more with the "right wing religious" when it comes to fiscal issues, 2A, etc than you do with the athiest, or LBGT, or feminist types?
I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, even though I believe he is a hypocrite for slurping at the trough through his earmarks, in the primary.
But that does not mean, if he does not win the nomination (and I don't suspect him to -- the country needs to get turned around before it would be ready for someone like RP), that I will be boycotting the general election. I will work for Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann, or Cain, or whomever gets the nomination, as any of these is a step in the right direction compared to Obama and the Democrats (since their leadership has been taken over by the ultra leftists).
The Ship of State needs to start slowing down before it can start to turn around, and the turn will take a long while (think of the speed and turning radius of a battleship versus a small speedboat).
Also, if Perry or someone like that wins, you need to get the more libertarian wing of the Rep. Party to have influence in who gets selected to be advisors, cabinet members, etc. If Perry's or Romney's people see that the more libertarian RP type supporters came to bat for him, they will more likely be more open to advisors from that wing as well.
And lastly, you won't fix the country from the top. You need to start local -- in your city or town or county. And then in your county or other regional elections, and then your state. You need to get your libertarian leaning people in power in your local and state Republican parties.
Why are the "right wing religious", who base their value system on their religious beliefs, immediately disqualified in your mind because they want us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions" but the guy who wants to legislate atheism or LBGT rights or feminist rights gets a pass for trying to get us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions"?
Especially when you probably agree more with the "right wing religious" when it comes to fiscal issues, 2A, etc than you do with the athiest, or LBGT, or feminist types?
Winner.
And who might that be? I know of NO one running on a platform that would create a state religion, force people to believe in their superstitions, etc.
Everyone who runs wants to try to make the country a better place according to their own personal value system. That includes the "right wing religious", the atheists, the LBGT vote, the feminists, etc.
Why are the "right wing religious", who base their value system on their religious beliefs, immediately disqualified in your mind because they want us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions" but the guy who wants to legislate atheism or LBGT rights or feminist rights gets a pass for trying to get us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions"?
Especially when you probably agree more with the "right wing religious" when it comes to fiscal issues, 2A, etc than you do with the athiest, or LBGT, or feminist types?
Well, there are certainly some lefties would would like to make the whole country live they way they do.
I disqualify people who want to restrict the liberty of others. For example, "blue laws" that restrict the sale of alcohol on the Sabbath day, or bans against practices that offend the religious customs of some group (like banning muslim headscarves, same-sex marriages, capital punishment, or abortions). All of those things are contentious because one religious group or another has their panties in a wad.
While there are atheists who will argue till they're blue in the face to try to convince people, I'm not aware of any gay people trying to convert heteros. Well... come to think of it, I did see a pair of teenage boys riding door-to-door on bikes wearing shirts and ties, telling people about their alternative lifestyle. Seemed a little fruity ;)
Basically, I don't care if your family sacrifices goats to the volcano god, as long as you don't
1) tell my kids that they have to live and believe the same way or else they're going to hell
2) lobby for bans against things their faith has declared taboo
3) expect a tax writeoff on sacrificial goats
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 18:44
And who might that be? I know of NO one running on a platform that would create a state religion, force people to believe in their superstitions, etc.
Everyone who runs wants to try to make the country a better place according to their own personal value system. That includes the "right wing religious", the atheists, the LBGT vote, the feminists, etc.
Why are the "right wing religious", who base their value system on their religious beliefs, immediately disqualified in your mind because they want us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions" but the guy who wants to legislate atheism or LBGT rights or feminist rights gets a pass for trying to get us to "bow down to their fundy superstitions"?
Especially when you probably agree more with the "right wing religious" when it comes to fiscal issues, 2A, etc than you do with the athiest, or LBGT, or feminist types?
People can be whatever religion they want to be, can be gay, whatever. Just don't try to get me to live my life by what your religious (or other beliefs) are, shut down science because it doesn't fit your religious teachings, and a host of other issues the more fundamentalist religious folks have a hard time not doing.
By creating laws based on what the Bible says you're enforcing your religion on me, and backing it up with state powers, jail, fines, ect. You don't have to be religious to be a good person who doesn't harm others.
Maybe we should bring back prison for adultery and sodomy for gays....
I'll probably vote for RP in the primary at this point; whatever happens in the dynamics of the race between now and then might change my decision though. Too early to say for sure.
I disqualify people who want to restrict the liberty of others. For example, "blue laws" that restrict the sale of alcohol on the Sabbath day,
Every politician wants to restrict your liberty according to his own value system.
or bans against practices that offend the religious customs of some group (like banning muslim headscarves, same-sex marriages, capital punishment, or abortions). All of those things are contentious because one religious group or another has their panties in a wad.
You do realize there are lots of people who oppose "abortion" or "same sex marriage" for reasons that have other to do than their religious beliefs?
You do realize there are lots of people who oppose "abortion" or "same sex marriage" for reasons that have other to do than their religious beliefs?
NO! It can't be!!! They MUST be religious right to oppose abortion and gay marriage! The media says so damn it! As do the Leftys!!!
People can be whatever religion they want to be, can be gay, whatever. Just don't try to get me to live my life by what your religious (or other beliefs) are, shut down science because it doesn't fit your religious teachings, and a host of other issues the more fundamentalist religious folks have a hard time not doing.
By creating laws based on what the Bible says you're enforcing your religion on me, and backing it up with state powers, jail, fines, ect. You don't have to be religious to be a good person who doesn't harm others.
If the laws that they are trying to create, based on the bible, says things like
"it is blasphemy and you should be stoned if you say the name of the Lord" and that sort of thing, then OK. (But that is not what any of these people are trying to do).
But if the laws that they are trying to create, which you say are based on the bible, are moral value judgements, then you are off base. That is NOT forcing you to live by their religion. It may be trying to force you to live according to their set of moral values, but every politician tries to do that.
Whether the thing they want to pass has for them a religious foundation, or not, in no way means they are trying to force their religion on you. They are expressing their value systems. For right or wrong, better or worse, ALL people do this. My issue is when people religious people automatically get disqualified when others don't for the exact same "sin."
Maybe we should bring back prison for adultery and sodomy for gays....
You do realize there are lots of people who oppose "abortion" or "same sex marriage" for reasons that have other to do than their religious beliefs?
What reasons would those be? Money and power?
What reasons would those be? Money and power?
Perhaps they just don't dig killing kids???
What reasons would those be? Money and power?
Maybe they have moral convictions based on basic decency (abortion), or they believe in personal responsibility and not initiating force against innocents to solve problems (abortion), or see that society might be better off without it (same sex marriage) or that the minuses outweigh the pluses to society (same sex marriage).
There are a whole host of reasons.
Those are good reasons, Chadbag.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 19:04
If the laws that they are trying to create, based on the bible, says things like
"it is blasphemy and you should be stoned if you say the name of the Lord" and that sort of thing, then OK. (But that is not what any of these people are trying to do).
But if the laws that they are trying to create, which you say are based on the bible, are moral value judgements, then you are off base. That is NOT forcing you to live by their religion. It may be trying to force you to live according to their set of moral values, but every politician tries to do that.
Whether the thing they want to pass has for them a religious foundation, or not, in no way means they are trying to force their religion on you. They are expressing their value systems. For right or wrong, better or worse, ALL people do this. My issue is when people religious people automatically get disqualified when others don't for the exact same "sin."
Sure it is. I can't go buy beer until noon on Sundays or any hard alcohol at all. Im sure its just a coincidence they picked Sunday morning to ban beer sales and the entire day for hard alcohol.
Lots of school officials making decisions based off Bible teachings and people up the food chain trying to get evolution out of the curriculum.
Im not automatically disqualifying anyone based on their religion just as long as they keep it out of the legal system. I don't care what their intentions are....you're not supposed to impose religious beliefs on everyone else via law. If I wanted to live by religious moral standards I would....I shouldn't have to because thats what your religion says and you turned it into a law.
Belmont31R
08-14-11, 19:06
What reasons would those be? Money and power?
Im not religious but oppose abortion because murder is wrong.
Not against gay marriage.
Sure it is. I can't go buy beer until noon on Sundays or any hard alcohol at all. Im sure its just a coincidence they picked Sunday morning to ban beer sales and the entire day for hard alcohol.
Lots of school officials making decisions based off Bible teachings and people up the food chain trying to get evolution out of the curriculum.
Im not automatically disqualifying anyone based on their religion just as long as they keep it out of the legal system. I don't care what their intentions are....you're not supposed to impose religious beliefs on everyone else via law. If I wanted to live by religious moral standards I would....I shouldn't have to because thats what your religion says and you turned it into a law.
While I think so-called "blue" laws are dumb, that is not imposing anyone's religion on anyone. It is trying to set certain values in the community.
The idea may not work or be wrong, but they are not imposing religion anyone. They are not saying you have to go to church, worship God or any deity, or hold any specific beliefs, or even that you cannot drink alcohol on Sunday (which is not biblical anyway).
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 20:19
While I think so-called "blue" laws are dumb, that is not imposing anyone's religion on anyone. It is trying to set certain values in the community.
The idea may not work or be wrong, but they are not imposing religion anyone. They are not saying you have to go to church, worship God or any deity, or hold any specific beliefs, or even that you cannot drink alcohol on Sunday (which is not biblical anyway).
And it's still limiting those who disagree. Kind of like making Western women wear burkas in Saudi Arabia.
And it's still limiting those who disagree. Kind of like making Western women wear burkas in Saudi Arabia.
All societies set limits on things, and there are always people who disagree with them. That is what all laws are -- limits on things.
And btw, I am not condoning this sort of thing, just contesting the notion that it is forcing religion on people and that only the religious right is guilty of it.
I personally am much more of the sort of person who believes that we should have very few laws and the few laws we do have should be ones that protect you from physical harm at the hands of another (things like theft/burglary/assault/murder etc). There are a few societal things that I think are important to regulate for the good of the society. Mainly things that are built on thousands of years of human society and the wisdom of that experience.
I personally believe that "blue" laws and that sort of thing, laws against prostitution, porn, etc. are not the sort of thing governments should be getting into, even if I agree with the end effect.
Littlelebowski
08-14-11, 20:27
You sound like a libertarian :D
All societies set limits on things, and there are always people who disagree with them. That is what all laws are -- limits on things.
And btw, I am not condoning this sort of thing, just contesting the notion that it is forcing religion on people and that only the religious right is guilty of it.
I personally am much more of the sort of person who believes that we should have very few laws and the few laws we do have should be ones that protect you from physical harm at the hands of another (things like theft/burglary/assault/murder etc). There are a few societal things that I think are important to regulate for the good of the society. Mainly things that are built on thousands of years of human society and the wisdom of that experience.
I personally believe that "blue" laws and that sort of thing, laws against prostitution, porn, etc. are not the sort of thing governments should be getting into, even if I agree with the end effect.
You sound like a libertarian :D
I mostly am from a political stand point. I have long considered myself one and was a long time paying member of the Libertarian Party, though I finally realized that that was a dead end due to the nature of the political system. Now I try and promote the ideals within the Republican Party, within the limit of my activity, which with 2 kids and being self employed, is not a lot at the moment.
My personal beliefs would be deeply conservative. I personal don't believe in sex outside marriage, porn, prostitution, alcohol or drugs, and I believe in 2 parent families as being ideal (realizing that the ideal is not always possible, but should be the goal that we shoot for). I am happy to discuss these with people and if they are open to help them understand the advantages of them. But...
Politically, I don't believe in making laws restricting any of those things (sex, porn, prostitution, alcohol and drugs). It is none of my business who you are screwing, or what you take into your body, etc. and it is not the government's business. Even if I personally wished you did not do it and believe you would be better off without such behaviors.
I do attend worship services and am actively involved in my faith. That shapes my personal beliefs but not my political beliefs.
The whole Ron Paul race depends on THINKING people rather than "group think" herd movements...
This. They key is to get other to think. I first got on the RP bandwagon in 08. He gets it for the most part. Do I disagree with RP on some issues? Yeah. But his over all message is the one I get behind. I am 40 years old and for the first time in my life I will actively campaign for someone and do my damndest to get this man in the white house.
I have listened to folks on the right bitch and moan about wanting this nation to go back to its constitutional roots. I was one of them. I put my faith in the Republicans to take us there. Then I realized that the current crop of pols on the right had no intention of doing that. They were just as guilty of the left of picking and choosing those things in the constitution that they wanted to in order to serve their own needs. Yeah the "freedom for me but not for thee" crowd.
So far the only pol I have found who actually believes in the constitution and not twisting it to his own view is Ron Paul. So here is your chance folks. If you truly believe in the constitution and want government to follow it again, warts and all, then vote for Ron Paul. I wonder if people will really take that step.
I'll probably vote for Ron Paul, even though I believe he is a hypocrite for slurping at the trough through his earmarks, in the primary.
Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. Earmarks make up less than two percent of the federal budget and fiscal conservatives should be spending more time and energy on more important spending programs.
The government has already taken his constituents money and has allocated it to certain special projects. If he doesn't stand up and ask for their portion back he's doing a disservice to the people in his district. True free market supporters should stop bickering over the way less than two percent of the budget that is allocated and start focusing on scrapping whole departments, gutting the military industrial complex, and privatizing entitlements.
Please watch this, Ron Paul speaking about earmarks... http://youtu.be/VoOX9p07xOk
Anyone who's an M4C regular knows where my vote's going. Ron Paul 2012.
I mostly am from a political stand point. I have long considered myself one and was a long time paying member of the Libertarian Party, though I finally realized that that was a dead end due to the nature of the political system. Now I try and promote the ideals within the Republican Party, within the limit of my activity, which with 2 kids and being self employed, is not a lot at the moment.
My personal beliefs would be deeply conservative. I personal don't believe in sex outside marriage, porn, prostitution, alcohol or drugs, and I believe in 2 parent families as being ideal (realizing that the ideal is not always possible, but should be the goal that we shoot for). I am happy to discuss these with people and if they are open to help them understand the advantages of them. But...
Politically, I don't believe in making laws restricting any of those things (sex, porn, prostitution, alcohol and drugs). It is none of my business who you are screwing, or what you take into your body, etc. and it is not the government's business. Even if I personally wished you did not do it and believe you would be better off without such behaviors.
I do attend worship services and am actively involved in my faith. That shapes my personal beliefs but not my political beliefs.
Well stated! I agree strongly with what you've said here, with the possible change being that my faith and personal beliefs do shape my political beliefs, insomuch as I want to be able to live and practice all my desires and beliefs freely, and I recognize that the surest way to guarantee that for myself and my posterity is to ensure we are all free.
What the "religious right" so painfully fails to grasp is that the general moral climate of the country can not be re-forged into it's past glories (either real or imagined) through legislation. Period. People's beliefs, and their actions, are going to be changed when their hearts and minds are changed, and that change can't be handed down from any branch of government. It's rather like what Gandhi noted - “If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today.” Attempting to make up for the failings of your religious group by enforcing a version of its morality through oppressive law is disingenuous and flat-out wrong.
Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. Earmarks make up less than two percent of the federal budget and fiscal conservatives should be spending more time and energy on more important spending programs.
It all sounds so nice and logical. And technically he may be correct. However, with what people commonly call "earmarks", I bet a root beer that the budgets are set after a canvas of the proposed earmarks are done so that the money is added to the budget before it is voted on to cover everything. The Congress would not earmark funds from the general budget of Department XYZ for specific pork projects without a lot complaining and fighting back from that Department unless the money is added in to cover them and their budget is not harmed.
He is still a hypocrite for his earmarks for his constituents. You can't get around it that he is feeding at the trough like everyone else. Shrimp farmers are not in the Constitution and he should not be supporting appropriations that are unconstitutional.
The government has already taken his constituents money and has allocated it to certain special projects. If he doesn't stand up and ask for their portion back he's doing a disservice to the people in his district.
He is not asking for their portion back. His earmarks bear no resemblance to what was taken.
True free market supporters should stop bickering over the way less than two percent of the budget that is allocated and start focusing on scrapping whole departments, gutting the military industrial complex, and privatizing entitlements.
Please watch this, Ron Paul speaking about earmarks... http://youtu.be/VoOX9p07xOk
Anyone who's an M4C regular knows where my vote's going. Ron Paul 2012.
Like I said, he may be "technically" correct but in practice he is wrong and the earmarks increase the money spent. I would bet a root beer on it. And he is supporting unconstitutional use of tax payer money.
It is the principle of the thing. It does not matter if it is 2% or 1% of the budget. That is 2% or 1% less that we would have to be spending and get us part way to where we want to be, Constitutional government.
(and yes I did watch it just now -- I believe I have watched it in the past as well -- too bad he went off on the Fed -- the message was good but it just diluted whatever he was trying to say about the Fed)
chadbag - You make some interesting points and I understand where you're coming from. However, I still think he's the best person for the job. We need somebody who understands money, economics and free market principles and there is absolutely no one who has a better grasp of the topic than Ron Paul.
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 23:14
Chadbag writes:
"Shrimp farmers are not in the Constitution"
I would support & lobby for allowing shrimp farmers to be added to the constitution in lieu of UDA's flooding my country & cultivating a giant suck drain of baby making, non insured, tax slacker, bottled water only drinking, repeat criminal offender who would love doom on me. Seems to make sense to me.
Maybe I'm being ridiculous I don't know.
chadbag - You make some interesting points and I understand where you're coming from. However, I still think he's the best person for the job. We need somebody who understands money, economics and free market principles and there is absolutely no one who has a better grasp of the topic than Ron Paul.
He is the lesser of a the evils, I would agree there.
Lots of what he says is spot on. And I will probably vote for him in the primary. I am not anti-Ron Paul (I may be anti Ron Paul fanboi though -- some of them are pretty aggravating :D and that was not meant for anyone on this forum)
Chadbag writes:
"Shrimp farmers are not in the Constitution"
I would support & lobby for allowing shrimp farmers to be added to the constitution in lieu of UDA's flooding my country w/o insurance & cultivating a giant sucking tax slacker who would love doom on me. Seems to make sense to me.
Maybe I'm being rediculous I don't know.
HOP, I am not quite sure what your point is, but I think I agree. (See my post just a minute ago on the lesser of evils)
chadbag - You make some interesting points and I understand where you're coming from. However, I still think he's the best person for the job. We need somebody who understands money, economics and free market principles and there is absolutely no one who has a better grasp of the topic than Ron Paul.
And that virtually guarantees he won't win. Somebody who is going to discuss the actual problems and the possible solutions??? Booooring. Even worse is a guy who may lay blame where it belongs and tell us things like we have to take responsibility and be accountable. That's like the average American admitting their parents were right, never gonna happen.
We are gonna play Survivor President again. Those who can form alliances to undermine more qualified individuals and spew enough bullshit promises to be the last person standing with a rose win. Being someone people can "feel good about" (like voting for the black guy to PROVE you are not a racist) is what sells. You gotta be entertaining and have your one liners ready.
Cause if you can't tap dance and only offer useful ideas you might as well pull up a chair next to Fred Thompson.
Sadly what "we" want isn't what America wants. They want "cool jobs" at unrealistic salaries. Notions like doing something respectable or producing something you can be proud of are old fashioned. Living within your means is for losers, America wants to just keep putting it on a credit card. They can try and figure out how to pay for it later. And if they can't, they just won't...what are you gonna do about it?
We are now several generations removed from Americans who were proud to make the best goods in the world for a fair wage and understood things like living within your means. And while there may be a holdout here and there, the nation and the people in general are now different and there is probably no going back.
If any of these guys were really smart they'd declare a War On Poverty and task the United States with solving the problems of every third world country in partnership with the UN. After all, what kind of asshole would vote against helping all the poor people of the world?
VooDoo6Actual
08-14-11, 23:24
we do & it is lesser of two evils no question.
Hey, I'll take survival every time.
Moose-Knuckle
08-15-11, 04:09
Great thread gents! Good on you OP for coming around to RP after the last election.
The fact that the media DOES NOT cover him is a CLUE!
A secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists.According to the MIAC website, “MIAC is the mechanism to collect incident reports of suspicious activities to be evaluated and analyzed in an effort to identify potential trends or patterns of terrorist or criminal operations within the state of Missouri.”
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists and instructs the Missouri police to be on the lookout for supporters displaying bumper stickers and other paraphernalia associated with the Constitutional, Campaign for Liberty, and Libertarian parties.
The MIAC report does not concentrate on Muslim terrorists, but rather on the so-called “militia movement” and conflates it with supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/police-trained-nationwide-that-informed-americans-are-domestic-terrorists.html
The fact that the media DOES NOT cover him is a CLUE!
It's not uncommon for an entire article to cover every Republican in the race except for RP.
The article you linked to lists Aaron Russo's documentary as something that would be a "terrorist indicator" and is in fact a great film. Watch it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
If you'd like to learn more about Ron Paul I suggest you watch this interview with John Stossel. http://youtu.be/eczsT1B38qs
VooDoo6Actual
08-15-11, 11:17
It's not uncommon for an entire article to cover every Republican in the race except for RP.
The article you linked to lists Aaron Russo's documentary as something that would be a "terrorist indicator" and is in fact a great film. Watch it here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173#
Ah, that was an uplifting experience !
Great link thanks !
CNN admitting the media ignores Ron Paul. http://youtu.be/5vRuy0m7IjA
ForTehNguyen
08-15-11, 17:25
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html
Ron Paul remains media poison
By ROGER SIMON | 8/15/11 3:17 PM EDT
I admit I do not fully understand Ron Paul and his beliefs. But I do understand when a guy gets shafted, and Ron Paul just got shafted.
On Saturday, the Ames Straw Poll was conducted in Iowa amid huge media interest and scrutiny. The results were enough to force one Republican candidate, Tim Pawlenty, out of the race, and catapult another, Michele Bachmann, into the “top tier.”
There are so many “top tier” stories in the media today that I can barely count them, let alone read them all, and Bachmann is in all of them by virtue of her victory at Ames. The rest of the tier is made up of two candidates who skipped Ames, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
As The Daily Beast put it: “The new top tier of Bachmann, Perry, and Romney — created by Bachmann’s Iowa straw poll win, Perry’s entry into the race and Romney’s lead so far in many national and state polls — has unleashed torrents of talk about the reshaped race.”
Paul’s name was not mentioned in this piece nor in many others. A Wall Street Journal editorial Monday magnanimously granted Paul’s showing in the straw poll a parenthetical dismissal: “(Libertarian Ron Paul, who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second.)”
But “close” does not fully describe Paul’s second-place finish. Paul lost to Bachmann by nine-tenths of one percentage point, or 152 votes out of 16,892 cast.
If it had been an election, such a result would almost certainly have triggered a recount. It was not an election, however, and that is my point. Straw polls are supposed to tell us, like a straw tossed into the air, which way the wind is blowing.
And any fair assessment of Ames, therefore, would have said the winds of the Republican Party are blowing toward both Bachmann and Paul.
Nonsense, some would say. Straw polls are just organized bribery, with the campaigns buying the tickets and distributing them to supporters. (And, in fact, this is what I wrote before Ames.)
What they really show, many argue, is not where the philosophical heart of the party is, but the organizational abilities of the candidates.
Fine, I’ll buy that. But why didn’t Paul get the same credit for his organizational abilities as Bachmann did for hers?
I am far from a Libertarian. I believe big government is swell as long as it does big things to help the common good. But after Ames, it was as if Paul had been sentenced to the Phantom Zone.
Bachmann appeared on five Sunday shows following Ames. Paul appeared on none. POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt was one of the few reporters to do a separate story on Paul’s showing at the straw poll, but to most of the media he remained an exotic, unworthy of attention.
And I don’t disagree that some of his beliefs — legalizing heroin, the right of states to secede — are strikingly peculiar (though he has been elected to a congressional district in Texas 12 times). But if Bachmann’s victory at Ames was good enough to gain her enormous publicity and top-tier status, why was Paul’s virtual tie good enough only to relegate him to being ignored?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/61412.html
Thanks for posting that. Part of the reason Ron Paul has so many fervent supporters who are constantly championing his cause is the fact that he is intentionally dismissed and excluded from mainstream media outlets.
For those who didn't know... Ron Paul CRUSHES every other candidate in active duty military donations, again for the 2nd time! (http://caivn.org/article/2011/07/19/ron-paul-receives-most-military-donations-again)
In fact he got more than double the donations of all other Republican candidates combined! And he smoked Obama too! :D
Ronald Reagan had this to say about Congressman Paul.
Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.
The fact that the media DOES NOT cover him is a CLUE!
I love how the headline doesn't even mention Paul. It says the first then skips to 3rd.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/934200/391/GOP-candidates-face-early-test-in-2012-campaign-
So far the only pol I have found who actually believes in the constitution and not twisting it to his own view is Ron Paul. So here is your chance folks. If you truly believe in the constitution and want government to follow it again, warts and all, then vote for Ron Paul. I wonder if people will really take that step.
I couldn't agree more and this is why I plan to vote for Ron Paul.
To anyone who plays the political 'games' instead of voting for the right person for the job: Are you any better than those you criticize for also playing games?
Ron Paul is shaping the 2012 race. (http://news.yahoo.com/once-fringe-candidate-paul-shaping-2012-race-205132862.html)
I'd like to kick Rick Santorum in the nuts.
montanadave
08-15-11, 18:42
I'd like to kick Rick Santorum in the nuts.:haha:
If there is anything I can do to facilitate that goal, please let me know.
I'd like to kick Rick Santorum in the nuts.
Does he have any or did he have them removed "for the good of the children"?
variablebinary
08-16-11, 03:19
To anyone who plays the political 'games' instead of voting for the right person for the job: Are you any better than those you criticize for also playing games?
It's worse than that.
If someone serves you a plate of shit, and you eat it with a pinched nose, don't ever expect to get steak and lobster tail. You'll keep getting plates of shit forever until you take a stand.
The logic to some here is they will vote for a globalist, banking cartel flunky to avoid another globalist banking cartel flunky.
It's worse than that.
If someone serves you a plate of shit, and you eat it with a pinched nose, don't ever expect to get steak and lobster tail. You'll keep getting plates of shit forever until you take a stand.
The logic to some here is they will vote for a globalist, banking cartel flunky to avoid another globalist banking cartel flunky.
You've used the term globalist to describe the current crop of Republican candidates in several posts. Could you please provide some specific examples of positions or votes that would contradict a notion of American Exceptionalism.
It terms of banking flunkies, I assume that this is directed at Herman Cain because he served as the KC Fed Chair? Could you tell me what he did in that position that made him a flunky?
The broader point that I'm trying to make is the venom emanating from some of Ron Paul's supporters very interesting. It's not enough that they disagree with other candidates, but instead find the need to call them names such as flunky, globalist, or sack of shit. Contrast this with other Republicans who may not have RP listed as their first choice in a primary, but respect his character and would gladly vote for him in the general election over any democrat alternative.
Yeah but look at the media bias against Ron Paul
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
It's disgusting. Again the media is trying to run our elections for us.
Yeah but look at the media bias against Ron Paul
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
It's disgusting. Again the media is trying to run our elections for us.
That's pretty crazy.
Yeah but look at the media bias against Ron Paul
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
It's disgusting. Again the media is trying to run our elections for us.
Thanks for posting that. I'm not the biggest Jon Stewart fan but somedays he nails it and this is one of them.
Littlelebowski
08-16-11, 11:57
Yeah but look at the media bias against Ron Paul
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-august-15-2011/indecision-2012---corn-polled-edition---ron-paul---the-top-tier
It's disgusting. Again the media is trying to run our elections for us.
Good stuff, thanks for posting.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
08-16-11, 11:59
I am a Republican, and I am sick of Republicans. I cant stand those who say they fight for liberty and yet attempt to limit what we can and can not do in our private lives. Democrats attempt to free us in the bedroom but enslave us with bigger government, while Republicans attempt to free us from government while enslaving us in the bedroom. The opinionated morality is sickening, and it terrifies me to think that someone like Santorum, Bachman, or Palin could be our future leader. We need a president that fights to free us ALL, not just the religious right or the liberal left. Freedom is not an issue of opinion, rather it is clearly laid out in our framework, but only ignored by those we elect. Democrats that **** us over make me angry, because thats what they do, but its the republicans that **** us over that really piss me off.
I feel that while Ron Paul is not a perfect candidate, he is the only one with our freedom as his goal. He doesnt bother himself with what you or anyone else does in our private life as long as we dont injure others while doing it. He doesnt care who we marry, what we smoke in the safe confines of our homes, he simply cares about the liberty of the people of these United States and the welfare of those states. He will get my vote and support, even though it may be an excercise in futility. I for one cant stomach the though of explaining to my children that I couldve somehow stopped the erosion of our country...but didnt.
Take a look at Ron Paul's new ad here (http://youtu.be/pChzOaIeyxY). Notice how many "likes" there are in comparison to how many people have viewed it, less than half. Just like the MSM, Youtube is attempting to keep the number of views down so that it isn't one of the videos that pops up on what's "popular" for the day. If you don't think there's a plan within the media to keep Ron Paul from the White House you need to pull your head out of the sand.
Judge Andrew Napolitano is awesome. http://youtu.be/s62E2x-jfQw
Ron Paul's position on a nuclear armed Iran is so insane the other (positive) aspects of his platform fall by the wayside.
Belmont31R
08-16-11, 14:59
Ron Paul's position on a nuclear armed Iran is so insane the other (positive) aspects of his platform fall by the wayside.
Well what are we going to do about it? Another war? Run to the UN and throw a temper tantrum?
Well what are we going to do about it? Another war? Run to the UN and throw a temper tantrum?
There would seem to be greater rationale for a war to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions than any other war since World War II.
Cagemonkey
08-18-11, 16:31
There would seem to be greater rationale for a war to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions than any other war since World War II.The US has no will for and can't afford another war. Iran is going to go nuclear wether we like it or not. The only reasonable hope we have is some type of constructive engagement and for Iran's people to push for more democratic change and displace the Mullah's and hardliner's.
ForTehNguyen
08-18-11, 18:10
There would seem to be greater rationale for a war to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions than any other war since World War II.
CIA and UN inspectors have said they do not have a nuclear weapon. Want to go to war over a non existent weapon? Israel alone has 300 nukes and if Iran did make a nuke, Israel can deal with it on their own. Iran isnt stupid enough to start anything in that area especially when Pakistan, India, and China also have nukes.
CIA and UN inspectors have said they do not have a nuclear weapon. Want to go to war over a non existent weapon? Israel alone has 300 nukes and if Iran did make a nuke, Israel can deal with it on their own. Iran isnt stupid enough to start anything in that area especially when Pakistan, India, and China also have nukes.
Pretty much this. Whether the US being the policeman to the world is right or wrong doesn't really matter at this point - we can no longer afford it both from a economic perspective and a will to fight perspective.
Last election, Paul was my sentimental candidate. This year he is MY candidate. I may not agree with every one of his platforms, but I do believe that he is the only one who will take his oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" seriously.
The US has no will for and can't afford another war.
We can afford it more than we can afford a nuclear armed theocracy smack dab in the oil rich countries that fuel our economy.
You may be right that we don't have the political and popular will for another war, but that doesn't mean war isn't called for.
Moose-Knuckle
08-19-11, 02:35
There would seem to be greater rationale for a war to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions than any other war since World War II.
And kick off WWIII! This is exactly what they want. The Dems, Liberals, et al hated Bush for Iraq there boy Barry was supposed to get us out, not only are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan but now we are engaged in Libya and Yemen and we are set to stir the pot with Syria, Sudan, Somalia, until we have troops on the ground in Iran. That's when the Russian and Chinese take action.
Just this week SECSTATE Clinton calls for Syrian sanctions in the guise of "humanitarian relief".
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-calls-for-assad-regime-in-syria-to-step-down/
CIA running ops in Yemen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/cia-to-operate-drones-over-yemen/2011/06/13/AG7VyyTH_story.html
Gen. Clark hit on this back 30 September 2006; seven countries in five years. Thanks to HOP for the link!
2:30 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
There is one issue with Ron Paul's candidacy that I'd like to bring up and get the perspective from other members of the forum. That issue is the lack of executive or management experience that RP and MB bring to the table as neither of them have managed large organizations. This is a topic that haunts many members of the House that seek the Presidency and explains why most of our Presidents have come from the Governor pool, or had significant command experience in the military.
I've looked through his bio and record in the House, and I cannot see where he has had to manage any significant organization. This is the major problem for me with RP and MB. Given the current state of affairs, I feel that part of Obama's problem (aside from dangerously flawed ideology) is the fact that he is the least experienced manager in any room that he enters. The Wonder Boy President simply did not have the executive skills to run a koolaid stand much less the US and the voters should have known better - ideology aside.
Another side to this issue is that as members of the House, RP and MB are responsible to a much more narrow spectrum of the electorate when compared to govenors who are responsible for balancing competing interests of a whole state. It is therefor expected that a governor's record would have to reflect more compromise in order to keep their state running, while members of the House have the luxury of sticking to ideology when their district is safe from serious challenges. For example, Romney was a republican governor of a very liberal state with a democrat legislature. Is it reasonable to expect Romney to have a straight conservative voting record when budgets, nominations, and appointments would have been blocked by an adversarial legislature? Would Romney have attempted his ill-fated healthcare initiative if he was the governor of Texas without a liberal House and Senate pushing this issue? Would RP be able to govern a liberal state such a Mass and be so consistent to his libertarian values without having the sate fall into gridlock (I see political gridlock as often good for the population when it is the federal government, sometimes good when it is the state, and rarely good when it is the local)?
Thus, I give a little more consideration to Governors or other executives who run for the Presidency than members of the House. I will often try to look beneath the surface of a controversial gubernatorial vote to see what other conditions were present that required a compromise.
montanadave
08-19-11, 09:39
I don't know about Bachmann's managerial/executive experience but she does appear to have some skills, as evidenced by the photo in this article:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-this-the-best-picture-of-rep-michele-bachmann-eating-a-corn-dog-the-telegraph-could-find/
:lol:
There is one issue with Ron Paul's candidacy that I'd like to bring up and get the perspective from other members of the forum. That issue is the lack of executive or management experience that RP and MB bring to the table as neither of them have managed large organizations. This is a topic that haunts many members of the House that seek the Presidency and explains why most of our Presidents have come from the Governor pool, or had significant command experience in the military.
I've looked through his bio and record in the House, and I cannot see where he has had to manage any significant organization. This is the major problem for me with RP and MB. Given the current state of affairs, I feel that part of Obama's problem (aside from dangerously flawed ideology) is the fact that he is the least experienced manager in any room that he enters. The Wonder Boy President simply did not have the executive skills to run a koolaid stand much less the US and the voters should have known better - ideology aside.
Another side to this issue is that as members of the House, RP and MB are responsible to a much more narrow spectrum of the electorate when compared to govenors who are responsible for balancing competing interests of a whole state. It is therefor expected that a governor's record would have to reflect more compromise in order to keep their state running, while members of the House have the luxury of sticking to ideology when their district is safe from serious challenges. For example, Romney was a republican governor of a very liberal state with a democrat legislature. Is it reasonable to expect Romney to have a straight conservative voting record when budgets, nominations, and appointments would have been blocked by an adversarial legislature? Would Romney have attempted his ill-fated healthcare initiative if he was the governor of Texas without a liberal House and Senate pushing this issue? Would RP be able to govern a liberal state such a Mass and be so consistent to his libertarian values without having the sate fall into gridlock (I see political gridlock as often good for the population when it is the federal government, sometimes good when it is the state, and rarely good when it is the local)?
Thus, I give a little more consideration to Governors or other executives who run for the Presidency than members of the House. I will often try to look beneath the surface of a controversial gubernatorial vote to see what other conditions were present that required a compromise.
So he's a candidate that doesn't know how to run an entity who's sole purpose of existence is to generate as much money as possible? I fail to see how this is a bad thing. This nation has been run by execs and CEO's for far too long. I don't think our best leaders ran a Toys R Us.
Littlelebowski
08-19-11, 10:18
We can afford it more than we can afford a nuclear armed theocracy smack dab in the oil rich countries that fuel our economy.
You may be right that we don't have the political and popular will for another war, but that doesn't mean war isn't called for.
If we only had our own oil........
VooDoo6Actual
08-19-11, 11:10
And kick off WWIII! This is exactly what they want. The Dems, Liberals, et al hated Bush for Iraq there boy Barry was supposed to get us out, not only are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan but now we are engaged in Libya and Yemen and we are set to stir the pot with Syria, Sudan, Somalia, until we have troops on the ground in Iran. That's when the Russian and Chinese take action.
Just this week SECSTATE Clinton calls for Syrian sanctions in the guise of "humanitarian relief".
http://secretaryclinton.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-calls-for-assad-regime-in-syria-to-step-down/
CIA running ops in Yemen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/cia-to-operate-drones-over-yemen/2011/06/13/AG7VyyTH_story.html
Gen. Clark hit on this back 30 September 2006; seven countries in five years. Thanks to HOP for the link!
2:30 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
100% SPOT ON !
Out of Chaos comes order (so long as it is their order which ultimately is our own destruction just like all the lies we have been deceived etc.) one BIG PSY OP of Divide & Conquer !
So he's a candidate that doesn't know how to run an entity who's sole purpose of existence is to generate as much money as possible? I fail to see how this is a bad thing. This nation has been run by execs and CEO's for far too long. I don't think our best leaders ran a Toys R Us.
Jer, I am not exclusively referring to corporate management when I talk about executive experience (although it sounds like you take a stronger stance against corporations than I). POTUS is the chief executive of the US just like governors are the chief executive of their states. Unlike legislators who are tasked to write laws, executives must execute policy and this is a very different and valuable skill set. Ideally, the candidate would have some business background a la Herman Cain that dovetails into a governorship where they efficiently decreased the size and scope of govt influence a la Palin. Romney has the business half, but I must wonder if his candidacy would gain more favor had he been Govenor of TX where no liberal state legislature exits to force such compromise.
As a physician, I can tell you that executive skills are very rare in our profession. We tend to be excellent thinkers and focused problem solvers. However, we are no more likely to successfully run a business or governmet than the next guy. In some ways our intellectual ego handcuffs our management skills when expect to be naturally good at everything because of our degree. This in part why you see so few physician CEO's and so many doctors fleeing private practice to get away from management. Thus, I'm not suprised that RP can think his way through many problems - that is what he is trained to do. I want to know how he does managing other people and leading large organizations - especially when faced with a hostile 49% of the population.
And kick off WWIII! This is exactly what they want. The Dems, Liberals, et al hated Bush for Iraq there boy Barry was supposed to get us out, not only are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan but now we are engaged in Libya and Yemen and we are set to stir the pot with Syria, Sudan, Somalia, until we have troops on the ground in Iran. That's when the Russian and Chinese take action.
Gen. Clark hit on this back 30 September 2006; seven countries in five years. Thanks to HOP for the link!
2:30 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuVVml5Dp2s
Clark however is a self serving a-hole who is every bit as much a pawn of the globalists as the people he is claiming to expose. He may be right about recent actions, but the Clinton Admin was as much (if not more) a part than Bush was. Clark's part in Kosovo was boarderline criminally reckless.
Clark however is a self serving a-hole who is every bit as much a pawn of the globalists as the people he is claiming to expose. He may be right about recent actions, but the Clinton Admin was as much (if not more) a part than Bush was. Clark's part in Kosovo was boarderline criminally reckless.
Clark is the king of cheesedicks.
Belmont31R
08-19-11, 15:27
I don't know about Bachmann's managerial/executive experience but she does appear to have some skills, as evidenced by the photo in this article:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-this-the-best-picture-of-rep-michele-bachmann-eating-a-corn-dog-the-telegraph-could-find/
:lol:
Thats the kind of cheap shot shit I HATE about politics, and I don't even like her that much.
Then we wonder why we can't get respectable candidates because its turned into childish gotchas, memes, photochops, and other stupid shit.
The_War_Wagon
08-19-11, 15:37
I see what you are getting at, Lane. Honestly, I am not sure what I intend to do if RP splits. That is a measure of how disgusted I am with the other Republican front runners.
I voted Ron Paul in the primary in '08, but seeing as how PA's primary was three weeks AFTER the general election :rolleyes: stopping MCC'ANT was nigh well impossible.
I voted CHUCK BALDWIN - CONSTITUTION PARTY in the general election; I learned MY lesson with Bob DULL back in '96, and WASN'T gonna do it AGAIN!
Unless somebody BETTER jumps into the primary, I'M voting Ron Paul. And if a RINO wins again, I'll vote CONSTITUTION PARTY again. :mad:
We can afford it more than we can afford a nuclear armed theocracy smack dab in the oil rich countries that fuel our economy.
You may be right that we don't have the political and popular will for another war, but that doesn't mean war isn't called for.
I'm not particularly keen on having a nuclear armed theocracy at home, either.
Submariner
08-19-11, 17:35
Maybe we should bring back death for adultery and sodomy for gays....
Fixed it for you.
So long as there are two or three witnesses; otherwise, it's God's jurisdiction. Let Him smoke 'em.
montanadave
08-19-11, 20:07
Thats the kind of cheap shot shit I HATE about politics, and I don't even like her that much.
Then we wonder why we can't get respectable candidates because its turned into childish gotchas, memes, photochops, and other stupid shit.
Yeah, I know, and if I thought Bachmann was a serious candidate I'd never post shit like that. As it stands, she's nothin' but a carnival barker and I could give a shit less what folks say or write about her.
Yeah, I know, and if I thought Bachmann was a serious candidate I'd never post shit like that. As it stands, she's nothin' but a carnival barker and I could give a shit less what folks say or write about her.
She has about the same chance that Barry did at a similar point in his candidacy.
The picture and "carnival barker" comment would suggest that you have problems with women. Perhaps you were not breastfed as a child?
She has about the same chance that Barry did at a similar point in his candidacy.
The picture and "carnival barker" comment would suggest that you have problems with women. Perhaps you were not breastfed as a child?
And hopefully the electorate will realize all of her failings and she won't get far in the primaries, unlike Barry.
And hopefully the electorate will realize all of her failings and she won't get far in the primaries, unlike Barry.
I expect that either Romney or Perry will be the nominee (not necessarily my choice). Personally, I'd prefer Perry at this point between the two, but I will not make up my mind until I hear more debates. Rubio and Bachmann are the 2 likely VP choices since they secure key voting populations.
I'm not particularly keen on having a nuclear armed theocracy at home, either.
Since the US will never become a theocracy I fail to see your point.
Littlelebowski
08-20-11, 05:28
Fixed it for you.
So long as there are two or three witnesses; otherwise, it's God's jurisdiction. Let Him smoke 'em.
Are you seriously advocating death for homosexuals for being homosexual?
VooDoo6Actual
08-20-11, 05:33
I'm not particularly keen on having a nuclear armed theocracy at home, either.
Ogliarchy would be more accurate,
I don't agree with any politician 100%. Ron Paul was the best choice in 2008, will be in 2012. MSM is a little :rolleyes: biased against him, very little coverage etc.
RP doesn't play enough offense and isn't assertive enough to make it otherwise he would be a viable candidate.
I voted Ron Paul in the primary in '08, but seeing as how PA's primary was three weeks AFTER the general election :rolleyes: stopping MCC'ANT was nigh well impossible.
I voted CHUCK BALDWIN - CONSTITUTION PARTY in the general election; I learned MY lesson with Bob DULL back in '96, and WASN'T gonna do it AGAIN!
Unless somebody BETTER jumps into the primary, I'M voting Ron Paul. And if a RINO wins again, I'll vote CONSTITUTION PARTY again. :mad:
Since Mccain already had the primary sealed I ended up switching to demorat and voted for hillary and got a few to do the same, but not enough.....chess not checkers (training day)
...MSM is a little biased against him, very little coverage etc...RP doesn't play enough offense and isn't assertive enough to make it otherwise he would be a viable candidate.
You are correct that the MSM does not give him coverage that is proportionate to his performance in polls. That is because they do not take his foreign policy seriously. Mark Williamson summed up the conservative talk radio position while covering for Rush last week with this comment, "I love RP on his fidelity to the Constitution and the economy. However, he throws that crazy switch and becomes that wacky uncle when he talks about foreign policy." You could see it in the face of the debate moderators last week as they looked uncomfortable with his reply to Rick Santorum on Iran.
Moose-Knuckle
08-22-11, 04:24
You are correct that the MSM does not give him coverage that is proportionate to his performance in polls. That is because they do not take his foreign policy seriously. Mark Williamson summed up the conservative talk radio position while covering for Rush last week with this comment, "I love RP on his fidelity to the Constitution and the economy. However, he throws that crazy switch and becomes that wacky uncle when he talks about foreign policy." You could see it in the face of the debate moderators last week as they looked uncomfortable with his reply to Rick Santorum on Iran.
Did you watch the video attached to the Daily Show link on post #89 on page #5 of this thread?
And what's wrong with "we should mind our own business"?
Modern Iran is a direct result of CIA finger f*cking.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
Littlelebowski
08-22-11, 06:40
You are correct that the MSM does not give him coverage that is proportionate to his performance in polls. That is because they do not take his foreign policy seriously. Mark Williamson summed up the conservative talk radio position while covering for Rush last week with this comment, "I love RP on his fidelity to the Constitution and the economy. However, he throws that crazy switch and becomes that wacky uncle when he talks about foreign policy." You could see it in the face of the debate moderators last week as they looked uncomfortable with his reply to Rick Santorum on Iran.
You cannot imagine how little I care what the MSM thinks of RP's foreign policy. I guess they'd snicker at Smedley Butler as well.
Did you watch the video attached to the Daily Show link on post #89 on page #5 of this thread?
And what's wrong with "we should mind our own business"?
Modern Iran is a direct result of CIA finger f*cking.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
I suppose there is a disagreement on where our "own business" begins and ends. I personally think that a policy of ending our business at the shores of the Atlantic / Pacific is a little idealist.
I saw the Daily Show clip which provided a good laugh, but I do not use Jon Stewart's comedic analysis in formulating my world view. However, his use of comedic exaggeration for effect seems to compliment some of the exaggerations from RP supporters (i.e. Perry is a sack of shit for attending a Bilderberger meeting, Bachmann wants to instill a theocracy, Romney is a gobalist, Cain is a banking flunky, the US is responsible for modern Iran, etc.)
The notion that todays's Iran is the direct result of the US/British support of the Shah's coup over 50 years ago is an overly simplistic view of the situation. It is like saying that the US intervention in WWII is directly responsible for modern Europe and the EU.
You cannot imagine how little I care what the MSM thinks of RP's foreign policy. I guess they'd snicker at Smedley Butler as well.
I don't think that anyone would besmirch his military record, but the MSM at the time did snicker at his claims about a fascist plot.
Littlelebowski
08-22-11, 11:05
I don't think that anyone would besmirch his military record, but the MSM at the time did snicker at his claims about a fascist plot.
Who are you supporting for the Republican nomination?
Who are you supporting for the Republican nomination?
I have not yet completely decided and reserve the right to change my mind. At this point I rank them as: 1) Perry 2) Cain 3) Romney 4) Paul, 5) Bachmann, then all the others.
My top three are very fluid since Perry is new to the campaign. I REALLY like Cain, but see his chances fading unless he can light up a debate like he did in SC a couple of months ago. I probably put a little more emphasis on executive experience than other members on this board - hence the governors leading the pack.
Romney's record bothers me, but I try to give the man some credit for having to deal with the liberal nuts in the Mass legislature. I have problems with his flip-flop on abortion (RP nailed this issue in his Iowa speech) on an issue of principles. His stance on guns does not worry me since I don't see any real gun control coming from any GOP president.
Littlelebowski
08-22-11, 11:33
I have a very hard time backing a creationist that wants to teach creationism in the classroom.
His stance on guns does not worry me since I don't see any real gun control coming from any GOP president.
Clinton's 1994 Crime Bill aside, the vast majority of the gun control "back doorings" we have suffered in the last 30 years have come from Republican administrations.
The WORSE thing "gunnies" can do is put blind faith in GOP leadership. Just look at Kalifornia and what that has gotten them. Honestly from a gun perspective Obama would be a better choice than Romney. With Obama the spotlight will be on him and we will all remain fired up and on guard. With Romney, a lot of us will apparently lay down are guard.
I have a very hard time backing a creationist that wants to teach creationism in the classroom.
Rick Perry has stated he doesn't believe the Federal Government should have a role in Education. Sounds like he thinks the Department of Education should be abolished or severely curtailed, therefore his personal opinions on evolution would have no bearing on what was taught anyways.
I have a very hard time backing a creationist that wants to teach creationism in the classroom.
Actually, I believe that Perry is a proponent of "intelligent design" rather than creationism. However, his religious beliefs do not impact my decision to vote for him or any other candidate. Religion and publicly espoused beliefs only impact my decision when they run contrary to ethical judgment (i.e. believing in human sacrifice, member of NMBLA, Westboro Church, etc.). I'd also consider them if Perry tried to create policy outside the limitations of the TX Constitution (or US Constitution if his become POTUS).
I'm aware of the campaign run-in with the kid who was prompted to bring up the subject by his mom. Technically, Perry was incorrect to say that creationism was taught along with evolution in the TX public schools since evolution is the standard curriculum. Teachers are allowed to discuss creationism if it is brought up in evolution curriculum, but I'm not hearing reports of it being pushed on a large scale.
Honestly, I see issues of personal religion are immaterial to the larger problems facing the country. I plan to vote for the candidate who I think can best accomplish the following:
1) Repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Assuming that it makes it through SCOTUS, this legislation poses the greatest immediate internal threat to our country. If fully enacted in 2014, this legislation will create a permanent majority of welfare recipients and is likely put the final nail in our country's coffin. At our current pace, we've got about 15 years to control spending or our combined debt, interest, and Medicare/SS obligations will create a catastrophic collapse of basic government functions. Fully enacted Obamacare accelerates that trajectory to 5 years after it is fully enacted. For this reason alone, I could never vote for Obama or withhold my vote from a candidate who advocates repeal.
Once Obamacare is done, we can start to tackle other entitlements, tax reform, domestic energy, extricating ourselves from A-stan, etc.
I don't care what or who the person worships so long as they can accomplish the first task by 2014. Once it goes into effect, good luck prying people off that tit. So far, Perry, Cain, and Romney have the best record of accomplishment to make me think they can get it done.
I see RP as having many great domestic ideas, and I agree with 50% of his foreign policy. However, his career in the House simply has not afforded the leadership and executive experience that I need to see in order to trust him with the reigns. I want a proven leader, doer, and executive - not a great thinker. Although it might be too late for him to go to law school, I think that RP's ideas make him much better Supreme Court Justice or Treasury Sec than a Chief Executive / POTUS - too bad he took the easy way out with medical school instead of law school ;). Imagine RP being the 5th conservative vote on an otherwise divide SCOTUS (keep in mind that EVERY justice has held a law degree, taken law classes, or practiced as a lawyer). Hell, the thought almost makes me want to pay for his online law classes.
Littlelebowski
08-22-11, 13:45
Intelligent design is nothing more than Trojan Horse for creationism.
i'm a Christian and could care less that my son is being taught mostly evolution in the public schools in texas. He is well grounded and discuss how science and faith can co-exist at our home.
We home school our little girl.
This topic has zero influence on my desire to oust the current admin...perry is an idiot for lying & glad to hear RP is creation. I doubt either one of them make a platform around the issue.
variablebinary
08-22-11, 14:27
You cannot imagine how little I care what the MSM thinks of RP's foreign policy.
Mind you, most Americans are programmed by a propaganda machine to believe globalism and interventionism are our manifest destiny.
However, anyone that declares this openly should be required by law to serve on the front line of the conflict they advocate so willingly from the safety of their couch.
I'll say outright that I am against any military action in Iran, nuke or no nuke. If Iran's neighbors don't like it, they should form a coalition and handle their threats and deal with the consequences.
Intelligent design is nothing more than Trojan Horse for creationism.
Who would you rather support:
1. A "creationist" who believes the fed should be removed from the business of education.
2. An "evolutionist" who would see the fed micromanage American schools using a bloated, unaccountable Washington bureaucracy.
?????
(BTW, Ron Paul is a creationist....)
Littlelebowski
08-22-11, 14:44
Who would you rather support:
1. A "creationist" who believes the fed should be removed from the business of education.
2. An "evolutionist" who would see the fed micromanage American schools using a bloated, unaccountable Washington bureaucracy.
?????
(BTW, Ron Paul is a creationist....)
You've already cast your question to get the answer you desire. I'm a believer of science in the classroom, not religious driven pseudo science.
However, anyone that declares this openly should be required by law to serve on the front line of the conflict they advocate so willingly from the safety of their couch.
And anyone opposed should be required by law to walk everywhere or ride a bicycle. Should they also be prohibited the use of electricity since some of it comes from foreign oil/natural gas generated power and the use of any plastic product that is made from oil or is that taking it too far?
How do you define "globalism" does that include a belief that we have a right to purchase a product from a foreign source that wants to sell it to us at an agreed upon price?
BTW, Ron Paul is a creationist....) :eek: Learn something new every day...
You've already cast your question to get the answer you desire. I'm a believer of science in the classroom, not religious driven pseudo science.
I framed the question as the choice has presented itself. The guys who've "come out" as creationists wouldn't see the fed control education at all.
Evolution v. intelligent design is such a minor side show in an election in which the fate of the nation is, quite literally, in question. That you'd bring it up makes me seriously question your ability to prioritize, especially given that the "out" creationists in the line up oppose federal manipulation of education.
Here is an interesting article from 2010 about a 2010 poll on evolution versus creationism versus intelligent design in the American electorate (the people who decide who wins national offices like the Presidency).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/20/40-of-americans-still-bel_n_799078.html
"40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years...Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process...A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution": that humans have evolved with no divine guidance."
If your vote for President depends on a litmus test of a belief that only 16 percent of Americans hold, GOOD LUCK winning a national election!
variablebinary
08-22-11, 16:11
And anyone opposed should be required by law to walk everywhere or ride a bicycle. Should they also be prohibited the use of electricity since some of it comes from foreign oil/natural gas generated power and the use of any plastic product that is made from oil or is that taking it too far?
How do you define "globalism" does that include a belief that we have a right to purchase a product from a foreign source that wants to sell it to us at an agreed upon price?
RP's point perfectly illustrated.
We've become so tangled up in the affairs of other nations that it threatens our sovereignty, economy and individual freedoms
We've whored ourselves out for 100 years to benefit individuals who hate us, corporations and bankers rather than concerning ourselves with expanding and ensuring the freedoms of American citizens.
Moose-Knuckle
08-23-11, 03:09
I suppose there is a disagreement on where our "own business" begins and ends. I personally think that a policy of ending our business at the shores of the Atlantic / Pacific is a little idealist.
An idealist that believes in limited constitutional goverment. . .guilty as charged.
I saw the Daily Show clip which provided a good laugh, but I do not use Jon Stewart's comedic analysis in formulating my world view.
John Stewart's Daily Show isn't "real news" right? Well neither is CNN, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, MSM, et al. I do not permit any instrument of propaganda to formulate my view of the world. Instead I saturate myself with history and current events as the more one learns the more the truth comes into focus where the inconsistencies and contradictions intersect.
However, his use of comedic exaggeration for effect seems to compliment some of the exaggerations from RP supporters (i.e. Perry is a sack of shit for attending a Bilderberger meeting, Bachmann wants to instill a theocracy, Romney is a gobalist, Cain is a banking flunky, the US is responsible for modern Iran, etc.)
Yeah, pretty much nailed it. We arrived at our current predicament somehow after all. But I suppose all us RP supporters just have are tinfoil hats adjusted a wee bit too tight. :rolleyes:
The notion that todays's Iran is the direct result of the US/British support of the Shah's coup over 50 years ago is an overly simplistic view of the situation. It is like saying that the US intervention in WWII is directly responsible for modern Europe and the EU.
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon." - Napoleon Bonaparte
VooDoo6Actual
08-23-11, 09:10
Unfortunately the reality is, the closer Ron Paul climbs to significance I also see the threats climbing porportionately.
Sad reality these days.
Unfortunately the reality is, the closer Ron Paul climbs to significance I also see the threats climbing porportionately.
Sad reality these days.
I don't know that it is any worse now. I think it has been that way for quite some time, it is just more overt now
VooDoo6Actual
08-23-11, 10:34
I don't know that it is any worse now. I think it has been that way for quite some time, it is just more overt now
True dat....hence my comment "these days"
RP's point perfectly illustrated.
The United States has always gone to war to protect economic interests overseas, including our access to markets to buy and sell. Not just over the last 100 years. First and Second Barbary Wars, the War of 1812 are early examples.
Being against nation building is one thing, having an overly broad definition of globalism that precludes all traditional reasons to go to war is another.
You are correct that the MSM does not give him coverage that is proportionate to his performance in polls. That is because they do not take his foreign policy seriously. Mark Williamson summed up the conservative talk radio position while covering for Rush last week with this comment, "I love RP on his fidelity to the Constitution and the economy. However, he throws that crazy switch and becomes that wacky uncle when he talks about foreign policy." You could see it in the face of the debate moderators last week as they looked uncomfortable with his reply to Rick Santorum on Iran.
Again this plays into that part of him not being assertive enough to get his point across. Israel has his full support of doing whatever is necessary to protect themselves as he has stated many times jsut not during that round.
The United States has always gone to war to protect economic interests overseas, including our access to markets to buy and sell. Not just over the last 100 years. First and Second Barbary Wars, the War of 1812 are early examples.
Being against nation building is one thing, having an overly broad definition of globalism that precludes all traditional reasons to go to war is another.
Actually, the War of 1812 was opposed for economic reasons. The states that had interests in shipping were solidly against the war because for them it was better to suffer the occasional impressment of their sailors and violation of our neutrality to keep the goods flowing. It was Southern states and statesmen who saw the imposition of Britain's will against us as a personal affront. Though it is now sometimes taught that the war was economic in origin because of impressment and neutrality violations, it was really seen by those who were for the war at the time as a war over the honor and sovereignty of the United States.
Even the Barbary Wars weren't economic. We ended up paying basically the same ransom to sail in the Med as was offered to us in the first place. They are painted as economic wars by modern revisionists, but the economically-interested parties (the maritime states in the Northeast) were adamantly opposed to the wars and were in favor of continuing to pay tribute. It, just like the War of 1812, was a war of honor and sovereignty pushed by Southern statesmen.
That said, I'm not fundamentally opposed to wars for resources and economic benefit, nor am I opposed to wars for honor and sovereignty. I'm opposed, like many others, to wars that have only marginal, nebulous political benefits. Like, for instance, establishing "democracies" (when we are manifestly not a democracy) in hostile areas populated by people culturally incapable of self-governance. That's just my own personal view, one not likely shared by other libertarians.
Moose-Knuckle
08-24-11, 03:53
The United States has always gone to war to protect economic interests overseas, including our access to markets to buy and sell. Not just over the last 100 years. First and Second Barbary Wars, the War of 1812 are early examples.
Your right the War of 1812 is a prime example:
Benjamin Franklin who was quite knowledgeable of the European central banking system, and was against a central us bank, along with jefferson and andrew jackson... however in 1791.. he died.....
and the same year Alexander Hamilton (who is believed to be an agent to the Rothschild banking cabal) was trying to pass legilsation for the first us central bank, which eventually was was passed in 1791
however in 1811.. the baking charter for the US central bank expired.... and congress votes against the renewal, which angered Nathan Mayor Rothschild.. in which he said
""Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war."
However the United States stands firm and the Charter is not renewed.. which causes Nathan Mayer Rothschild to issue another threat...
""Teach those impudent Americans a lesson. Bring them back to colonial status."
so in 1812.... backed by Rothschild money...: Backed by Rothschild money, and Nathan Mayer Rothschild's orders, the British declare war on the United States. The Rothschilds plan was to cause the United States to build up such a debt in fighting this war that they would have to surrender to the Rothschilds and allow the charter for the Rothschild owned First Bank of the United States to be renewed.... which unfortanely, you can say Nathan "won" cause eventually in 1816, Madison revived it in the form of the "Second Bank of the United States" cause of rising US debts in the war of 1812......
Being against nation building is one thing, having an overly broad definition of globalism that precludes all traditional reasons to go to war is another.
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC would beg to differ.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Thomas M-4
08-24-11, 09:13
Your right the War of 1812 is a prime example:
Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient, Major General Smedley D. Butler USMC would beg to differ.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
Good read I have read it before but couldn't remember who it was from.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 09:46
I framed the question as the choice has presented itself. The guys who've "come out" as creationists wouldn't see the fed control education at all.
Evolution v. intelligent design is such a minor side show in an election in which the fate of the nation is, quite literally, in question. That you'd bring it up makes me seriously question your ability to prioritize, especially given that the "out" creationists in the line up oppose federal manipulation of education.
Yup, I suck.
Creationism vs. Spontaneous Slime combustion...
They both require a leap of faith. So in that regard, neither is scientific. It all comes down to a question of faith.
They are painted as economic wars by modern revisionists, but...
Free access to markets and navigation of the sea are both economic and sovereignty issues...
My understanding is that tribute payments ended after
The Second Barbary War.
You also failed to touch on issues around the Continental Blockade.
You can assert that those wars had no economic reasons if you want, but all I will take the time to do is point out these glaring omissions and encourage further reading for those interested.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 10:31
Creationism vs. Spontaneous Slime combustion...
They both require a leap of faith. So in that regard, neither is scientific. It all comes down to a question of faith.
Wrong (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html).
Your right the War of 1812 is a prime example.
Moose Knuckle I don't know what you are quoting, but amidst that conspiracy theory is the assertion that the British declared war on us in the war of 1812.
Wrong (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html).
Now you just need to have those amino acids self assemble something more complicated than a jet engine in a lab and you are set.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 10:56
Now you just need to have those amino acids self assemble something more complicated than a jet engine in a lab and you are set.
Or just chalk it all off to an unprovable, invisible creature in the sky instead of seeking knowledge via the scientific method.
Or just chalk it all off to an unprovable, invisible creature in the sky instead of seeking knowledge via the scientific method.
I support scientific inquiry. You are the one making claims not supported by evidence. And I am not going to debate evolution versus creationism versus ID either. Most people are too ideologically entrenched for there to be any point. Just wanted to point out the massive leap of faith taken from amino acids to life for those who might have missed it.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 11:05
I support scientific inquiry. You are the one making claims not supported by evidence.
Oh, I am? DNA replication has not been proven? Have you seen the recent instances proving macro evolution?
I assume you support scientific inquiry except when it contradicts your religion?
Oh, I am?
Yep. You just pretended amino acids formed in a lab disproved El Mac. You have to know there is more to it than that.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 11:14
Yep. You just pretended amino acids formed in a lab disproved El Mac. You have to know there is more to it than that.
So you agree with his statement about slime being a leap of faith or are you nitpicking to win an argument?
So you agree with his statement about slime being a leap of faith...
Yep. As I took it. There are several theories that cover the steps between amino acids and the earliest forms of life that have not been observed.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 12:00
Yep. As I took it. There are several theories that cover the steps between amino acids and the earliest forms of life that have not been observed.
So, divine creation makes more sense to you or you don't believe anything you don't personally observe?
So, divine creation makes more sense to you or you don't believe anything you don't personally observe?
I am very skeptical of Abiogenesis because of the lack of evidence presented by proponents and math evidence I have been exposed to through study of Intelligent Design. Contrary to your assertion, ID is not merely a Trojan Horse for Creationism and is a theory espoused by some serious scientists/biologists that are more qualified to have an opinion on the matter than I am, which is why I said earlier that I don't want to debate about it.
...anywho, I like Paul; unfortunately, he won't win as he doesn't play the game by the rules.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 13:13
I am very skeptical of Abiogenesis because of the lack of evidence presented by proponents and math evidence I have been exposed to through study of Intelligent Design. Contrary to your assertion, ID is not merely a Trojan Horse for Creationism and is a theory espoused by some serious scientists/biologists that are more qualified to have an opinion on the matter than I am, which is why I said earlier that I don't want to debate about it.
I absolutely disagree with you on every point except for the ridiculously small minority.
Guess we're back on topic.
Wrong (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/do53am.html).
PBS? Please.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 14:04
PBS? Please.
So PBS is making up that historical event or you just didn't bother to read it?
So PBS is making up that historical event or you just didn't bother to read it?
No need to read it. PBS = Pravda.
I won't waste my time.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 14:38
No need to read it. PBS = Pravda.
I won't waste my time.
It is a link describing an actual historical event. This one (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html). I do know that I am wasting my time speaking to man that has made up his mind before examining the facts but just in case anyone else is interested in organic matter (amino acids) being created from water, hydrogen, and water, the link is here. New link is from Duke University.
So PBS is making up that historical event or you just didn't bother to read it?
What you linked to didn't prove him wrong. There is a big leap from amino acids to proteins formed from them, to various theoretical early life forms less complex than single celled organisms.
I thought we were going to get back on track about your support for creationist Ron Paul. If we are going to talk about this kind of stuff I would at least like to hear why you support one creationst while damning another for his views, especially if both believe the Federal Government should have no role in education. How is one better than the other on that score?
I support Rick Perry because I agree with most of his positions and think he is the only one of the two candidates who can win who isn't a RINO. The RINO being Romney.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 16:11
I support Ron Paul because I think he is far less likely to allow religion to color his decisions and I vastly prefer his views on military interventionism over Rick Perry.
I was wondering when you would mention "macro evolution." You are actually inserting words into El Mac's mouth.
It is a link describing an actual historical event. This one (http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html). I do know that I am wasting my time speaking to man that has made up his mind before examining the facts but just in case anyone else is interested in organic matter (amino acids) being created from water, hydrogen, and water, the link is here. New link is from Duke University.
Now I read that link about that experiment (since it wasn't from the State Run Media) and interestingly enough, the article suggests there are certain amounts of leaps of faith to bring about those amino acids (which are of course not even categorized as life!). One such leap that the experimenter took was to assume that there was an almost constant flow of electricity in the form of lighting at the beginning of earth. That is a leap of faith. But then again, it is said in the Bible that God commanded: "Let there be light, and there was light..."
While it was an interesting experiment, it doesn't prove what you suggest. The article says as much. Perhaps the NPR (state media) went further than the Duke article. I don't know, as I won't read their bilge.
Suffice it to say, whatever you believe, it all requires a leap of faith.
Belmont31R
08-24-11, 18:03
Suffice it to say, whatever you believe, it all requires a leap of faith.
Which is why government, who is supposed to represent the people, should not base its laws off only ONE of many ideologies that exist.
I don't want Sharia and I don't want Baptists turning religion into law. All across MOST of the world there are basic tenets where religion doesn't matter. Things like murder, theft, contract law, ect. These are all common ground in most every modern nation including the middle east, europe, and asia as well as north america.
US law should not be based off a single religous faith. To me basing law off religion is the same as ME saying you cannot practice religion. By forcing religous based laws on me you're doing the same thing as if I outlawed all religion outright.
LIVE, and LET LIVE. Its as simple as that. Don't impose your beliefs on me, and I won't impose mine on you. You can go pray in church all day everyday for all I care. Just don't impose blue laws on me, and say something is "wrong" because the your interpretation of the Bible says so.
Which is why government, who is supposed to represent the people, should not base its laws off only ONE of many ideologies that exist.
I don't want Sharia and I don't want Baptists turning religion into law. All across MOST of the world there are basic tenets where religion doesn't matter. Things like murder, theft, contract law, ect. These are all common ground in most every modern nation including the middle east, europe, and asia as well as north america.
US law should not be based off a single religous faith. To me basing law off religion is the same as ME saying you cannot practice religion. By forcing religous based laws on me you're doing the same thing as if I outlawed all religion outright.
LIVE, and LET LIVE. Its as simple as that. Don't impose your beliefs on me, and I won't impose mine on you. You can go pray in church all day everyday for all I care. Just don't impose blue laws on me, and say something is "wrong" because the your interpretation of the Bible says so.
I don't know if you are directing your comments to me specifically or not. Regardless, I agree with you.
I am not aware of any current candidate that is basing their campaign or proposed public policies on any particular religion. I don't think there is even a Baptist among them. Maybe RP is Baptist? I don't really know, though I've not heard him propose any laws based on his religious beliefs.
That said, it can not be denied that the Founders of our country based a lot of their founding principles on Judeo-Christian philosophy. But, I suppose that is for another thread.
Belmont31R
08-24-11, 18:39
I don't know if you are directing your comments to me specifically or not. Regardless, I agree with you.
I am not aware of any current candidate that is basing their campaign or proposed public policies on any particular religion. I don't think there is even a Baptist among them. Maybe RP is Baptist? I don't really know, though I've not heard him propose any laws based on his religious beliefs.
That said, it can not be denied that the Founders of our country based a lot of their founding principles on Judeo-Christian philosophy. But, I suppose that is for another thread.
Quite a few candidates have based their political beliefs on religious beliefs.
What should be law is CORE beliefs that MANY different persuasions of religion and non religion share. I am not religious and think its criminal to murder, thieve, break contract law, for the government to confiscate possessions without court order, and that people should be secure in their property. I'm a real adherent of the Constitution and believe if we followed it to the original intent and letter of the law we would be MUCH better off. Yet I would not willingly step foot in a church or pray to some god.
There are tons of people like me, too. I don't want to elect a candidate who sits up there, and says law is based off religion which happens to be their personal religious belief. There are over 300 million Americans all with different beliefs not one person saying this should be the law because its what I believe in. Even among Christian denominations there is a wide variety of beliefs.
FWIW I've said before on this site criminal punishments should be MUCH harsher than they are for crimes with a victim. Robbery should be a LIFE without parole. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and our criminal justice system is setup to perpetuate criminal activity. If you look at the stats the vast majority of crimes are committed by less than 10% of our population which the current justice system is setup as a revolving door. Non religious people, in my experience, are some of the harshest people when it comes to criminal activity. We are not without morals, and at times I see Christians as a road block to justice. Remember "The Huck", always talking about religion, is the one who released the murderer of the LEO's in WA state at the coffee shop. I don't want blue laws, and I don't want "forgive and forget" Christians letting loose violent people onto my neighborhood. 3
14
great post mac...train has left the tracks.
edit...i'm not hearing squat from the media on RP?? Someone post a link.
Littlelebowski
08-24-11, 19:54
I respect folks that understand science but believe that their god might have started it all far more than those that take their religion literally and therefore scorn the science that contradicts their literalist beliefs. You might end up asking yourself which avenue asks you to take the greater and far more numerous leaps of faith but I doubt it.
Anyway, I'm an atheist and firmly committed to the scientific method. I believe Ron Paul is our country's brightest hope in the presidential race. I disagree with him on a few things but that's the way of things and he's got my support.
Now I read that link about that experiment (since it wasn't from the State Run Media) and interestingly enough, the article suggests there are certain amounts of leaps of faith to bring about those amino acids (which are of course not even categorized as life!). One such leap that the experimenter took was to assume that there was an almost constant flow of electricity in the form of lighting at the beginning of earth. That is a leap of faith. But then again, it is said in the Bible that God commanded: "Let there be light, and there was light..."
While it was an interesting experiment, it doesn't prove what you suggest. The article says as much. Perhaps the NPR (state media) went further than the Duke article. I don't know, as I won't read their bilge.
Suffice it to say, whatever you believe, it all requires a leap of faith.
I support Ron Paul because I think he is far less likely to allow religion to color his decisions and I vastly prefer his views on military interventionism over Rick Perry.
I worry that Ron Paul might not use military force when he should. That's making a big assumption he could ever win a general election or even a presidential primary which I don't see happening.
Regardless of the fact that he is right on a bunch of issues.
I was wondering when you would mention "macro evolution." You are actually inserting words into El Mac's mouth.
I didn't do either one.
Quite a few candidates have based their political beliefs on religious beliefs.
No disagreement there...George Washington, Sam Adams, James Madison, to name a few.
But I still haven't heard one candidate get up and say that they propose "such and such" because of what their pastor in church tells them. One is certainly influenced by their choice of religion, but they can still make decisions that are disengaged from a religious doctrine. To propose otherwise would insinuate that people are mere robots no better than any computer, i.e. "garbage in, garbage out".
What should be law is CORE beliefs that MANY different persuasions of religion and non religion share. I am not religious and think its criminal to murder, thieve, break contract law, for the government to confiscate possessions without court order, and that people should be secure in their property. I'm a real adherent of the Constitution and believe if we followed it to the original intent and letter of the law we would be MUCH better off.
Absolutely. Totally agree - and I don't think I've heard one candidate differ on that stance. Not even Obama.
Yet I would not willingly step foot in a church or pray to some god.
That is certainly your choice, as it is every man's choice.
There are tons of people like me, too. I don't want to elect a candidate who sits up there, and says law is based off religion which happens to be their personal religious belief. There are over 300 million Americans all with different beliefs not one person saying this should be the law because its what I believe in. Even among Christian denominations there is a wide variety of beliefs.
Again, have I missed something? Which candidate disagrees with that?
FWIW I've said before on this site criminal punishments should be MUCH harsher than they are for crimes with a victim. Robbery should be a LIFE without parole. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and our criminal justice system is setup to perpetuate criminal activity. If you look at the stats the vast majority of crimes are committed by less than 10% of our population which the current justice system is setup as a revolving door. Non religious people, in my experience, are some of the harshest people when it comes to criminal activity. We are not without morals, and at times I see Christians as a road block to justice. Remember "The Huck", always talking about religion, is the one who released the murderer of the LEO's in WA state at the coffee shop. I don't want blue laws, and I don't want "forgive and forget" Christians letting loose violent people onto my neighborhood. 3
14
Well, I'm not saying there aren't 'forgive and forget Christians' out there. But thats not a Biblical stance. Forgiveness is, forgetting is not. And justice on earth is certainly Biblical as is the ultimate justice in the afterlife. Most Christians I've been around in my lifetime are quite harsh on punishments involving the taking of innocent lives, child abuse, robbery, etc...
There are of course exceptions...the 'liberalized' Christians that promote 'social justice', which fall into the class of Lenin's "Useful Idiots"...but again, thats for another thread.
montanadave
08-24-11, 23:19
There are of course exceptions...the 'liberalized' Christians that promote 'social justice', which fall into the class of Lenin's "Useful Idiots"...but again, thats for another thread.
Yeah, those "liberalized" Christians who buy into all that ridiculous shit like:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
What a bunch of saps, right? :rolleyes:
RancidSumo
08-24-11, 23:54
I've supported Ron Paul for a few years now, I wanted to vote for him last election but wasn't old enough, he will have my vote in 2012. I've got a few of his books if anyone is interested and would like to borrow one, let me know and I'll send it to you (just promise to send it back when you are done)
Yeah, those "liberalized" Christians who buy into all that ridiculous shit like:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
What a bunch of saps, right? :rolleyes:
Where in all this scripture you are quoting does it say that it is OK to "do for the least of these brothers and sisters" by extorting and stealing money and then redistributing it through force of government?
Yes, the liberalized Christians who use the scriptures to support governmental social redistribution of wealth are clueless and dipsh*ts when it comes to the gospel and the scripture. Christ was concerned about our spiritual salvation, not our physical salvation. But he knew that for us to achieve spiritual salvation, we had to love our neighbor enough that we sacrificed and gave and looked out for him and took care of him. If we could not do that, out of our own hearts and wills, we could not accept the spiritual salvation he offered. He said nothing and intended none of his teachings to encourage and approve of forced redistribution of wealth through governmental power.
The Revolution Is Underway by Karen Kwiatkowski
http://lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski272.html
---
Has Ron Paul become electable?
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0823/Has-Ron-Paul-become-electable
---
Yeah, those "liberalized" Christians who buy into all that ridiculous shit like:
“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
What a bunch of saps, right? :rolleyes:
Ummm, no...I think you have misconstrued what I said and have implied now something else. But "chadbag" addressed that nicely, so I'll move on.
The type of 'social justice' I'm speaking of comes right out of Left(ist) field, promulgated by the Rev. Jim Wallis - Obama's buddy and "advisor". Here is a good article to read concerning Wallis:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36269
From the linked article:
Though a Democrat, Wallis says, “God is not a Democrat or Republican.” That is true, but neither is He a left-wing ideologue, and it would seem that a loving God would desire prosperity for as many of His children as possible and not wish to penalize those who live by the virtues of hard work, sacrifice, discipline and responsibility that He has bequeathed to us. It only makes sense that God favors a system that provides his children with the greatest opportunities and avenues for economic prosperity and its concomitant condition of human dignity, uniquely sponsored in the Judeo-Christian outlook upon which America’s economic system is fashioned.
The social justice that God expects of us is handled not through statist redistribution of wealth but through acts of charity. In the Old Testament, there are constant calls for giving charity but none for statist redistribution of wealth, nor calls for an economic leveling of society or for a lack of distinctiveness and differences among individuals. Doing so runs contrary to the notion of the individual as a unique and distinctive being, which is the meaning behind “human created in the image of God”, i.e., singular beings.
The Bible calls for acts of charity from the individual, for in being direct and personal, charity has the ability to elevate and ennoble the giver and provider. The direct act of giving changes the person and involves and partners him with God. Unlike Marxism, the Bible emphasizes the individual, not the state, the personal and not the “masses.”
Charity doesn't come from the government. It never has, it never will.
Ron Paul being interviewed on a few topics in the news. http://youtu.be/oQQIqOwjqac
crusader377
08-25-11, 13:14
I worry that Ron Paul might not use military force when he should.
And how many of our military interventions over the past 50 years were useful, beneficial to the American people, and had a positive effect on the nation?
And how many of our military interventions over the past 50 years were useful, beneficial to the American people, and had a positive effect on the nation?
That's rhetorical right? I am not going to write an essay about the consequences of *not intervening* (given that war is destructive and expensive and only "beneficial" or "positive" in light of the bad stuff that would have happened had you decided not to fight) in all the military conflicts of the last 50 years, so just give that some thought yourself.
crusader377
08-25-11, 14:27
It's not rhetorical at all. Lets take a brief look at some of our major interventions in the last 50 years.
Vietnam: Our political leadership absolutely failed our military and despite the courage and committment of our troops, at the end of the day North Vietnam accomplished its political objectives and we failed to meet ours. Despite winning nearly every battle, we lost the war and 50,000 plus Americans died, and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars and Vietnam caused widespread social divisions in the U.S.
Gulf War I: We did successfully drove Saddam out of Kuwait at relatively low cost. But, if we had leaders of vision and courage, we would have spent the last 40 years investing in energy independence and if we would have accomplished this we would have not had all the future interventions in the Middle East and would be able to reduce military spending.
War in Afghanistan: I fought here in 2002 and when I was their it was the right course of action to hunt and kill AQ and their Taliban allies. Unfortunately, mission creep set in and now we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a country that has a GDP of under $20 million. Bottom line, Afghanistan is never going to be a stable modern democracy and once we leave it is going to revert back to a pawn between all of the other major countries in the region.
War in Iraq: Was there in 2003. Completely unnecessary war. Although Saddam was an evil man, he was no threat to the U.S. and AQ was not in Iraq when we invaded. Again we spent over $1 trillion dollars on Iraq and lost 4000+ Americans. At the end of the day, once U.S. leaves Iraq that country is going to fall under Iranian influence or collapse internally.
With all of our middle east adventures, if the United States would have invested in energy independence and end our addiction to foreign oil, that whole region would be marginized and we would not need to get involved in that part of the world.
It's not rhetorical at all.
Your brief look still doesn't address consequences of not acting, and all of the positives are dismissed as not as good as a hypothetical "what if" involving energy independence that we do not have the political will to accomplish. Assuming energy independence is even possible.
The one instance of not acting that could be catastrophic to the US is with Iran. Ron Paul believes that we can deter them with our strategic nuclear forces like we did the Soviet Union. I think he is wrong about that.
VooDoo6Actual
08-25-11, 14:50
Ron Paul being interviewed on a few topics in the news. http://youtu.be/oQQIqOwjqac
thanks for the link.
Enjoyed his frank candor & demeanor.
crusader377
08-25-11, 14:57
What are the positives in these conflicts except enriching the big defense contractors and other corporations on the teet of government?
Energy independence would have been accomplished years ago if we would have invested the couple trillion of dollars that we spent in the Middle East into technology to achieve energy independence.
You are talking about energy independence like it is a definite possibility. Using the idea of investing trillions of (government) dollars in technology that may not exist to devalue any positives in the military operations of the last 50 years.
This is rhetoric. Pie in the sky bullshit. On an Obama Green (nonexistent) Jobs level.
Belmont31R
08-25-11, 15:18
You are talking about energy independence like it is a definite possibility. Using the idea of investing trillions of (government) dollars in technology that may not exist to devalue any positives in the military operations of the last 50 years.
This is rhetoric. Pie in the sky bullshit. On an Obama Green (nonexistent) Jobs level.
It doesn't require any government money. It requires the gov getting out of the way. Energy production has either been halted here or moved overseas, and thats left is under constant assault from the EPA.
We don't need gov money into stupid things like solar and wind. There is plenty of money in energy to make it profitable.
crusader377
08-25-11, 15:19
You are talking about energy independence like it is a definite possibility. Using the idea of investing trillions of (government) dollars in technology that may not exist to devalue any positives in the military operations of the last 50 years.
This is rhetoric. Pie in the sky bullshit. On an Obama Green (nonexistent) Jobs level.
What's bullshit is our intervention policy which chews up 18-20 year old kids and refuses to look at other options to accomplish our goals. While this is happening the elites in this country are pocketing billions of dollars through war profiteering. Bottom line is the political and corporate elites have no skin in the game and will keep on manufacturing reasons for the next military adventure to improve their own status and pocket books.
Are you going to explaining any of the positives of these adventures?
It doesn't require any government money. It requires the gov getting out of the way.
If by "it" you mean reducing the need for foreign oil I agree. If by "it" you mean achieving energy independence I don't.
Are you going to explaining any of the positives of these adventures?
The fact our whole economy in the real world is dependent in large part on mideast oil and that isn't going to change anytime soon is pretty obvious right? That's why it has to be explained away by idealists with something that doesn't exist like energy independence for the United States when our way of life depends on massive energy consumption.
Other strategic reasons for what we do (publicly stated and actual reasons, and whether I personally believe them or not) are too involved and like I said I don't want to spend my time writing essays on M4c.
The problem with most Paul supporters is they are not up front and honest about acknowledging the real consequences of some of their idealistic positions.
crusader377
08-25-11, 15:30
It doesn't require any government money. It requires the gov getting out of the way. Energy production has either been halted here or moved overseas, and thats left is under constant assault from the EPA.
We don't need gov money into stupid things like solar and wind. There is plenty of money in energy to make it profitable.
I agree with your point entirely and also if your factored all of the costs of foreign oil such as military interventions, foreign aid, oil company corporate welfare etc... into the price of a gallon of gasoline, I bet that we are paying $8-$10 per gallon of gas. At these prices I have no doubt that private enterprise would find a cheaper domestic source of energy production.
Also when you think about it, big oil has been the biggest benefactor of corporate welfare when you think of all the foreign aid and military effort that goes into the middle east.
Belmont31R
08-25-11, 16:39
If by "it" you mean reducing the need for foreign oil I agree. If by "it" you mean achieving energy independence I don't.
You have to start somewhere, and anyone but an idiot can realize it would be at least a decade before we saw real growth in domestic energy. Im talking about everything from oil, natural gas, nuclear, coal, ect. With China and India eating up more and more resources every year this issue is quickly becoming a serious national security question.
However the past few decades have been spent ensuring it would take at least another generation before any real improvement was seen. A decade to see products on the market that have an actual impact on prices.
A company can go overseas and make the plant because they can't build it here..or even if they can the process is so full of red tape, bureaucracy, and kick backs they just go overseas anyways. My dad has had to work overseas for years now..but they pay him double what they would here, and jobs are all over the place while we are stagnant or in some cases going backwards.
Im not saying we need 100% independence but we need to be doing a lot better than we are now, and its just another case in a long string of cases of US Gov policy sending jobs overseas and weakening our long term prosperity. I firmly think the extremely high gas prices in 2007 is one the major triggers for the collapse of 2008, and that current high gas prices are a reason we are stagnant now.
You have to start somewhere, and anyone but an idiot can realize it would be at least a decade before we saw real growth in domestic energy.
And if we started tomorrow doing everything right with regards to domestic energy we are completely screwed for a decade economically if our foreign policy is to cede control of the Middle East to a nuclear armed Iran as Ron Paul advocates. Even after a successful buildup in our domestic production of oil and natural gas we still would need to import, so we would still be screwed to whatever extent we still needed to import.
we are completely screwed for a decade economically if our foreign policy is to cede control of the Middle East to a nuclear armed Iran as Ron Paul advocates.
Please provide a source for this stance on the M.E. and Iran.
Please provide a source for this stance on the M.E. and Iran.
FNC Republican Primary Debate in which he stated we could deter a nuclear armed Iran as we did the Soviets. The video you yourself posted in which he advocated withdrawing troops from everywhere as soon as possible. Add 2 and 2.
FNC Republican Primary Debate in which he stated we could deter a nuclear armed Iran as we did the Soviets. The video you yourself posted in which he advocated withdrawing troops from everywhere as soon as possible. Add 2 and 2.
I've been on vacation for a week without internet so I'm a little rusty on what I'd previously posted. I do not believe Ron Paul is advocating ceding control of the Middle East to a nuclear equipped Iran. I believe this (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/08/11/ron-paul-why-shouldn%E2%80%99t-iran-want-a-nuclear-weapon/) is what you're referring to during the debates and our own CIA is reporting that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. Please watch the short video again to better understand his position.
Also, please read my sig line. Have a good one! :)
Belmont31R
08-25-11, 17:17
And if we started tomorrow doing everything right with regards to domestic energy we are completely screwed for a decade economically if our foreign policy is to cede control of the Middle East to a nuclear armed Iran as Ron Paul advocates. Even after a successful buildup in our domestic production of oil and natural gas we still would need to import, so we would still be screwed to whatever extent we still needed to import.
Curious as to how you come to this conclusion. You think every ME country is going to toe the Iranian line? Arabs don't like Persians you know, and they like dollars coming in from oil sales.
Please watch the short video again to better understand his position.
Yeah that is the clip I was talking about. The comparison of the Iranians to the Soviets was particularly disappointing. The other clip I was referring to was the one you posted today, so you shouldn't have trouble remembering it.
Curious as to how you come to this conclusion.
I listen to what the candidates say and try to determine what the outcome of their policy or policies combined would be.
Iran is doing a good job of dominating the ME with us there. If we withdrew our troops ASAP as Paul says he would I predict they would become even more powerful. How about you? How about if we pulled out of the region and they had nukes?
our own CIA is reporting that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons.
If you believe that I have a bridge for sale.
If you believe that I have a bridge for sale.
I have no need for a bridge or another war.
VooDoo6Actual
08-25-11, 19:02
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/08/17/2743s653919.htm
http://rt.com/politics/iran-nuclear-patrushev-approach/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html
http://rt.com/politics/russian-iran-nuclear-talks/
http://rt.com/politics/us-iran-missiles-war/
I bet a Root Beer that Iran is having a "EPIC SAC SUCK FEST" w/ Russia since Libya is being usurrped, Syria is in cross hairs of US, Turkish Air Bases occupied by US, Iraq US occupied, Afghanistan US Occupied, Jordan's is next to Iran & Abdullah is 100% our ally.
... and our own CIA is reporting that Iran is not working on nuclear weapons.
Now I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!
Now I don't care who you are, that right there is funny!
Always happy to bring some humor to the forum. http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf
Always happy to bring some humor to the forum. http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf
My phone opens a 9 page blank document.
My phone opens a 9 page blank document.
My computer opens a 9 page PDF document.
My phone opens a 9 page blank document.
It's a CIA document - you need to drop lemon juice on and hold it over heat...
All kidding aside, I do not think that even RP denies that Iran wants a nuke. He thinks (and most mainstream republicans AND democrats disagree) that a nuclear armed Iran is not an existential threat. This is the biggest foreign policy issue that I have with his candidacy and a major reason why I rank him below Perry and Romney. That is to say, I do not think that a President Romney would repeat any of the Mass mistakes such as healthcare or gun control that give me reservations about his candidacy (especially since he will not have a radical state legislature pushing an agenda). However, I take RP at his word and believe that he would not make any significant effort to keep nukes out of Iran.
My computer opens a 9 page PDF document.
The 2011 report that talks about Iran's continued development of dual use nuclear technology and ballistic missile development opens up just fine, but your link was blank on iPhone safari.
It's a CIA document - you need to drop lemon juice on and hold it over heat...
Might be a Zionist conspiracy.
crusader377
08-25-11, 22:12
Iran is doing a good job of dominating the ME with us there. If we withdrew our troops ASAP as Paul says he would I predict they would become even more powerful. How about you? How about if we pulled out of the region and they had nukes?
Iran simply doesn't have the military capability to dominate the Middle East with or without nukes.
First, lets take a brief look at conventional capabilities. Iran has a moderate size airforce with roughly 300 or so combat aircraft. Their best aircraft is probably the 20-30 1970s vintage F-14s which they bought during the Shah's reign and some first generation 1980s vintage Mig-29 from the Iraqi airforce. The F-14s most likely haven't had any serious upgrades and are most likely degraded in capability from when they were first purchased. The Mig-29 although agile, has very limited avoniacs and weapons capability.
In contrast, the Turkish airforce is quite powerful being the third largest airforce in NATO behind the U.S. and U.K. they operate over 400 combat aircraft including over 200 fully modern F-16C/Ds.
The Iranian's are even weaker against the Saudi's. SA operates nearly 200 F-15s and over 100 Tornado strike aircraft. In addition they are taking deliveries of 72 Eurofighter Typhoons and have an additional 80+ advanced F-15s on order which are actually more capable than the F-15s that we are flying.
Iran also comes up very short against Israel which operates roughly 300 F-16s and 100 F-15s.
Iran even has less capability than UAE in the air. UAE operates 80 F-16 Block 60s (Most capable F-16 in the world) and roughly 60 Mirage 2000s.
On the Ground likewise, Iran has a large army with roughly 1960s and 1970s vintage equipment and would be outmatched by the capabilities of their likely opponents which largely operate modern equipment including Leopard 2 tanks for the Turks, M1s for the Saudis, and Leclercs for the UAE.
On the Nuclear front, yes Iran may get a few Nukes but Israel already has anywhere between 100-300 nuclear weapons and has a second strike capability from their subs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/24/AR2006082401050.html
In addition, Saudi Arabia definately has the money to acquire nukes in short order if necessary and Turkey is a member of NATO and could probably get access to nuclear capability if needed.
As you can see Iran does not have the military capability to dominate the Middle East and furthermore is so far behind that it would take them decades to even match to capability which is currently available to our allies in the region.
ForTehNguyen
08-25-11, 22:18
Iran cant dominate anything. They cant even refine their own gasoline, they export oil to import gas. Israel can wipe the floor with them in a couple seconds they have 300 nukes. Iran has an aging force, no delivery system for a nuke, if they are even close to getting one. Iran is surrounded by superior militaries, if they tried to do anything stupid, they would quickly be put down by its nuclear neighbors
Always happy to bring some humor to the forum. http://www.dni.gov/reports/2009_721_Report.pdf
Like I said, funny!:sarcastic:
Now, I'm betting you don't believe in Santa Claus, so why would you believe that?
Conventional military force is not the currecy of Iranian influence in the ME. Iran (and its sister, Syria, to a lesser extent) exert influence through clandestine action agaist US and Israeli interests. Both countries supplied fighters and supplies to the insurgency in Iraq. They were very effective at adapting IED design to our defense mechanisms which caused thousands of causalities. They directly support terrorist groups such as Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hammas to destabilize neighboring countries.
While most of these efforts are designed to threaten Israel, establishment of a Islamic Caliphate across the ME (then the world) is their stated goal. Similar to what we have seen between Pakistan and India, nuclear weapon would significantly strengthen Iran's position resulting in an ME arms race. This could be disastrous given the fragility of these regimes.
thopkins22
08-25-11, 23:09
While most of these efforts are designed to threaten Israel, establishment of a Islamic Caliphate across the ME (then the world) is their stated goal.
The notion of a worldwide "Islamic Caliphate" is not based in reality. Honestly, an Islamic Caliphate" that extends throughout the entire middle east isn't based in reality either. Perhaps it could be achieved for a short duration, but capitalism and a population that is becoming more and more educated would overcome such a thing in very short order.
While we have been endangered by middle eastern countries, the actual threat of Islamic rule in America was truly one of the last rationalizations the neo-conservatives utilized to play on irrational fears.
I'm not saying that they're good guys, hell I'm not even saying we shouldn't turn the place into glass. I'm saying that the threat of fundamentalist Islamic rule is laughable.
Moose-Knuckle
08-26-11, 03:00
Reading the past few pages of this thread reminded me of:
“Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Wilhelm Göring
The notion of a worldwide "Islamic Caliphate" is not based in reality. Honestly, an Islamic Caliphate" that extends throughout the entire middle east isn't based in reality either. Perhaps it could be achieved for a short duration, but capitalism and a population that is becoming more and more educated would overcome such a thing in very short order.
While we have been endangered by middle eastern countries, the actual threat of Islamic rule in America was truly one of the last rationalizations the neo-conservatives utilized to play on irrational fears.
I'm not saying that they're good guys, hell I'm not even saying we shouldn't turn the place into glass. I'm saying that the threat of fundamentalist Islamic rule is laughable.
It is not an issue of Iran actually being able to establish a ME Caliphate. The issue is their stated policy is to try and make it happen. It is their effort and the employment of terrorist organizations that makes them a threat to the US. For example, it was not realistic that Hitler could control all of Europe, but he sure did create some problems with his attempt.
Reading the past few pages of this thread reminded me of:
I have not seen anyone question the patriotism of RP or his supporters. In fact, everyone favoring another candidate in the Rebublican primary would gladly vote for him over Obama in a general election. Furthermore, I have stated my belief that RP is a honorable man.
The issue being discussed is a difference in opinion over RP's foreign policy. Some of us on the forum disagree with his position that a nuclear armed Iran is not an existential threat to the US. This does not mean that we are war mongers or globalists.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.