Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style". . .
ie, it could be a false-positive. though it may force the spotlight more on ron paul and force the media to give him attention and a more fair portrayal than the current "we're gonna be an as*hole to this guy" portrayal.
Last edited by TheResistance on 18 May 2007, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What garbage is that exactly? In the Republican debate I saw candidates talking about "Islamists" and how we should respond to them. They talked about how Iran absolutely cannot get nuclear weapons. They talked, with some exceptions, about how waterboarding is an acceptable tactics to obtain information from terrorist about impending events. The Democrats didn't use words like "Islamists." When terrorism was discussed unlike the Republicans they didn't talk about response but they mostly talked about disaster management. The Republicans and Democrats had starkly different responses to queries on taxes, and , honestly, virtually everything else.
The Democrats also disagreed with each other far less then the Republicans did.
No, actually jimservo is very much on the mark with Republicans. Ron Paul is a libertarian, there is neither question or doubt about that. This is not even arguing that all republicans must be the same, it is just that Ron Paul stands out enough from their platform and ideas that he really isn't covered by their ideology. Republicans tend to be aggressive on foreign policy(if you disagree with me then think about Joseph McCarthy); Ron Paul tends to be strongly isolationist. Republicans are concerned about moral values; Ron Paul wants greater freedom in that regard. The only one point he shares with the Republican party is decreasing the size of government and he is on the extreme fringe for a Republican on that matter. Ron Paul fits in perfectly with the libertarian platform and its ideas, he really does not do so with the Republican party. The masses have not really lost anything though, the Republicans have retained the same traits for some time now and really have never really been the same as the libertarian party.
Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 18 May 2007, 9:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I like Romney's economic advisor Greg Mankiw. The major problem I have with Romney himself is that I am unsure on his trustworthiness to some extent as he has changed his positions between Massachusetts and his current run. To be honest, I really am just looking for the person who I think will be best for the economy, which is why I cannot support Ron Paul.
No, actually jimservo is very much on the mark with Republicans. Ron Paul is a libertarian, there is neither question or doubt about that. This is not even arguing that all republicans must be the same, it is just that Ron Paul stands out enough from their platform and ideas that he really isn't covered by their ideology. Republicans tend to be aggressive on foreign policy(if you disagree with me then think about Joseph McCarthy); Ron Paul tends to be strongly isolationist. Republicans are concerned about moral values; Ron Paul wants greater freedom in that regard. The only one point he shares with the Republican party is decreasing the size of government and he is on the extreme fringe for a Republican on that matter. Ron Paul fits in perfectly with the libertarian platform and its ideas, he really does not do so with the Republican party. The masses have not really lost anything though, the Republicans have retained the same traits for some time now and really have never really been the same as the libertarian party.
President Bush is the biggest spender in the history of the republic - not just on military expenditures, but likewise on social programs . Bush claims that the war in Iraq is necessary to prevent further terrorism, nevertheless our borders remain wide-open. Furthermore, while there remain many unanswered questions about September 11th and the subsequent absense of WMDs in Iraq, Bush consistently objects to an independent investigation. We are simply supposed to believe that our intelligent agencies were inept, but now they have been fixed.
Perhaps Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against his own people, but the U.S. government did likewise when it gassed women and children at their church in Waco, Texas. In that abhorent instance, the military was illegally utilized in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. A different administration - yes, but President Bush has never held the previous administration responsible; and now Bush has publically called for the dismantling of the Posse Comitatus Act. While Bush has verbally taken a moral stand on homosexuality and abortion, he has stacked his cabinet with pro-abortionists and homosexual activists. Bush signed into law a bill which gives federal death benefits to same sex partners, and a D.C. appropriations bill that allows same sex benefits. Bush has never asked Congress to stop funding for Planned Parenthood, but he did send $15 billion of American taxpayer money to the United Nations for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa - so Planned Parenthood can push its sinister agenda there. Please understand that opposing Bush and the neo-conservative agenda does not make a liberal Democrat!
Perhaps Saddam Hussein did use chemical weapons against his own people, but the U.S. government did likewise when it gassed women and children at their church in Waco, Texas. In that abhorent instance, the military was illegally utilized in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. A different administration - yes, but President Bush has never held the previous administration responsible; and now Bush has publically called for the dismantling of the Posse Comitatus Act. While Bush has verbally taken a moral stand on homosexuality and abortion, he has stacked his cabinet with pro-abortionists and homosexual activists. Bush signed into law a bill which gives federal death benefits to same sex partners, and a D.C. appropriations bill that allows same sex benefits. Bush has never asked Congress to stop funding for Planned Parenthood, but he did send $15 billion of American taxpayer money to the United Nations for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa - so Planned Parenthood can push its sinister agenda there. Please understand that opposing Bush and the neo-conservative agenda does not make a liberal Democrat!
Ok, I will agree that Bush's record on spending is horrible. I would not call him the worst in terms of relative values I would not think perhaps absolute ones as we have more dollars now, but I would think that FDR would be more so given that he enacted the New Deal and all of its programs, and sent us to war, and that after all of that our deficit was higher than our GDP. I never said I agreed with Bush.
The gas used was tear gas, it isn't comparable to Saddam Hussein at all who tried to kill his people. Not only that but the Waco siege involved the ATF and the FBI but not actual military forces. I never said that Bush was a great moralist either. I never said that opposing Bush made you a liberal democrat at all. Frankly I do not consider myself a full republican, I am more libertarian than I am conservative, I just have to speak up when I consider things incorrect.
The increases in the cost of living are not a new phenomenon. It has been a steady trend for the past 35 years. If it is largely a matter of increased demand, or something else unrelated to monetary policy, then we have a profoundly flawed economy none the less.
Foreign investment and Wall Street rallies aren’t translating into any gains for the vast majority of Americans. The elites who have been working for years to shift policy are the ones reaping these gains in GDP. Foreign money being invested into multi-national corporations through the New York Stock Exchange isn’t making the real wages of American workers rise. Even direct investment into an American based company has a limited return when the products produced are sold domestically and the profits moved overseas.
I don’t have much faith in Bernanke no matter how smart he is. He has inherited this situation so we can only blame him so much. However, it seems that he is just continuing in the same direction of Greenspan. I guess that’s to be expected. If Bernanke was completely honest about what is going on and the dangers ahead Congress would probably abolish the Central Bank.
Product quality is increasing? Ever hear the saying “they just don’t make them like they use to.” That isn’t just old men bitching. There has been a real drop in the durability and overall quality of most goods. All this plastic junk from China isn’t made to last. Compare the crap they sell at Wal-Mart or Home Depot to what you could find at a Sears Roebuck a generation ago. The difference is almost night and day. Dollar and thrift stores are a negative trend. The items sold there are mostly garbage on their last stop before the dumpster. The fact that people sift through an ever changing inventory of excess merchandise to find what they need instead of going straight to a quality department outlet is a sign of economic weakness. I could go on about that all day. I’m a real stickler for quality and this whole emergence of junk consumerism is disgusting. I’m at loss when people argue that it is a trend toward higher quality. I could also elaborate on the decline in service quality and the advent of self-serve vending type mechanisms where there use to be a friendly smile waiting, but enough for now.
Yes people are still living their lives but for how long? I don’t know anyone who feels that their personal economic situation has been on the up and up. Everyone I know seems to be a bit more desperate. People see that the walls are closing in. I think this is primarily the reason for Ron Paul’s unexpected popularity.
_________________
There is no reason to suppress a viewpoint unless it is true, because a false viewpoint can easily be combated with facts and logic, while the truth cannot be combated except by lies which are vulnerable to refutation.
And a large part of that is due to changes in the labor markets. Really though, an even larger part of that is perception. We hear media stuff all of the time about these crazy changes that we would not bat an eye about in earlier times. We are simply duped by our psychology and by our propagandists. Ron Paul really isn't popular though, the entire thing IS a fluke, Ron Paul supporters just WANT to latch on to that even though it contradicts what most rational people would tell them.
In some ways Ron Paul is slightly usually for a libertarian in that he is anti-abortion, although this sometimes rubs up against his libertarian views. He does sometimes support government programs, and on seems to support policies that maybe a you wouldn't think a classical libertarian would support.
He doesn't seem to be in either of the two big libertarian camps. The libertarian party camp is tends to be more dominated by those who oppose any sort of interventionist foreign policy, and those who associate with the Republicans tend to be more hawkish. He doesn't fit neatly into either camp. He might actually have trouble winning the Libertarian nomination himself, although might be slightly have to do to him jumping the Libertarians to the Republicans to run for congress and turning himself into an "establishment figure." To be fair, for most of his congressional career, his has been respected in both parties for his principles, but it is worth keeping in mind that it is not simply his behavior in the debates that is annoying GOP voters but that fact he is running at all.
It is rare for Senators to be elected President, although with a rather low amount of talented Governors this time around this may be an exception, it is even rarer for Representatives to be elected President. The last one was James Garfield in 1881, although to be fair he was also elected to the Senate, as well as the House in the same year (of course, he was not seated to either). Abraham Lincoln was some ways a lower spot in that he been a Representative 11 years before he was President and only for two years. However, his performance in the "Lincoln-Douglas Debates" gave him a huge boost. This was, of course, a much different time. James Polk was Speaker of the House but now we are getting pretty far back.
Clearly, if Ron Paul actually had, a record of have a position of authority, like Duncan Hunter (chairman of the Armed Service Committee) then he would have a better chance, and even Hunter isn't very high in the polls at this point. But, honestly, Paul's credencies are really no more impressive then Dennis Kucinich or Mike whatever who is polling at nothing for the Democrats.
When it is noted that Ron Paul is not getting a fair chance, what about successful businessman John Cox? He's much more conservative then Ron Paul, why didn't then let him into the debate? What are they trying to hide? After all, he seems like a pretty not crazy person...oh, he has never been elected to any public office (he was defeated when he ran as "Recorder of Deeds"). The problem is if you let him on you have to let everybody on whose isn't a nut case and wants a chance.
All is well. Our purchasing power is not diminishing, it is actually increasing. Families that now have two parents working instead of one to pay the bills are a sign of progress. The factory worker who use to earn $20 an hour with benefits but now only makes $8.75 as a cashier is in reality, gaining. Households that are in debt and can afford less then the households of a generation ago are really better off. All of the reports and analysis indicating that wage earners have not seen a pay increase relative to the cost of living since the early 70’s are bunk.
Life is great and has never been better. People just like to think otherwise. People hate being happy. They perceive working longer hours for less pay when actually they work less hours for more pay. They imagine their economic difficulties when in reality none exist. I know this is true because I read it in a book called “Progress Paradox” by Gregg Easterbrook...
Well, technically speaking your position sounds like BS to me, we have had long years of growth and continued technological change and improvement. I really don't think we are running into major failures now, and I continue to think that, it isn't based off of one book that I say this either, it is based off of most of the things I have read. It is true that if you are in an increasingly less desirable field you will feel a squeeze, creative destruction will do that to ya, however, we are making net progress.
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_ ... ndex.jhtml
check out the interview with brink lindsey...he brings up some good points that neither side of the current argument have made.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Parenting Style |
17 Mar 2024, 7:54 pm |
Attack on teachers aide sparks debate |
30 Jan 2024, 7:46 am |
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
18 Apr 2024, 10:23 pm |
Good news
in Bipolar, Tourettes, Schizophrenia, and other Psychological Conditions |
09 Mar 2024, 6:34 pm |