Republican candidates for 2012
-
BoatShoes
Wow, so now cutting government spending of course makes things worse because it's not private firms that are firing people. So now eliminating government workers doesn't free up the private sector to explode free of the reigns of the sovereign. I see now. And you saying that there's no inflation because there's not enough lending totally undermines the key austrian assertion that what causes the booms and busts is firms being unable to resist eating at the trough of low interest rates to make malinvestment! You're sitting here saying that no malinvestment is being made despite previously asserting that it is inevitable when the Fed plays around...just like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.Cleveland Buck;1019925 wrote:And of course fiscal austerity hurts your economy if it is driven by government spending. That it why you can't sustain an economy that way, because at some point you have to pay the bills.
Ron Paul and the Austrians have been right every step of the way. It is just hard to prove it because their solutions have never been tried, namely a true free market with market interest rates and minimal to no government involvement. Of course, if that were the solution we wouldn't need such a powerful government, so they will never try it.
I mean this is silly anymore. You sound like a marxist when they say that the reason communism didn't work is because it was never really tried the right way Boatshoes! -
sleeper
You can post all the graphs you want. I will enjoy reality, and the reality is stimulus doesn't accomplish anything positive and neither does raising taxes. -
BoatShoes
Well that's a shame because I know they didn't teach you to ignore evidence at the Ohio State University. (Which for good measure I should point out is a socialist institution that Ron Paul would eliminate if he were able to impose his view of government on the state of Ohio).sleeper;1019961 wrote:You can post all the graphs you want. I will enjoy reality, and the reality is stimulus doesn't accomplish anything positive and neither does raising taxes. -
BoatShoes
I mean QuakerOats has such a hard on for Newt Gingrich but can you imagine if Obama said something like this....who these guys talk about being soooo unbelievably arrogant and a dictator etc. I'm not sure that there's a politician more arrogant than Newt Gingrich. So if these guys don't like Obama because he's a narcissist as they claim they ought to really dislike Gingrich. This guy claimed that it is people like him who prevent Auschwitz from happening and has compared himself to the likes of Moses, William Wallace, Charles de Guale and repeatedly, Ronald Reagan.Abe Vigoda;1019822 wrote:I just saw this little gem from Gingrich.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story
And now, he's claiming how he will actively usurp the Constitutional authority of the Judicial Branch while at the same time holding himself out as a Constitutional purist. And this guy could win! -
baseballstud24So you support Obama???
-
Cleveland Buck
Cutting government spending does hurt in the short term. I never argued otherwise. Our whole phony economy is propped up by government involvement. To cut it would bring about a correction. Of course, a much worse correction will bring itself about if we decide to print it away for a while. After the correction, with a much better regulatory environment the private economy would be freed up to grow again.BoatShoes;1019958 wrote:Wow, so now cutting government spending of course makes things worse because it's not private firms that are firing people. So now eliminating government workers doesn't free up the private sector to explode free of the reigns of the sovereign. I see now. And you saying that there's no inflation because there's not enough lending totally undermines the key austrian assertion that what causes the booms and busts is firms being unable to resist eating at the trough of low interest rates to make malinvestment! You're sitting here saying that no malinvestment is being made despite previously asserting that it is inevitable when the Fed plays around...just like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff.
I mean this is silly anymore. You sound like a marxist when they say that the reason communism didn't work is because it was never really tried the right way Boatshoes!
And your point about inflation and malinvestment just shows your misunderstanding of the concept. There is malinvestment everywhere. A 12,000 DOW when we don't produce anything and more people are out of work now than when the recession "ended" is pure Wall Street speculation with cheap Fed credit. Investment in the debt of an insolvent federal government that will never in a million years pay them back with dollars worth the same as the dollars they are borrowing is the definition of malinvestment. Private businesses aren't malinvesting as much because they can't get money to borrow. Banks don't lend to them when they can lend newly printed money at 0% to the federal government for 2% or 3% and sit on those t-bills as reserves to make them look solvent.
No formula that you were taught in your economics class is going to explain an economy. General statistics mean nothing. Because the CPI isn't rising as fast as some thought doesn't mean there isn't inflation. Look at the price of health care, college tuition, the stock market, oil, gold, food. -
sleeper
They teach me to understand that sometimes the numbers don't tell the whole story. Look around you for once. Do you not see anything wrong with this country? We're bankrupt, unemployment has been high for years, our infrastructure is dying, and this is WITH STIMULUS out the ass.BoatShoes;1019973 wrote:Well that's a shame because I know they didn't teach you to ignore evidence at the Ohio State University. (Which for good measure I should point out is a socialist institution that Ron Paul would eliminate if he were able to impose his view of government on the state of Ohio). -
sleeper
Also, I'm not worried about The Ohio State University. They and their 6 billion+ endowment and staggering demand will survive any cuts that Ron Paul wants to implement. Let the strong survive and the weak be washed out into sea.BoatShoes;1019973 wrote:Well that's a shame because I know they didn't teach you to ignore evidence at the Ohio State University. (Which for good measure I should point out is a socialist institution that Ron Paul would eliminate if he were able to impose his view of government on the state of Ohio). -
Cleveland Buck
Is he running for dictator? Does he even give a fuck about the views of the government of the state of Ohio? Do you know anything about Ron Paul or the Constitution?BoatShoes;1019973 wrote:Well that's a shame because I know they didn't teach you to ignore evidence at the Ohio State University. (Which for good measure I should point out is a socialist institution that Ron Paul would eliminate if he were able to impose his view of government on the state of Ohio). -
Cleveland Buck
12/18 Insider Advantage Poll - Iowa Caucus
24% Paul
18% Romney
16% Perry
13% Gingrich
10% Bachmann
4% Huntsman
3% Santorum
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf -
Cleveland Buck
Many Paul supporters were worried after the last debate because you had Bachmann foaming at the mouth to march our kids into Iran and then you had the Fox propagandists calling Ron the crazy one. Maybe the truth is popular with voters.
Iran has some 25,000 Jews living in Iran with full rights and even participate in government. Maybe when they try to do something about the Jews in their own country we should worry about them attacking Israel. They would also never nuke Israel, because that would make the land useless for the Palestinians and destroy Islamic holy sites. This war mongering and blood lust is out of control now. -
queencitybuckeye
It's more that the next original thought you post here will be the first. You do nothing but post the work of others.BoatShoes;1019947 wrote:Ha, yeah the guy who uses evidence from the real world is of course the silly one :rolleyes: -
fish82
A win in Iowa would be a feather in his cap to be sure. That said, unless he can channel that into some serious gains in NH, SC and FL the following weeks, he's still on the outside looking in.Cleveland Buck;1020006 wrote:12/18 Insider Advantage Poll - Iowa Caucus
24% Paul
18% Romney
16% Perry
13% Gingrich
10% Bachmann
4% Huntsman
3% Santorum
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2011/InsiderAdvantage_IA_1218.pdf -
jhay78
And failing . . .WebFire;1018512 wrote:Ron Paul doesn't excuse the actions against us on 9/11. But he is trying to open peoples' eyes to the real reason for it. It's not that hard.
Things like that can happen when you have good foreign policy as well. The heinous crime of "occupying" the Saudi peninsula during the Gulf War to protect Saudi oil fields (and yes our interests too) was not a justifiable reason for terrorist acts. I'm sure George HW Bush and his staff said, "Well maybe we shouldn't do this, after all, a decade or so later some nutjobs might attack innocent Americans here at home".pmoney25;1018792 wrote:I am curious, What do you think the motive was for Osama Bin Laden? I think the point is going over your head. Ron Paul is not saying that he sympathizes with the terrorists or that what they did was justified. He is just saying that when you have bad foreign policy, things like this can happen. So when making foreign policy decisions, it is best to look at all angles before making that decision.
Of course they could've just gathered all the leaders of the various terror organizations to ask their permission (instead of the Saudi governments') before they made such heinous policy decisions. Then again, that's what we sane Americans call appeasement. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, and it will never work anywhere.
The cult of personality fever got Obama elected in 2008. The same phenomenon, especially among 25 and under types, is keeping Ron Paul in it now.BoatShoes;1019689 wrote:The Ron Paul worship is, IMO, even worse than the Obama fever of a couple years ago. The reality is a lot of people that were so all in for Obama were uppity liberal yuppies and not true messiah worshippers. It seems to me that Ron Paul people are true believers. Rick Perry made the joke but you encounter the Ron Paul people and I swear many of them really believe hanging Ben Bernanke for treason would be righteous. -
BoatShoes
See this is why I write such long posts. I didn't say that Ron Paul would eliminate tOSU if he were elected president. Obviously if Ron Paul were president he would do no such thing because he believes in State's Rights. Notice I didn't say if Ron Paul were president or even Governor. I said if Ron Paul "could impose his view of government" on the state of Ohio...implying as if he were a dictator. Obviously if he were running for Governor of Ohio or President he wouldn't eliminate tOSU. But, if he were given a magical power to impose his will on the state of Ohio as a dictator and was inclined to do so, he most certainly would eliminate public universities. And that is my point toward sleeper...he acts like this hardcore free market fundamentalist but is a rabid supporter of one of the largest anti-freedom socialist institutions in our state.Cleveland Buck;1020004 wrote:Is he running for dictator? Does he even give a fuck about the views of the government of the state of Ohio? Do you know anything about Ron Paul or the Constitution? -
BoatShoes
Maybe in my next brief I'll leave out citations because I wouldn't want to simply rehash the work of others.queencitybuckeye;1020019 wrote:It's more that the next original thought you post here will be the first. You do nothing but post the work of others. -
sleeper
Sounds like someone is bitter that they couldn't get in. Enjoy!BoatShoes;1020068 wrote: And that is my point toward sleeper...he acts like this hardcore free market fundamentalist but is a rabid supporter of one of the largest anti-freedom socialist institutions in our state. -
Apple
I'd vote for Ron Paul if he were to win the nomination. Any of the R's would be an improvement to BHO. I doubt Paul's surge will stand the test of the primaries... mainly due to his foreign policy(s). -
jmog
Manipulated graphs and quotes from people who agree with you does not equate to "evidence from the real world".BoatShoes;1019947 wrote:Ha, yeah the guy who uses evidence from the real world is of course the silly one :rolleyes:
If you don't believe statistics/data can be/is manipulated when making such graphs by BOTH SIDES, then I suggest you take a course in statistics, especially applied statistics. -
Cleveland Buck
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-and-the-republican-future.html[INDENT] “I would be a different kind of president. I wouldn’t be looking for more power. Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I, as a president, wouldn’t want to run the world,” - Ron Paul, December 15.
[/INDENT]
It's so heartening to see a candidate who's been ignored, condescended to and caricatured by both the liberal media and the Fox Propaganda machine emerge as a viable candidate to win the Iowa caucuses. He did it the best way possible: by a long, consistent message and the spade-work of previous campaigns; by old-school ground-organization; by generating enthusiasm among the grass roots and by bringing in many more people into the GOP fold. And look at the people he's attracting:
[INDENT] Among voters under 45 [in Iowa] he’s at 33% to 16% for Romney and 11% for Gingrich. He’s really going to need that younger than normal electorate because with seniors Romney’s blowing him out 31-15 with Gingrich coming in 2nd at 18%. Paul is also cleaning up 35-14 with the 24% of voters who identify as either Democrats or independents. Romney is actually ahead 22-19 with GOP voters. Young people and non-Republicans are an unusual coalition to hang your hat on in Iowa, and it will be interesting to see if Paul can actually pull it off.
[/INDENT]
If any other candidate were to win the Republican Iowa caucuses with a demographic that could go head-to-head with Obama's base in the fall, we'd be having newsweekly cover-stories and round-the-clock cable coverage. Instead we have the usual silence from liberals who cannot take domestic libertarianism seriously and from neocons desperate to keep the Military Industrial Complex humming at Cold War velocity. But Paul is a demographic dream for the GOP. What the party desperately needs is an outreach to the Millennials and, to a lesser extent, the Gen-Ys and Gen-X's, if it is to be saved from dying out in the near future. Alone among the candidates, Ron Paul, at 78 years' old, is able to attract them to the GOP.
And the generation gap is growing hugely. Since the Carter era, the young and the old have been separated by at most 7 percent in the gap between Democrats and Republicans, and sometimes as little as 1 percent (when Reagan beat Carter). But in the last decade the gap has widened to a staggering 20 percent difference, as the recent Pew survey found.
Paul's other great strength is in understanding, in a way neither the current Democrats or Republicans do, that the imperial apparatus inherited from the war against the Soviet Union has to be wound down. Romney sees this as defeat, because his worldview is still so 20th Century. Obama understands the need for re-calibration, but is actually far more Niebuhrian than Paul's "friends-with-countries" approach to foreign policy. Only Paul makes the big leap into the multi-polar future.
There is no way over the long term that Americans will be or should be prepared to endure greater relative poverty in a free trading world when they also have to pay almost the entire cost of global order and stability required to uphold it. There comes a point at which the Western Man's burden becomes being taken for a ride. For the US to deny its seniors medical care, to sleight its infrastructure renewal, and depress investment in the economy in order to keep the global economy militarily stable for China and India and Europe ... well, Paul is right. It makes no sense. We have to move back from a Department of Offense and Empire to a Department of Defense and Security. We need to let go of paranoia. The cycle of fear has already done immeasurable damage to the constitution, the economy and regional stability and security (watch Iraq and Afghanistan implode in the next few years).
The young get this. They were not brought up under the Cold War and mercifully have not absorbed its toxic fumes as children. Their formative war is neither WWII nor Vietnam, but Iraq. They want an America that is not bankrupting itself either by too expensive a welfare state at home or too unwieldy a war-machine abroad. And amid all the pandering and positioning and 1980s rhetoric, Paul has made this case as clearly as he can - with enormous courage and aplomb.
We were told one thing after his extensive riff last week on the paranoia around Iran's nuclear weapons, his defense of blowback theory in our encounters with Jihadist terrorism, and his open denunciation of the greatest mistake of his own party in the last decade, the Iraq war (where every other candidate is silent). We were told this ended his candidacy, that there was no constituency for this in the current GOP, that he was throwing it all away, that he has, as the Ailes memo clearly has it, zero chance of getting the nomination.
Well: now he's ahead in Iowa. And, yes, it remains a long, long, long shot. But you know what?
Yes he can.
-
Footwedge
The Gulf war ended in what? 100 days or so? And our bases remained....all over the map in Arab/Persian land. What exactly was our justification for doing so? Were we invited to stay? No, we weren't.jhay78;1020052 wrote: Things like that can happen when you have good foreign policy as well. The heinous crime of "occupying" the Saudi peninsula during the Gulf War to protect Saudi oil fields (and yes our interests too) was not a justifiable reason for terrorist acts. I'm sure George HW Bush and his staff said, "Well maybe we shouldn't do this, after all, a decade or so later some nutjobs might attack innocent Americans here at home".
You may think that that was/is sound foreign policy, I don't. Bin Ladin and his minions made it clear. Terrorism against our people were for 2 reaasons...and 2 reasons only.
1. We occcupy and maintain a miltary stronghold in their sovereign lands..and...
2. Our financial.military aid to Israel.
as long as we continue to do these things, we will remain with a target on our back.
That's it. Those 2 "foreign policies" are THE reason that the radicals blew up our buildings on 9-11. Period.
Oh for chrissakes just stop it. You and the American hubrisness...does nothing but cause more of our people to effin die. Was Reagan an appeaser too? He was the only one that got it right. When Tanzania saw us lose 243 soldiers from a terrorist attack by al Quada in 1983, he brought all the stationed military there home. Problem solved...until we started shidding all over our former BFF Saddam in the late 80's.Of course they could've just gathered all the leaders of the various terror organizations to ask their permission (instead of the Saudi governments') before they made such heinous policy decisions. Then again, that's what we sane Americans call appeasement. It didn't work for Neville Chamberlain and Hitler, and it will never work anywhere.
You must love our endless wars too don't ya. Did you ever fight on the front lines? See anyone you know get their arms and legs blown off? I didn't think so. Those are for the "volunteers"..... I know. -
BGFalcons82
Now I understand the Paulistas a little more. If we completely withdraw all of our military bases AND leave Israel to fend on their own (Dr. Paul's foreign policy), then the radical Muslims will join hands with the USA, sing Kumbaya and issue a fatwa that all US citizens are their friends. Got it.Footwedge;1020253 wrote:You may think that that was/is sound foreign policy, I don't. Bin Ladin and his minions made it clear. Terrorism against our people were for 2 reaasons...and 2 reasons only.
1. We occcupy and maintain a miltary stronghold in their sovereign lands..and...
2. Our financial.military aid to Israel.
as long as we continue to do these things, we will remain with a target on our back.
That's it. Those 2 "foreign policies" are THE reason that the radicals blew up our buildings on 9-11. Period.
Can we also count on:
They won't screw with the free-flow of oil out of the Mideast. I suppose someone will now opine that OPEC is a eunoch.
They will cease and decist in their religion's main objective to have Sharia Law in effect on every square inch of the planet.
They will live in peace and harmony with the Jews. Someone wrote earlier said there are 25,000 of them in Iran and they aren't in danger now, nor will they be when the USA leaves their side of the planet.
Daily bombings into Israeli-held territories will stop as long as Dr. Paul preaches his brand of peace.
No more American planes will be hijacked, no more underwear bombers, no more shoe bombers, and we can throw away the cancer-causing screening machines once and for all.
What a wonderful world it will be
-
Cleveland Buck
Nah, we should bomb the fuck out of Iran and kill more Jews than they ever have.
-
BGFalcons82
Y'all claim that radical Muslims hate us for our "military strongholds" and defending Judaism. Your guy will make these go away quickly.Cleveland Buck;1020312 wrote:Nah, we should bomb the fuck out of Iran and kill more Jews than they ever have.
What....you didn't think much about the consequences of his actions?
Did you forget that we are a nation built upon Judeo-Christian values/a nation of laws and the Muslims want to shove that up our azz and replace it with their brand of justice as prescribed and ordained by their holy book?
Did you forget that their hatred of Jews goes back millenias and one appeasing President is all they need to send Israel to meet their makers?
Did you forget the Middle Eastern countries control the majority of the world's oil supply and they could send us to economic hell by shutting it off? For a reminder, were you around in 1975-1979?
Come on, your guy is going to try a foreign policy that has never ever been tried before, right? It just HAS to work this time, right? Nothing else could possibly work, right?
Ron's way or the highway. -
majorspark
I am no fan of Gingrich, but this does not bother me. Its about time the coequal branches of the federal government had it out over this issue.Abe Vigoda;1019822 wrote:I just saw this little gem from Gingrich.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-judges-20111217,0,1295899.story