Post GOP Debate coverage "Fox News Style". . .

Page 3 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

18 May 2007, 6:46 pm

the thing is that they're online polls and don't necessarily represent the republican base but rather whoever votes in it which could be all independents or democrats as well.


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.



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

18 May 2007, 7:14 pm

skafather84 wrote:
i'm a republican voter.


Okay, so am I, but again that in itself does contradict the fact that the when Republican voters are polled he shows 1% or less then 1% support. Look, I said before that right now I am leaning towards Mitt Romney, but from what I understand Mitt Romney is maybe at around 8% nationally. The fact that he is my current first choice doesn't change that. The fact the popular talk show host Hugh Hewitt, or the fact that he has been endorsed by prominent Republicans doesn't change that either.

The problem with Congressman Paul are several. 1. He is a virtual unknown until a few days ago. 2. He has limited practical experience (when asked about it in the debate he mentioned his time as a doctor; even fellow congressman Duncan Hunter could point out he was chairman of the Arms Services Committee, and his Vietnam combat record). 3. A significant portion of his views are not shared by the party, which for a presidential candidate, is very important. 4. He states things that, while he believes are accurate, cause (to use his own term) "blowback." When he suggests that it was US action that led to 9/11, he outrages and angers people. I am not talking about the accuracy of his charges, which I have previously discussed, I am talking about the use of such language in a political context. Many people, and most people in the Republican party feel that such associate such unrestrained feelings of anti-Americanism (although that's probably not what Mr. Paul intended).

Congressman Paul isn't really a Republican ideologically at all, although he certainly has the right to align himself any way his wishes. He actually ran as a libertarian, and he acts like a member of he votes like a member of one of the minor parties. He is an absolute isolationist on foreign policy and only reluctant voted for action against the Taliban after an aid essentially begged him to, rightfully telling him he would be defeated if he did not. His references to how the party "abandoned it's roots" are misleading in the party's roots are of little more then of a Northern anti-slavery party of former Whigs, Democrats, and anti-Masons. Due to this, great interparty debates emerged within the party on foreign policy. Republican President Grant wanted to annex Haiti but then congress demurred. It is under mostly Republican administration that the great Western expansion occurred. Democratic President Grover Cleveland was against the Republican's "imperialist" policies and axed plans to annex Hawaii. When he left office for a second time, new President William McKinley signed the annexation bill into law.

The Congressman bizarrely attempted to use Republicans of the past to defend his beliefs including Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and, more appropriately Robert Taft. Ronald Reagan did not conform to Congressman Paul's isolationist tendencies, and his among least defendable actions where leaving Lebanon after the American barracks where bombed (Islamists have openly acknowledged drawing the inspiring that America was weak from that response). Richard Nixon continued fighting a war against North Vietnam even while initiating a withdraw. Ron Paul would not advocate this. He also shipped arms to Israel to prevent it from collapsing to the Egyptian army, Ron Paul believes we should not support Israel. Ron Paul loves to cite Bob Taft however even Bob Taft didn't go as far as Ron Paul would go in his isolationism. Bob Taft was also not for scuttling the government like Paul is, in fact in many ways he was less conservative in government affairs then Ronald Reagan and his followers. Now these isolationists weren't alone. Despite modern historical documentaries to the contrary, in the mid-30s most Americans and most politicians (including the President of the United States FDR) had strong isolationist tendencies and very much wanted to avoid another war. As Hitler began his aggressions, useful idiots like Charles Lindbergh, and came to the conclusion that perhaps the Nazis weren't that bad and it was actually Britain that was really the warmonger.

After the war ended the Republicans had an inter-party debate about isolationism. The war itself had changed peoples minds, as well as the growing Communist threat. Arthur Vanderberg, for example, had once been a strong isolationist but was now a ardent hawk. In 1952 the issue would effectively be settled. General Dwight Eisenhower declared himself a Republican, and ran for the party's Presidential nomination. Some thought that Eisenhower was insufficiently conservative (something that some feel his record reflects, although in honestly he was rather conservative albeit reluctant to take on "The New Deal" on practical grounds), and, of course, he was not an isolationist like Bob Taft. Taft challenged him and lost. Eisenhower won the election in the first of his two landslides. Taft died in 1953. Isolationism (along with protectionism) would not reappear until 1992 when Pat Buchanan made his challenge to George H. W. Bush for the Republican nomination. Buchanan lost, and has disgraced himself by placing fourth with less then 1% as the Reform party nominee in 2000.



TheResistance
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 443

18 May 2007, 7:18 pm

skafather84 wrote:
the thing is that they're online polls and don't necessarily represent the republican base but rather whoever votes in it which could be all independents or democrats as well.


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.
whoever votes for him the more the merrier .I think it shows that we are all getting sick-of both political parties spewing out the same garbage . Ron Paul is refreshing to both parties because he doesn't give out that political doublespeak. And for jimsvo to say that Ron Paul isn't a real "republican"is insane not all republicans have to be one of the same.The masses lost the true meaning of what a republican stands for.



Last edited by TheResistance on 18 May 2007, 7:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

18 May 2007, 7:23 pm

I ran those numbers. 87.04% of the people who took the internet poll picked Ron Paul. Does anyone here seriously believe that 87% of people that watched the debate, not even Republicans, thought that Ron Pau won the debate? I mean, 87%?!



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

18 May 2007, 7:38 pm

TheResistance wrote:
I think it shows that we are all getting sick-of both political parties spewing out the same garbage


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.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2007, 8:57 pm

TheResistance wrote:
And for jimsvo to say that Ron Paul isn't a real "republican"is insane not all republicans have to be one of the same.The masses lost the true meaning of what a republican stands for.

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.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2007, 9:03 pm

jimservo wrote:
My current favorite Mitt Romney is far behind Rudy Guliani, and John McCain. If Romney supporters texted huge amounts of votes claiming he was the winner of the debate it wouldn't magically make him the actually winner. Does anyone actually think Paul will win the nomination? Do people think if he doesn't (and remember Paul is a virtually unknown congressman who previously ran for President and got less then 1% of the vote) he got it stolen from him?

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.



TheResistance
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 443

18 May 2007, 10:52 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
TheResistance wrote:
And for jimsvo to say that Ron Paul isn't a real "republican"is insane not all republicans have to be one of the same.The masses lost the true meaning of what a republican stands for.

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.
Ron Paul is more in sync on what the founding fathers would have wanted; He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution, , He has consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War. If that makes him a libertarian then I'm all for him I don't care what anybody labels him. please learn the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist". Ron Paul advocates the latter and they're two very different things. In any case, thanks to Neo-Con interventionist foreign policy, the USA is more isolated now than it has ever been. The Republican Party is interested in decreasing the size of government that’s news to me lol they sure don’t know how to show it. The Republicans have retained the same traits ,Oh really did you have look at old king george.During his inauguration, George W. Bush placed his left hand upon the Holy Bible and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet since his swearing-in, the Constitution has been violated in almost every conceivable manner. From FREE-SPEECH ZONES to WARRANTLESS SEARCHES to TORTURING DETAINEES, Bush has systematically dismantled the very document that he swore an oath before God to protect. Bush's Department of Homeland Security is the biggest federal power grab since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This trojan-horse poses a greater threat to our personal liberties than standing armys. Centralizing military and law enforcement power into the executive branch is the very definition of a Police State!

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!



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2007, 11:44 pm

TheResistance wrote:
Ron Paul is more in sync on what the founding fathers would have wanted; He has earned the nickname "Dr. No" for voting against any bill he believes violates the Constitution, , He has consistently voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War. If that makes him a libertarian then I'm all for him I don't care what anybody labels him. please learn the difference between "isolationist" and "non-interventionist". Ron Paul advocates the latter and they're two very different things. In any case, thanks to Neo-Con interventionist foreign policy, the USA is more isolated now than it has ever been. The Republican Party is interested in decreasing the size of government that’s news to me lol they sure don’t know how to show it. The Republicans have retained the same traits ,Oh really did you have look at old king george.During his inauguration, George W. Bush placed his left hand upon the Holy Bible and took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, yet since his swearing-in, the Constitution has been violated in almost every conceivable manner. From FREE-SPEECH ZONES to WARRANTLESS SEARCHES to TORTURING DETAINEES, Bush has systematically dismantled the very document that he swore an oath before God to protect. Bush's Department of Homeland Security is the biggest federal power grab since the days of Franklin D. Roosevelt. This trojan-horse poses a greater threat to our personal liberties than standing armys. Centralizing military and law enforcement power into the executive branch is the very definition of a Police State!
I would not say I necessarily disagree with that claim on Dr. Paul. The Founding Fathers back in their day were more suspicious of government, I would not rest my beliefs in government purely on their ideology though but rather on what the times seem to call for. I know about his nick-name as well. He is a libertarian, and you probably are as well. The major difference between the terms is that isolationism can often also refer to economic isolationism, I know that Dr. Paul is not an economic isolationist but a strong believer in free trade, however, I used the term because it is otherwise a true description and non-interventionism is not a term that I use often. If it makes you feel better, in terms of foreign policy I am more likely to agree with Dr. Paul on the proper role of America than with other Republicans as I do believe that war is waste and that defense is meant for defense. I never said that the Republicans WERE decreasing the size of government, I said that is part of their platform, I will agree with you that they are doing a horrible job. Just look at McCarthy and see why I don't see this as a major change. The Republicans do have their bad tendencies in terms of social liberties and would be the party to crack-down to destroy supposed enemies.
Quote:
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!

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.



Jacob_Landshire
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 213

19 May 2007, 10:35 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
There is borrowing, there are also true increases in production and the fact that the US gets money back from foreign investors. Housing markets are getting tighter, gas is typically very changeable in terms of its pricing and fluctuates. Medical care is on the rise partially due to premium medicine, an argument made by Arnold Kling. As well, school tuition IS a matter of demand.


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.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Our economy IS growing though, it has only recently hit a soft spot but it is still growing. Unemployment is still down somewhat, the stock market is still high, and businesses are still going forward. It is still invested in by foreigners, businesses are still buying, and people are still living their lives. Bernanke, who has the most to lose and would seriously have incentive to tell people the real state of the economy still says that everything is doing fine. If he had seriously hit a rough patch then he would know that the best thing to do to smooth it out would be to tell people for them to adjust their expectations downward and thus prevent a crash. Bernanke is an expert on markets and a great student on the Great Depression. It is one of his major interests. The fed is not in much danger here, even if they did create a crash they would not have anything to lose. It would be much more likely that this is part of a political business cycle where Bernanke might try to support favored politicians or something as argued by Angry Bear than the actual destruction of the economy.


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.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Nope, completely disagree with all of the statements there. Quality has not collapsed, it is still quite fine and higher than in past times and cheap goods are still available at places such as Big Lots, dollar menus and thrift stores. All of which are signs of relative prosperity that we can get relatively good goods so cheaply. This has nothing to do with the manipulation of currency, this has more to do with changes in labor markets and other issues of that matter. The market wouldn't perfectly correct the problem, it would deal with it, but markets do not create utopic situations, they simply act with what they have to make things better, a simply supply demand analysis can tell you that equilibrium positions change though. The economy is doing fine, we still live in one of the best economies in the world and I think most economists would agree on that point.


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.


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

19 May 2007, 3:10 pm

Jacob_Landshire wrote:
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.
Nope, the economy is not profoundly flawed either. We just tend to like to think it is. People hate being happy, there is even a book on it called the Progress Paradox by Gregg Easterbrook, which talks about how even though we have more and more we still are just as unsatisfied. In real terms though, what we end up having problems with is the fact that we have less free land now, we have more crazy demands such as 20 inch televisions, we have greater demands for college education, we have greater demands for medicinal care, we have computers, etc etc.

Quote:
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.
The reason that is ends up being the changes in the labor markets that have been happening across the world. We have technological innovation pushing people out of formerly high paying jobs in factories and other substitutions while the pay-off for higher training has increased dramatically over the past few decades.
Quote:
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.
Ok, so what? Greenspan isn't responsible for a tremendous amount of the problems we have anyway, it is not as if the US economy is strange compared to the world in general, in fact, it probably has weathered the changes better given the lower unemployment rates than many of the European block nations. Congress would not abolish the central bank, the left AND the right tend to recognize the importance of having control over the money supply. The central bank really isn't so much the issue, but rather it stabilizes the economy by making sure it weathers the booms and busts created by occasional over-confidence (I don't blame the business cycle on liquidity) and if we have more stability in our economy than ever. The business cycle is really sort of dead, we don't have dramatic ups and downs.

Quote:
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, it is increasing, think about cars, think about computers, think about televisions, etc etc. I have heard old men b***h about all sorts of stuff that really isn't that true, I really don't trust old men as being accurate so much as have their pasts romanticized. We have it better and the "they don't make them like they used to" is just romanticizing the past. There is a trend towards cheap replaceable goods as well, and that is because cheap goods are efficient in their own way. Dollar and thrift stores are a VERY positive trend. Whenever I want anything I want it from a thrift store, a wal-mart, or wherever I can get it cheaply. The items sold are better than junk and actually are of a relatively good quality. I love my 1 dollar headsets and I know of others who like their 1 dollar reading glasses. It is not a sign of economic weakness but rather abundance. I can argue this stuff until I am blue in the face, however, the material conditions are getting better and better, we just don't like thinking about that. Like I said, the Progress Paradox by Gregg Easterbrook goes over this issue a lot. We don't feel as if we are richer even though we obviously are.
Quote:
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.

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.



jimservo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,116
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs

19 May 2007, 9:19 pm

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.



Jacob_Landshire
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 213

20 May 2007, 6:18 am

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...


Image



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

20 May 2007, 10:21 am

Jacob_Landshire wrote:
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.
Like I said, a lot of that is due to labor markets, which have had problems in every country, and that is something that nothing can be really done about. I already acknowledged the fact that labor markets at the bottom were stagnating while those at the top were getting better. It isn't due to the federal reserve though, it is due to technology replacing certain laborers and other things. It is somewhat part of progress. Technically speaking though, I think that the increase in technology is really actually making these people better off if only so that people can butt heads over the internet.
Quote:
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...
Actually, yeah, people hate being happy. Leisure time at the bottom has increased since 1965 http://www.slate.com/id/2161309/, the middle class really isn't threatened like everyone likes to think, http://www.third-way.com/data/product/f ... report.pdf (just look in the section on neopopulism) etc.

Quote:
Image


Well, technically speaking your position sounds like bullshit 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.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,156
Location: New Orleans, LA

20 May 2007, 5:12 pm

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.