Slashdot Mirror
Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans
A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.
No discussion over Ron Paul? What is this Fox News?
I 3 Huckabee.
Wait...
By a slashdot post-off, with the entire party submitting to the first poster.
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
You had to leave Ron Paul out of the summary so all of his insane, techie fans could turn this thread into a giant flamewar, right? Right?
Incoming "Media Bias Against Ron Paul" anger in 5... 4...
Romney: just a gut feeling about him and I can't really place it - he's way too smooth. And to be honest, being a Mormon creeps me out a bit (gold tablets from God?!?) - as much as a devout Christian, or anything else would.
McCain: I don't agree with everything he stands for (he's anti-abortion), but I love his attitude of fiscal conservativeness and straight talking.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Huckabee makes me nervous; he sounds like a dominionist.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Oh my God, freedom of speech definitely applies to a PRIVATE website setting outlines for discussion! Holy crap, your rights are so abridged!
Fucking moron.
The discussion about Ron Paul on the internet is very interesting. It seems Ron Paul fans are not fans of Occam's Razor, as many seem to think there's some massive conspiracy keeping Ron Paul away from the public discussion, when there's a far simpler explanation - he's not going to win - he's not even going to get close to being chosen, so any discussion about this losing horse is wasted effort. Normal "what about Ron Paul??!?!??" service resumed in 3, 2, 1...
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
Corporatism != Free Market
one might die of old age in office one is a mormom (golden tablets - need I say more) one wants to edit the constitution to his religious beliefs I thought Ron Paul was running for president of the internet against Al Gore?
Ron Paul is still in the race, but has very few delegates. Barring unprecedented performance on Super Duper Tuesday he's got less of a shot than Romney, McCain, or Huckabee. That doesn't mean that he doesn't warrant discussion, though.
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I'm just going to ignore the "No Ron Paul" discussion. He is the best candidate to vote for.
McCain
Pros: experience in Washington
Bush's Donor list
"Maverick" Reputation broadens appeal to moderates, independents
Negatives: Famous temper
Conservative base loathes him
"Washington Insider"
Senators rarely do well as President
Will hit funding bind (accepted Public Funding)
Romney:
Pros: Executive Management experience
Can rely on personal funds
Not a "Washington Insider"
Governors often do well as President
Negatives:
Reputatation for switching positions
Some will take his religion against him
Slick image
Huckabee:
Pros: Willing to look at new solutions (i.e. "The Fair Tax")
Negatives:
The entire "religious right" issue
Lack of broad appeal outside the evangelical right
Is it "The Best Presidential Candidate" or "The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance"?
The Best Presidential Candidate ~ Ron Paul
The Presidential Candidate that has the Best Nomination Chance ~ John McCain *sigh*
The vocal minority was snubbed by reality. Deal with it.
main(0)
Freedom of speech applies to the government, not Slashdot. You are free to open your own discussion forum with its own rules.
That said, I don't see Slashdot censoring any of the asinine Ron Paul comments, so you are pretty much completely pissing into the wind.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The Ron Paul half and the non Ron Paul half.
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Of course, compared to those who pick a candidate on a negative basis (EG, "anybody but...") are going to see those who've found a candidate to vote for as wildly optimistic.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Speaking of Ron Paul, etc ...:
Q. A plane with Huckabee, McCain, and Romney crashes. Who's saved?
A. The United States.
(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Look. Ron Paul has some fantastic ideas...abolishing the drug war, his tech policy, etc...but come on. You cannot deny that the guy has a couple of screws loose. I'm all for getting government out of our lives as much as possible, but he is a complete loon.
I know, I know...the "he is going too far" label tends to be applied to revolutionary thinkers whose ideas just aren't ready to be accepted by the masses. I have nothing against "different thinkers"...I like that in a person. I would agree that he is just ahead of his time if many of his ideas weren't based entirely in a fantasy world.
Like I said, I'm all for getting the government out of our lives as much as possible, but what Ron Paul is suggesting is completely restructuring the entire nation, top to bottom. Who knows, maybe that is what we need...I just don't think that we need it in the way that Ron Paul is proposing that we do.
Living With a Nerd
you'll get further clarification tomorrow.
Switch the the new Opera browser! It's fantastic! It has a new de-Ronulizer feature that removes all those annoying Ron Paul posts! Why haven't you switched to Opera yet? Get it now!!!1!!! It's da best! It's liek the Ron Paul of the browser world!1!!!!1!
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Huckabee is a creation of the media. Look at his donation totals plus after IOWA they stopped plastering his face everywhere and the Sheeple stopped voting for him.
He also wants to abolish the Department of Education. I don't know about you, but I don't want the responsibility of my children's education going to the lowest bidder.
I thought Ron Paul was still in the race?
;-)
He is. Rudy Giuliani put him on the map.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Ignoring the missing option like we do in the Slashdot polls all the time..
Ron Paul I think is the best choice because it would be a return to someone who actually thinks that the Constitution is relevant to today as much as it was 200 years ago. He also wants smaller government, less intrusion into our privacy, bring the troops home and stop our "police the world" policies of interventionism. Yes, some of his supporters are a bit odd and can be zealot at times, but there are many others who are normal people who support someone who sticks up for their positions (just look at his voting record over 10-terms - he does not waver from supporting the constitution!).
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson
After my post above, I saw all the Ron Paul posts. WTF is my problem! - I'm not being sarcastic either!
That's our media for you - /. included! All I see on Yahoo, Google, and radio, (No TV anymore) are the above candidates for Republican. And when you consider that I pass a huge billboard for Paul all the time, I'm pathetic! I've been brainwashed by the media into thinking there's only 3 (Three) Rep candidates.
We as a country are in sorry shape if I'm the norm!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
On that matter, neither does a current president who believes, "the jury is still out on evolution."
It may have been a good idea to leave him in to prevent the discussion from completely revolving around him anyway. Then again, it probably would revolve around him no matter what. This being the internet and all...
When did he get his jaw wired shut? And will it be unwired before the election? Sure makes him sound funny.
He says he's still in the race - that does not make it so. Alan Keyes is under the same delusion.
Seriously, Ron Paul MIGHT have 6 delegates. Maybe. How does that make him "in the race"?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I expect that new faith-based engineering techniques are going to be what it will require to do the things Bush has proposed with respect to manned space flight. In the past we used to worry about interplanetary radiation, food supplies for a six year voyage, and reliable rocket engines. But the advances in faith-based engineering (mostly spinoffs of the faith-based Iraq war) have made it possible to seal up a couple of dudes in a steampunk diving bell and fire them at Mars from a cannon, confident of their eventual return.
The flag just makes more sense than the constitution. - Judas Gutenberg
You're complaining that one candidate is nuts, and another knows jack shit about politics, but you're saying Ron Paul is the only valid candidate?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
...please only discuss the viable republican candidates in this story.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
He's the only Republican left, running. And who gives a flying rat fart if he's Mormon. It's quite unAmerican to put him to a religious test.
He obviously left out Ron Paul to get a rise out of the large libertarian contingent of /.ers. And it worked! IOW, YHBT, HAND.
I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week, but let's face facts. He's not going to win, and votes for him are valuable only as an indicator of dissent. He has good views on war, small government, and the Constitution, but he's also a creationist wacko, plus either a lying racist or so atrociously lazy and irresponsible about reading papers before signing them that it's hard to trust him.
Unless a vast number of voters in Super Tuesday states have been systematically lying to pollsters, it's going to McCain vs Clinton. So, will Ann Coulter do what she promised, and campaign for Hillary?
See also: Who's Nuttier: Apple Fanatics or Ron Paul Enthusiasts?
Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.
RFC2119
I am not an American (I live north of the border) and I do not know much about the candidates in this race. However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics. I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
In this light, how is Huckabee received in geek circle ? I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational. Does he received any support from this crowd ?
:wq
I really have liked Ron Paul's ideas. He speaks to ideas and concepts that we all have hold in our hearts... Unfortunately Ron Paul is not going to be the candidate to beat Obama/Clinton. Those two loons are dangerous to our liberties. McCain is closer to meeting my ideals. He is a straight shooter and does what he says. I do not like people who want to hang themselves on the cross (Huckabee or Romney). This is not a theocracy.
Tisha Hayes
Not because we can't discuss him, but I've got other problems in my life.
Actually, by omitting him from the list, Taco ensured that nearly all of the discussion would be about Ron Paul.
Thanks, Cmdr Taco!
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Dupe... oh wait...
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
he never had a chance to begin with, the obvious choice then is Huckabee, because he will treat people like they should be treated. Christans, as a general rule, will treat most people like they are equals.
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
Professionally and intellectually, Mitt Romney is probably the most qualified presidential candidate the US has had in over a century. I'd have to hit the history books to figure out since when.
:-)
I say this because my group/company had done quite a bit of consulting work with Bain Capital many years ago. Having sat in a couple of meetings and presentations with him, and looking at what he has accomplished, I have a high degree of confidence in his ability and sincerity.
As for Mormonism: Well, it's not my cup of tea, but I've NEVER met a Mormon I didn't like
...but that might be because I'm not American and not in America.
I'm not sure that I'd vote anyway, both parties seem as bad as each other.
I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I can't really object to the department of education going away. Until very recently, no money actually flowed from the department of education to schools - and now that it does, you have nothing but complaints from teachers and parents. Even the supporting democrats of "No Child Left Behind" have run from it (Ted Kennedy).
Unless there is a specific need for such a department, what is the purpose of keeping it? At the very least it needs to be completely re-thought.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Huckabee is a nutjob (amend Constitution to meet "God's standards", wtf?), McCain is a sellout and vies with Romney for title of the Worst Flip Flopper On The Planet, and all three are warmongers when America is pretty damned tired of war.
And seriously, nothing is going to bring out the Ron Paul spambots like saying he's not invited to the discussion. And while Ron Paul is cookoo for coco puffs*, at least he isn't a fundie like Huckabee or a flip flopping asshole like McCain or Romney.
The Republicans only hope this year is that it will be Hillary v McCain. Her whole campaign is based on experience, which McCain blows out of the water. And she can't really attack him for flip flopping, when she's gone back and forth for drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and for criticizing the Administration's foreign policy after voting for Kyl-Lieberman.
*Yes, Ron Paul is nuts. For example, how exactly is he going to move a $7 trillion economy back to the gold standard when there's less than $3 trillion in gold on the planet? Or how you'll be able to sue companies for the damage their pollution causes. Said companies will just use the cigarrette defense: how do you know is was my toxic waste dumped into the river that gave your wife cancer, and not the other three companies dumping into the same waterway?
I put a filter on my connection so that any time the words "Ron Paul" comes through, it is changed to "fringe lunatic reactionary". So far, I haven't missed anything.
>However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason.
He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
I vote for none of the above
Ron Paul may be crazy, but at least you are not. Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution". Now good luck convincing everyone else that an abstract organizational principle like "federalism" (at least the form Paul advocates for) is important enough to vote for, even at the expense of trashing our economy.
That's like saying: "Let's talk about the teams competing for the upcoming Superbowl. But only about the Patriots, the Redskins and the Cowboys."
Did I say "No Child Left Behind" was working well? "No Child Left Behind" is an incredibly poor policy that ruins children's ability to problem solve.
The real question is not who is the best choice. It is who is attempting to control this election like the last two.
6 Months ago when it was a wide open field, McCain was just another great republican according to Hannity etc. Now suddenly he is a worse choice to Hillary? Liberal Mitt is suddenly the answer. Sounds to me like the Puppeteer is pissed he might get someone he can't control. Just who is this? Saudia Arabia maybe? Who's agenda are these "conservatives", and I use the term loosely, really pushing. I don't know about you, but I am heartly sick of amateur hour in Washington. The only thing professional done is Washington these days is how quickly our money is disappearing. McCain had the right idea 8 years ago, and it is even more right today.
But Ron Paul hates black people! At least, that's what you've always said.
It looks highly unlikely that anyone other than McCain or (less likely) Romney can win the nomination. If Huckabee were to withdraw, Romney would have a better chance. But it will probably be McCain.
Conservative Republicans have a dilemma. The candidates most aligned with the conservative base are unlikely to win a national election against either of the Democratic contenders. Would they prefer McCain to beat Clinton/Obama in a national election, or Romney to lose to the Democrats? So do conservatives want to make a point on principle and vote for someone who has no shot at winning? Or do they want to choose what would be the lesser of two evils in the long run? Despite McCain's highly questionable conservative credentials, he is a far better option for conservatives than either of the Democrats.
Despite his obvious popularity among heavy users of the internet, Ron Paul has no shot at the White House. National polls have his support in the low single digits. It's not going to happen.
I don't want the responsibility of my children's education going to the lowest bidder.
I think it already does. Maybe you should take a look at your local district's budget. Srsly. They're frighteningly inefficient.
About 100 posts in, and only opinions and "go this-or-that-guy!".
As a european I don't have a vote in this, but us europeans will have to deal with whomever you USians vote into office. That didn't turn out particularly well the last few times, so it'd be nice to know what we can expect this time.
Give some arguments please!
What policies does X support and why does Y think that's the wrong way to go?
It doesn't matter whether you like somebody's smile, what their F-ing religion is or how rich they are. What matters is what they plan on doing if they become president.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Best description of Ron Paul I've heard: Some things he says make a lot of sense, some things he says scare the hell out of me. He is way too radical to become president. He is also very weak on Iraq and national defense, which is scary because national defense is about the only thing our Government should do. Everything else should be private sector.
Fred Thompson was by far the best candidate in terms of his views on the issues. He still is the only candidate to share his opinions on everything, and he was the only candidate on either side that didn't switch his views just to win votes. He has believed the same things for years.
Huckabee raises taxes too much. Being a conservative means that you believe you spend money better than the government, and he doesn't believe this. No thanks.
Romney I like, but would never win a national election due to his faith. I'm an atheist, but I know a Mormon isn't going to win a national election any time soon. This is unfortunate because after Thompson I think he is the best candidate.
McCain is a senator, and I hate voting for legislators in a presidential election. This role does not allow you to demonstrate your leadership powers. Also legislators must become more moderate to appease the other side... I want a president who is going to have a clear stance on every issue.
Bottom line: I would rather have a president I disagree with on some issues but I know in my heart is strong and stubborn than someone who will change their views based on popular opinion. What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.
Honestly as long as anyone but Hillary wins I can still live on.
I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational.
Are religious people stupid and irrational?He's the new Howard Dean!
Badass Resumes
Yeah, sad to say Ron Paul is 2008's closest Howard Dean equivalent. Mad internet buzz and fundraising, seen as a nut by the mainstream, and little to no actual voting traction.
The man's got some interesting ideas, and he's not afraid to take unpopular positions. You could have fairly said the same thing about Dean in '04. Just as Dean was out of the realistic running a long time before the primaries were over, so Paul is now. Maybe we're all poorer for that, but, that's the reality of it.
I have to completely agree. Ron Paul has a real message about real change. No other candidate wants to make fundamental reform to the system.
Ron Paul '08
No, but it's not very hard to understand why religion is such a big issue with people.
Strong religious values are viewed as something people "just don't violate". Steadfast positions are valued in American politics because voters want to elect someone that they think has a reasonable chance at actually delivering on their elected platform, and if you change your mind right after you get into office, that's all down the tubes. So, people look at things like religious values as the values or morals in a person that aren't likely to change when they get into office.
Besides, the US is still a pretty religious country through and through. Lots of the religious conservative positions are things that resonate with people.
I'm not saying I agree with any of this (I think choosing a candidate for religious reasons is insane), but it's not that hard to imagine why someone would do it.
Disclaimer: I am a Democrat.
Please explain to me what he really wants.
And those of us who do not live in the United States, nor are United States citizens, are absolutely sick and tired of that spamming piece of trash Ron Paul. He should be in prison for spam.
In general, faith is not an issue these days. America typically makes it an issue when someone is evangelical. In other words, it appears that they would base their decisions on the principles of their religion rather than on the technical merits (pros and cons) of the decision.
The other times when it is an issue is in "fringe" religion. By fringe, I mean it's a religion when it's more obvious to people that the religion is made up. As opposed to religions that are so old and established that's it's easier to forget their shaky origins.
Plus, and I know that I'm going to draw the ire of all the Rondroids here, but it's not like Paul doesn't have some other problems as a candidate...
I think I first heard that joke about Nixon, Carter, and Ford.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Isn't there an emacs command to do that as well?
I wouldn't vote for any of them, but of the three I'd prefer whichever is willing to thoroughly and publicly exclude any neoconservative hawk from any position of power whatsoever.
You implied that you feel that the Department of Education is providing a good educational system. The DOE supported and rallied for "No Child Left Behind".
So you're now saying that you think that DOE policy is poor and it ruins children's ability to problem solve. But you want to _KEEP_ the very institution that put that very policy in place? I somehow don't think Ron Paul is the crazy one here.
RFC2119
Fuck that, Ron Paul is still a candidate in this race, and deserves to be discussed right along with the other candidates. If Slashdot is going to start with the kind of bias and selectivity we get from Faux News, then fuck Slashdot.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
I like to think people in tech are, on average, smart and rational.
Are religious people stupid and irrational? Yar...us religious folks be f'in loons... Is it so hard to believe that a Christian can vote with their head and not their Bible? O_oThe irony about the parent-parent poster complaining about Ron Paul's advertising is that a lot of people still don't have a clue who on earth he is. I know my family for the most part still doesn't. At this point, if his supporters aren't advertising him, who will? It's the chicken or the egg argument and the clock it still ticking.
I like to think what I am saying makes sense.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
I don't think the faith of a candidate (or lack thereof) had ever been an issue in Canadian politic since I started voting 15 years ago. And I doubt it is different anywhere else in the West except the US.
But your observations of the "last 15 years" do not paint a whole picture of the election history in Canada. Canadians are mainly driven by political convictions than faith based ones. That is not necessarily a good thing of course, because that school of thought has prompted us to elect cowards and communists like Pierre Trudeau, or schizophrenics like Jean Cretien and useless money mongers like Paul Martin. In America people believe that if a person is driven by a good moral foundation, that they will be strong, fair and withstand the political corruption. In Canada we don't care about personal values, because maybe there isn't any (I mean look at how Canadians still idolize Pierre Trudeau - a dirty playboy who spawned a whole generation of Cuban lovers and american haters). You are wrong in assuming that America stands out from the rest of the west in that prespective. Most countries have religious based parties that win elections (look at Germany). It maybe time Canada tried to elect a leader that has some values and a party that is less RED.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
I agree, however, if education were left to the free market, we would end up having to decide between schools that are so expensive only those rich enough could afford them or the Walmart version of education. I'm a fan of Capitalism, but there are some things that just shouldn't be privatised.
I'm pretty sure McCain would dominate the zombie vote.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
And all I see is Ron Paul ,Ron Paul. Did the plane with Cain, Huckabee and Romney really crash?!?
their whole career is about comprimises and zero leadership, so that leaves romney and huckabee (both governors).
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
None of them would vote for Ron Paul. Why? Because they all knew that the Constitution isn't sacred.
http://www.mhall119.com
As a resident of Arkansas, I can tell you the following.
1. Huckabee does not hold prayer meetings on the lawn. He administers. He is perfectly able to distinguish between his beliefs and the need for
administration. The schools are in much better shape now than they have been in the history of Arkansas. The roads are in better shape than ever.
2. When he came to office, there was a 200 million deficit. When he left office, in spite of doing all the above, there was an 800 million surplus.
This was true even though he cut taxes every single year he was in office. He balanced the budget every single year, as a good administrator should.
This has nothing to do with being a preacher. it is simply the mark of a good administrator.
3. His proposals for the rebuilding of American infrastructure, taxation, immigration, health care, etc, on the national level simply make sense.
Using nothing but his history as a benchmark, I can tell you that unlike 99% of other politicians, he does not talk out of both sides of his mouth.
He says what he believes and then stands behind it. It is my belief (obviously) that he is the best choice for American President.
Huckabee vs. Obama would be a fight worth watching.
He also wants to abolish the Department of Education.
Pop quiz: how many students does the Federal Department of Education teach? Did you guess ZERO?
The quality of schooling in this country was far better before we had any federal involvement in the matter. Why do you suppose that is?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Let us not forget that McCain isnt exactly scandal-free.
He was one of the infamous Keating Five who played no small part in bring about the savings & loan crisis.
That small debacle has ended up costing this nation $30 BILLION. It was very similar in nature to the current mortgage crisis.
Here this nation sits on the verge of yet another financial crisis of larger proportions and people are supporting putting one of the biggest screw-ups from the last time in the Oval Office
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Try running a Jew in an Saudi election.
The limiting of the consideration of candidates to those who are likely to win is wrong, and does not produce the government of desired characteristics. We are asked to vote for the one who best represents our position. That idea - that we put forward the candidates that represents us the best is the fundamental construct of the representative democracy.
If we vote for who we think will win, then it is nothing more than a popularity contest, with the media controlling who is popular. If effect you become a proxy of the media. In order to keep the idea of a representative democracy working, we need to vote for who best represents our interests.
I remember a time when the internet was claimed to be a democratizing power. It was supposed to restore the power to the people. Now we are complaining that Ron Paul supporters are too vocal. I find it ironic that the tech savvy of us are now rejecting this democratizing power.
I am a Ron Paul supporter, and I realize his ideas might seem crazy, but they are based on sound numbers. All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt. There is no reason why with a reduced federal government and responsible spending that we can't eliminate the personal income tax.
When Ron Paul talks about canceling or reducing these federal entities, it is important to note that these are longer term goals, and won't be accomplished in a day. When these federal entities go away, this leaves more money to you and your local jurisdiction (states) where your money can be put to better use rather than being spent on a federal bureaucracy with minimal effectiveness. Here's an example. My sister is a public school teacher. She gets to deal with "No Child Left Behind". She hates it because it amounts to no child is failed. The act does not provide for any better education, but it forces teachers to doctor the numbers to look like success is happening. This clearly is not right. But what do you expect from a government that aims to educate ONLY 10% of the kids in D.C.? (10% is the number they calculated to have an operational city (D.C.) in 20 years.) Any local jurisdiction would find that figure appalling.
The biggest problem with Ron Paul isn't his ideas. He doesn't go into enough detail for the masses to understand them.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
Which candidate will never, ever be elected? Ron Paul. Discussion of this lost candidate is pointless.
Hey, while you're at it, can I get the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow, and maybe some good picks for the horse races?
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
While listening to 'Dust in the wind' from Kansas.
Of Code And Men
"Yeah, because "No Child Left Behind" is working _so_ well. Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test."
How many children have you spoke to lately to make this observation?
The problem with our education system anyway is that the government controls it. Education should be in the private sector with government funding from a voucher standpoint.
You act like that's the fault of "No Child Left Behind".
I grew up well before No Child Left Behind, and I knew far more people who could spew the win-loss records of every team in the NFL than could spew the Period Table.
I knew more people who cared about what those win-loss records meant for the season, and understood the strength of the team's schedule than knew about valence shells and what that meant for covalent bonding.
And the worst part? Sports team knowledge gets outdated every year, while scientific knowledge only gets outdated only every 5-50 years, and will make you a whole lot more money.
Inconceivable!
Faith is not an issue? Whether some Republicans want to admit it or not, faith has been the biggest part of the Republican platform for years. Yes, you can argue that the evangelical fringe took over the party, but the party let it happen. Look at their stances on anything that remotely touches faith: stem cell research, gay marriage, faith-based initiatives, school vouchers, and war. Their platform on all of those issues are determined by the far right.
That's reason enough for me to vote against Republicans every time these days. If only we weren't stuck in a two party system...
I would be greatly in support of John McCain over any of the other Republican candidates, except for one thing. He's 71 years old. After two terms he'd be 79. It gives me pause. Even then, he's the Republican that has me excited.
I was recently discussing this at a political roundtable, and a WW-II vet rather pointedly told me that McCain was "too old," and I think this perception is common among moderates, and affects his viability. It certainly hurt Bob Dole in 1996. We're in for another round of "Depends" jokes if he is the nominee.
Despite that, against Hillary Clinton, McCain has my vote for President. Against Barack Obama, I'd have to seriously listen to the debates, but I still favor McCain at this point.
I think the best way to solve the mess in Iraq, and our country in general, is to elect a moderate Republican to repair the damage that radical, neo-conservative demagogues have done to both the office of the Presidency and the party in general. We need a President who will take the occupation/state building mission seriously, and not base his or her policy on impatience with the war effort in the general populace.
I think we were utterly mistaken in going into Iraq in the first place, but I ascribe to the "you break it, you own it" philosophy. I don't think any sort of withdrawal is possible, certainly not without passing the buck to the U.N. and Arab states to maintain regional stability.
On a final note, Ron Paul.
I'm glad his supporters think a President can save the country, and I'll admit that he is the only man up there who truly supports small government and true U.S. Constitutional values, but though zeal is commendable, it is naive to believe he can do anything to fix the problems in Washington. The President is quite hamstrung in most matters without Congressional support, and if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done.
He has a compelling message, but no ability to affect many of the changes he discusses, much as the Democratic candidates cannot make good on their promises of universal health care without 60 votes in the Senate. It's all a bit daft for Presidential candidates to talk about anything other than executive policy and statesmanship. A Cult of Personality, without full political backing, cannot get things done in Washington.
He has a great message, but no sense of how those values apply practically to the Presidency. Indeed, sometimes it seems he has no common sense at all.
--
Toro
This candidate looks presidential - somewhat like John Adams.
This candidate has Senate experience.
This candidate hews to many of the accepted neoconservative principles.
This candidate early on supported the Iraq war.
This candidate's nomination would galvanize the conservative voters.
Republicans, I present to you:
Hillary Clinton (R)
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
A true Khanservative. A real Republikhan.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Congrats for NOT repeating the blatantly wrong "Ron Paul is the only candidate who defends the Constitution".
Gee, I seem to have missed which other candidates raised any objection to going to war without a declaration of war, which is a power that the constitution assigns to the congress. The congress is not permitted by the constitution to transfer that power to the executive, or to the courts, or to anyone else.
So, when did Huckabee or Obama speak up about that rather important constitutional matter?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
the choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich (oh, and another turd sandwich) given the choices, I guess McCain. *sigh* I really wish Ron Paul were on the list.
That might be the point. He sort of vaguely appeals to people who are probably not going to vote for him anyway.
Firm Support looks nothing like that, and there do not appear to be enough Paulistas out there to actually get him in to first place anywhere. Except for mentions in this forum. Like *that* is what he is aiming for.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
I don't see the relevance of posting stories about US politics on a science/tech. site with global readership.
Actually... Jefferson felt that the Constitution was sacred - thats why he hated himself for making the Louisiana Purchase.
Ok, I will discuss only the three prescribed candidates as mentioned in the header. I wouldn't want to break any Slashdot rules after all!
So, Romney... Negatives... Wants the federal government to continue to meddle with local education (No Child Left Behind; Department of Education), meddle with my right to own guns (Brady Bill; Assault Weapon Ban), amend the constitution over gay marriage, and mandate content filters on home computers. On the plus side, really nice hair.
McCain... Supports the Iraq war, wants to limit my right to support political causes (McCain Feingold), and wants to continue to grow the size of the government (Jan 8, 2008 report by National Taxpayers Union: $6.9B). On the plus side he must be in good physical shape because in the debate he said that he would "chase Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell."
Huckabee, the third and last of the ONLY THREE REPUBLICANS RUNNING. Wants the government to teach creationism in public schools. Grew the Arkansas government by 65% in just 8 years, and promises to continue jailing people who use (medical or other) marijuana. On the plus side: I giggle like a schoolgirl every time I say "Huckabee."
If only there was some other republican running - a FOURTH candidate, perhaps? Someone who opposes this insane Iraq war. Someone who has a decades-long record of NEVER voting to violate the constitution. Someone who would eliminate entangling alliances with foreign nations. A candidate that supports individual liberty above all else. A statesman and a gentleman.
Of course not, and I never said such a thing.
But I do think that choosing a candidate based on his religious belief *is* stupid and irrational.
:wq
Ron Paul seems to be the Howard Dean of 2008. Just without the 'yeeeeaaaaaahhhhhh'. That is fanatical supporter base, very technically literate, operating at grass-roots level for want of mainstream coverage. This is neither an endorsement or recrimination, as i'm not an American, so don't really want to care/take too much interest until the final candidates are known. Even then it'll be akin to following a local sporting team (tm), an entertaining spectator sport :)
> What happened to freedom of speech, expression,
Last that I heard, Slashdot was not a part of or owned by the US Federal government, but was a private corporation. Therefore, Federal guarantees of rights do not apply.
> and the PEOPLE choosing their president?
You obviously did not paid attention in High School Civics class. "The PEOPLE" have never chosen the President.
Everyone says Washington is broken. He is the only one that seems to get upset about it.
When someone spends billions on pork projects, tortures prisoners, or mishandles a war there deserves to be some screaming.
I have a problem with a candidate that doesn't get emotional and has gotten used to "that just being the way things are".
With everyone else, I don't know if they are saying things are bad just because the polling numbers told them to say it.
I am going to quibble a bit.
You said senators don't usually do well as presidents, while governors do. That is incorrect. Senators don't usually do well as presidential candidates, whereas governors do, but as presidents, there is no evidence they are any worse. That said, the only presidents whose senate experience was important during their presidency during the last 75 years (basically the current era of politics began with FDR) have been Truman, Kennedy and Johnson.* Were they our best presidents? Maybe not, but they certainly weren't our worst. A governor has been the worst...I will leave him unnamed.
Now that said, there are extremely few senators who have been senators while running for president and have one. We all can remember recent losers like Kerry and Dole, and many others who have lost during primaries. Indeed, the only person who has gone directly from the Senate to the presidency during the time period mentioned above was Kennedy. The two others only got in by suriviving the death of their leader. During that same period, off hand I can think of Roosevelt, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II as governors who went directly to the presidency. It is extremely unusual for us to be in a situation where it is almost guaranteed that we will have two major candidates who are both senators (barring Romney or Huckabee).
*Nixon was also a senator, but only for a couple of years and 16 years prior to being president. However, even he was better than you know who.
So I take it that you support the use of military force to solve the world's problems?
Good luck with that... you sir, are the one who is a joke.
The most amazing point was that the nation was designed to be non religious with most founding forefathers being vehemently against religion... Amazing how things can fall apart over 200 years.
The rest of the Republican candidates sure have a lot more screws loose than Ron Paul.
Not that Ron Paul isn't a nut job, but anybody who can go on national television and seriously deny they believe in Evolution is a total whack job religious nut case.
Oh but it's OK for Republican candidates to say they believe in silly ridiculous fantasies like Creationism, because the sheepeople who elect them believe in that bullshit, so the politicians are only pandering to their base -- they don't actually believe what they say.
No, Republicans wouldn't want to elect anybody who was remotely in touch with reality or who knew anything about science. Republicans live in a religious fantasy world, and their belief systems are such delicate houses of cards, that they can't tolerate evolution being taught in schools, otherwise their children will figure out their parents and churches have been feeding them bullshit, and they'll loose their faith. And wouldn't that be too bad.
Every Republican running for president is a TOTAL NUT CASE! So why is that a liability for Ron Paul?
-Don
Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
Huckabee: Apparent Conservative. Christian. Willing to try new things, like redoing the tax system.
McCain: Gun-grabbing wimp, whose thinking doesn't line up with most Republicans.
Romney: Former governor of a gun-grabbing Liberal state. Mormon. Flip/Flopper. It is absolutely essential that my candidate by unquestionably Christian and Conservative. Huckabee is my current choice (though Thompson would have been better in some regards).
I could almost guarantee you that IF people in Muslim countries were allowed to vote, religion would have a major influence in their decisions, much MUCH more than here. Look, I even found a similarity between USians and Middle easternerrs.
I'm not checking my facts, but someone list some Muslim countries that ARE democratic. Hopefully, Iraq will remain one.
Ok, actually, I did go check my facts and found that Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Egypt and Afghanistan.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9481/muslim_democracy.html
Apparently there are more, chad, yemen UAE... etc.
Anyway, my point is I'd bet a paycheck that religion has a major part in their voting practices.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
Oooh, I wanna play!
Big Boss: Your performance is shitty - what gives?
Mid manager: Waah! My car is broken and I don't have the money to fix it so I can't get to work on time!
Big Boss: OK, I'll make you a deal - I'll start paying you more now, but in 3 months your car had better be fixed. I'll take proof in the form of a passed DMV inspection.
Mid manager: AWESOME [takes money and runs off]
3 months pass
Big Boss: You're late - what's up.
Mid manager: My car's still broke! I spent all that money but it still doesn't work right!
Big Boss: Well, you passed the inspection...
Mid manager: Well, yeah, but I only did what I needed to do to pass the letter of the inspection - patched the holes, covered over the busted window, that kinda thing. I had to take the engine out, though. Oh, and I paid the tech's extra, but they did exactly what I told them to do, so I think it's their fault.
Big Boss: Sooo...what do we do now?
Mid manager: Give me more money, and make it so I don't need to pass any inspections. Without the pressure of inspections, I GUARANTEE we'll get this running right.
Big Boss: Ummm...I don't think so.
Mid manager: Waaah! Unfair! [scampers off to complain to the union]
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Because the other nut jobs are your standard nut jobs. They have ideas (i.e. evolution is false) that fall right in line with what you would expect by religious wackos.
Ron Paul is just plain crazy. It's one thing if you have a book and religion that has made you crazy...it's another thing entirely to be nuts on your own. That said, I don't actually feel that Ron Paul is as crazy as the other candidates...but listening/watching him speak just sets off warning signals in my head...I have nothing to base this on, nor do I have any examples to give you. He just makes me uneasy.
Living With a Nerd
Do you remember, in the last federal election, how Harper opened up the conservative campaign by saying that he'd hold a conscience vote on gay marriage?
At the time, it seemed like a stupid thing to do--the law's pretty settled, no one seems to want to re-open the issue again. After a while, it seemed smart. The Conservatives have a small, hardcore religious constituency that *still* wants to turn back the clock. By starting the campaign with a sop to them, he shut them up, and never had to mention it again. By the time the election had rolled around, the only people who remembered his promise was that constituency.
Now imagine that that small, religious constituency was ten times as big, and had recognizable leaders who proclaimed that any leader they'd support had to pass their sniff test. Imagine how the conservative party would have to be constantly kowtowing to them. Imagine the Reform and the Alliance parties duking it out for their support, each trying to bend over further than the other to promise bible-based policies and demonstrating religiosity.
That's why religion is such a big deal in American politics. The evangelical community is large and well organized, and no Republican wins without their support. They don't have to vote against you--if they don't like you, they can just stay home on election day. Part of Rove's genius in 2004 was to give them a red meat issue--gay marriage--to turn them out in record numbers.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
The Statue of Liberty is America's lawn jockey.
Interestingly, while the originating province of a candidate is indeed very significant in Canadian federal politic, I never heard any critics based on their religion. I think the fact that Kim Campbell would have discussed this in the US but never in Canada (that I can recall) is pretty significant. And remember she was never elected either.
Is Paul Martin Roman Catholic ? I don't even know.
:wq
Watching the Republican primary play out, I am thoroughly amazed the Republican party can remain intact. Since McCain has emerged as the front-runner, it seems like half the party is threatening to stay home. It was even worse when Huckabee won Iowa and was picking up steam. I don't understand how the party can survive with so many factions that hate each other.
The fiscal conservatives despise Huckabee, the social conservatives despise McCain, the previously unheard of libertarian wing has found Ron Paul, and is despised by everyone, and likewise hates everyone else, for the most part. Romney gets dinged by everyone for blowing in the wind like John Kerry 2004.
Each group in the GOP feels slighted by the other. Fiscal Conservatives have had to watch government and spending grow out of control the last 8 years. Pro-lifers only have one candidate left in the primaries and he is fading fast. While McCain has always been pro-life, he has not been pro-life enough for them. His willingness to compromise on judges is heresy to them. Romeny has only been pro-life as long as he has been running for president. The 'minutemen' wing of the party has gotten no real action on their pet issue over the last 8 years, and have no one to look forward to in 08.
Regardless of who the nominee is, they will not come out the primaries clean, and will not have a good chance come November. The GOP is due for a cleansing and rebirth to become a more coherent party.
No, both think they can make decisions about who's allowed to make decisions about my health better than the CEO of Aetna.
And spending the people's money isn't a Democratic characteristic any more. How much did Iraq cost?
This worked really well with George W. Bush.
:wq
With Paul so highly unlikely, Huckabee is the only "change" candidate on the right. McCain is status quo, and neither he nor Romney can be trusted with a Dem congress. Obama is the only change candidate on the left. Maybe.
Think about it in those terms when you vote. Of course, whether or not you think Huck's M.O. of "change" is good or not...
As an aside, Huckabee is positioning himself now as the "compromise candidate" in a Republican convention, or as VP for McCain (McCain NEEDS him to keep the South on the right, or someone similar, particularly if Obama gets the nomination).
19% in Maine. Vs 21% for McCain. That looks like double digits to me.
Love your 'Ronulans' label, by the way. Can't remember what their particular facial deformity was, though.
It's about our desire to not have a president we deem insane. We don't like to think that our president might tell us that he is following a policy that is the bidding of God. "I need to invade a country. God told me to do it." Tell me that doesn't scare the living daylights out of you? Don't think it can't happen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html
Well, religion is important in American politics because bullshit is one of the main things people are looking at. We can't be distracted with the real issues when there's petty bullshit to focus on.
The Republicans should return to their roots: fiscal conservatism and personal liberties.
What does that mean? It means:
McCain, Romney, and Huckabee aren't Republicans, they are people that are using religion and resumes to hijack the Republican party for their own ends. Ron Paul is closest to what Republicans ought to be, unfortunately, he doesn't temper his view of government with what is realistically achievable.
What the country needs is a moderate version of Ron Paul.
No, but you can learn that -137 is a losing number for lotto, and that the donkey hanging out behind the stables eating grass isn't going to win the race.
Son of a famous politician, turned business executive, turned one-term republican governor, turned presidential candidate.
Of course I'm talking about George W. Bush. And Mitt Romney.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
I lost all respect for McCain when he surrendered to bush's will. That hug
McCain huggin bush
was like a little boy hugging his daddy. It was total surrender to a man who lied to him on the anti torture legislation, the war, the environment, and just about everything in between. He has surrender to a man who wants to destroy all McCain fought for.
The other candidates? Romney creeps me out big time. I'm not sure America can handle another authoritarian MBA as president. Huckabee wants to change our constitution to reflect his personal beliefs. Ron Paul is proposing changes most America would not accept. He takes them too far out of their comfort zone. His own party would not support his efforts. I do like the enthusiasm he has engendered among his supporters. We need more people involved in our democratic system.
photosMy Photostream
Well said! Being a Canadian myself (now living in the US) One individual you forgot to mention was Brian Mulroney, one person almost every Canadian hated, having the lowest approval rating of 11%. I believe theirs a lot to be said about religious beliefs. Most Americans (not all) tend to vote for individuals that have core values and beliefs that line up with their own. Considering that values are derived by some form of moral religious up bringing, it's not a surprise at how religion plays such and important part in politics.
Is there any republican candidate that will appoint a justice that uphulds church/state seperation?
There's only one vote difference at the moment, if Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts get another ally when Stevens (88) passes away the attack on government neutrality in matters of religion will really take of and affect everyone.
Given that this also affects every single minority religion, support for a secular state used to be stronger across party lines. Now it seems the support for the secular state has become a party divider which it shouldn't be.
Correction: Most of the founding fathers were strict adherents to a religion. They just didn't want there to be a state-sanctioned religion and crafted the Constitution accordingly. People who say that the founding fathers were "vehemently against religion" need to tone down the rhetoric and tone up the fact checking.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
The idea is not necessarily to win, but to sew the seeds for future candidates. From that perspective, the longer he runs, the more exposure those ideas get.
I guess the alternative is to let the government spend money it doesn't have. Why not lower taxes and spending, which neither party seems to be seriously, save for Ron Paul.
Correction. The estimation of all the gold ever mined in the world would be worth closer to $4 trillion on today's market value. ((2001 estimate of "all the gold ever mined" + modest production for 6 years) x current market value)
That's a sign of the problem, not the solution.
Usually home schooled students fall into two categories: Those who are receiving professional-grade tutors and those who are being taught by amateur hacks who think they know how to teach. In either case, you're likely to see higher test scores. I have no doubt that personal tutors make for great teachers, but unless you've got a load of them, no tutor is going to be an excellent teacher for Physics, US History and English. This is even less likely when the "tutor" is some parent who thinks they know enough to teach.
Ignoring cases of high priced tutors (unless you want to support individual tutors for the poor), most parents or other amateur teachers "teach to the test", ie: They teach students what they need to score high on standardized tests.
This would be spectacular if the world was a standardized test, but it's not. I don't spend my day filling in bubbles asking me what the definition of "I/O bound" is. I have to actually think and analyze problems. Reciting book knowledge doesn't help at all with that.
Please burn this into your mind: High standardized test scores do not equal high intelligence or quality education.
It's not who you are voting for, but who you are voting against. For as long as I can remember voting-wise, it's always been about choosing the lesser of evils, not someone I actually expect to do a decent job.
An I.T. motto in the hands of an idiot is a dangerous thing...
No, you'd rather have it doled out by the local union boss. (Of course, this is as much of a nonsequitor response to your post as your comment about the Dept of Ed was, but at least mine is based in reality).
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Which is precisely why I explicitly mentioned "the West" in my post above. I am not holding young democracies in developing countries to the same standard as the old one in industrialized countries.
And, yes, I do find the religious fervor in Middle-Eastern politic, and the existence of theocracies in this part of the world, deeply unsettling. I hope they'll grow of it, but I doubt they will in the foreseeable future.
But we are talking American politic here, right ?
:wq
Meh, I was more talking about faith as in which of the majority of flavors of Christianity you pick. As long as you are a catholic or protestant, this is not considered to be an issue in a candidacy. If you are of a "fringe" (I don't mean any special denigration in the term - I think all religion is bunk) like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witness, it will become an issue. Both of these religions are fairly "new" in historical terms and have traditions and history that separate their followers from the mainstream.
As long as you say your faith is a private matter, I think it doesn't hamper you too much in a Republican race. I think it's more of a hindrance to be very evangelical than it is to go the other way. Just look at Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee. It's especially not a problem if you are the looking for the Democratic nomination. And once in the general election, it's not that huge of an issue anyway. As long as you don't give the impression that you're just giving lip service to religion and don't really believe in it. If they feel you are a Christian in name only, that gets you bad PR.
And yeah, I agree that the Republican's have their platform strongly influenced by the religious right. But I think working as a candidate within that party, you can get away with the faith being a private thing as long as you have bona fides in other areas of being a Republican. From what I've seen right now, most Republicans would love an alternative that just seemed more Republican, with the religious question being much less important than that.
For those who don't know, Pauline Kael was a famous film critic who (it is said) refused to believe that Richard Nixon could have beaten George McGovern, who lost in a landslide, because she didn't know anyone who voted for him.
Why is Huckabee nuts? Do you think the Constitution shouldn't be changed? If so, then why do you think they got everything right back then? If it's because he thinks the moral standards should better line up with God's, then what's the difference between him wanting to change the Constitution and someone else who wants to change it to match up with their own moral standards?
I am very much of the old thought of the best way to screw something up is to let government get involved. I would like to say that I openly support Ron Paul. After that I will take Romney as President. The other two are Democrats, just like Bush. You can't spend my money like it is going out of style and call yourself a Republican. I swear after this we just need to re-brand ourselves as classical liberals and look at the theories of Milton Friedman, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and others for the guidance of our party. The best way for the federal government to handle an issue is not get involved. Let the states decide and stop subsidizing everything. I have the hardest time twice a month knowing that my tax dollars are going to something I am at moral odds with. This lets a Peta member not pay for the meat industry, pro-life people not pay for abortions, and people that hate art not pay for an artist to create junk he can't sale.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
You say that we should be the one's to go and handle other nation's problems. I guess you have never served in the military. I served in the U.S. Army for 11 years and spent one of those years in Iraq. I spent a year believing that we do not need to be there. It is their country, let them run it. If the people do not like it, they can do something about it. The rest of the world is not helpless and need us to babysit them. Our economy cannot support all of this warmongering forever. There will always be people fighting and we cannot be the only one's stepping in. Our military is tired and stretched thin. They are also having problems keeping people in for longer than six years, which is the minimum enlistment for some job fields. Has any other country come in to help us in the past? If you want to help these other nations, join the Peace Corps. I do not mean to sound heartless, but I believe in taking care of yourself, then take care of others. Our economy is going to collapse and foreign investors are going to take over our companies. If we can't finance our military, who is going to police the world then? The more important question is, who is going to defend us? Lets talk about Human Rights in this country. Our crime rate is increasing every year. There are more and more people who are homeless everyday. Hundreds of thousands have lost their homes due to foreclosure because of the greediness of our financial institutions. Women are raped here, but you are not declaring war against your fellow citizens. Who has more rights in this country? I think it is a tie between criminals in jail and illegal immigrants. I lived in a tent for a year and the only thing I heard coming from here was gay marriage. This country needs to get its priorities straight and start worrying about important issues. Unfortunately, its going to be a Clinton vs. McCain this fall and once again, I'm going to have to choose the lesser of two evils. Ron Paul is not going to win the election. In fact, a Republican is not going to win. But I do hope that his ideas will get in office. If any of the candidates would take just a handful of Paul's ideas, I would vote for them without question.
ENOUGH with the Ronulans...
Enough with the uniformed people calling Ron Paul's supporters names.
Ron Paul has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money. And they are vocal all over the internet. However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits, much less winning ANY of the primaries.
Ron Paul has broken double digits in many states, and finished 2nd more than once. You don't know what you're talking about.
He has as much chance of getting the nomination as I have. And I'm not running.
Nonsense, not even 10% of the vote has been counted yet. I bet you thought Rudy had a chance, yet Paul got more votes than him.
I do think he has some good ideas, and some that are crazy. But I am really sick of the Ronulans spamming internet forums and polls. A lot of us are annoyed by you, and this actually harms your candidate.
That is ok, we're annoyed by you too. Maybe you can go read about Ron Paul, or the primary process, and get somewhat informed before you go off whining about people who believe in something.
... has a fanatical support base, at least they contribute money
Looks like people contributed a lot of money. The finances are worth mentioning for all the major Republican candidates. One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money. I was not expecting that.
Romney, Mitt
Q4 raised: $26,928,433
Q4 spent: $33,713,503
Total raised: $88,499,686
Total spent: $86,068,239
Cash: $2,431,447
Debt: $35,350,000
McCain, John
Q4 raised: $9,714,246
Q4 spent: $10,254,446
Total raised: $41,102,178
Total spent: $38,153,750
Cash: $2,948,428
Debt: $4,516,030
Paul, Ron
Q4 raised: $19,873,329
Q4 spent: $17,478,711
Total raised: $28,101,264
Total spent: $20,262,084
Cash: $7,839,421
Debt: $0
Huckabee, Mike
Q4 raised: $6,637,063
Q4 spent: $5,391,918
Total raised: $8,986,532
Total spent: $7,090,087
Cash: $1,896,446
Debt: $97,676
By way of comparison, Giuliani, who recently dropped out of the race...
Total Receipts: $60,929,240
Total Spent: $48,152,428
Cash on Hand: $12,776,812
Debts: $1,166,509
Wow... just wow... That sort of spending puts drunken sailors to shame.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Based on my experience growing up in the South, yes.
Especially since the real Zombie, Kerry isn't running.
I was quoted out of context in my autobiography...
Frankly, after the disaster that was the last 7 years, the next time I vote for a republican I will be on a jury voting to convict his sorry a$$ and send it to jail.
Good luck with that... you sir, are the one who is a joke. Where did I write this in my post?
I believe Human Rights activists will achieve more if they were to pressure their government to pressure middle-eastern dictatorships. At no point did I say I support the *exclusive* use of military force to solve the world's problems. On the flip side, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and his soldiers began raping the women did you honestly believe that anything short of a military response would stop them? Yes, I support applying military pressure *as part of a total package* applied on abusive governments but not exclusively.
Look, the US tried the diplomatic route by leveraging economic sanctions against Iran instead of trying to bomb it. The Human Rights organizations *still* rallied against them! What's the point of trying to please people who will complain no matter what you do? They should be *supporting* economic sanctions because the alternative are military attacks. By criticizing the government no matter what it does they actually guarantee *more* wars, not less. They also ensure that the massive worldwide abuses of women go unchecked because we are so fixated on splitting hairs. I'm fixated on getting results, not holding hands and holding candle-light vigils will bring world peace. Diplomatic pressure *can* prevent wars, but only if it has teeth!
What I am trying to say is that Human Rights activists should be putting massive pressure on these oppressive governments to change, either directly or by pressuring our government to pressure them through diplomatic and even military means. And yes, I consider military means to be reasonable when a Iranian bomb can wipe out over a *million* people at a time and they've shown they mean what they say by funding middle-eastern terrorist groups for decades now. Iran is already responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in the middle-east.
Neener, neener, neener!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's my view:
It doesn't matter much what a candidate holds as his or her own religious view. I do have some level of interest in the candidate's moral views, since those are likely to drive policy decisions (most people will not make a decision that they find morally objectionable), and it is common to conflate religion and morality since many people in this country see early exposure to religion as a driver of moral education, so that may account for some of the focus on religion.
But more important to me than the candidate's religion is the candidate's view on the role of his or her religion with respect to his or her duties in office. You can be a baptist, and govern your life and your family accordingly, and yet you might or might not impose that particular doctrine on the country through your role as president (or other office-holder).
If American politicians had a better recent-history record of keeping their religion separate from their politics (which I put in the "separation of church and state" bucket), then at least for me religion would be a non-issue. But when some candidates hold that their religious convictions should translate into law, it can't be ignored. Ideally anyone with that viewpoint would simply not reach office; in practice, given how badly the American implementation of a two-party (and some other guys who won't win) system limits choice, sometimes you just have to figure out whether a particular canddiate's viwes are acceptable to you even realizing that those views might have undue influence on policy.
People are fanatical about Ron Paul but too naive to vote more than once for him.
Romney is running scared "McCain is like Hillary".
Huckabee forgot the whole freedom of religion part in the constitution.
McCain isn't as conservative as Limbaugh or O'Reiley. (I actually consider that a good thing)
As a Massachusetts resident who witnessed Romney's term as governor up-close, I'm absolutely certain that he's the best candidate, and it has nothing to do with his just being a "hometown guy." Heres why:
Mitt inherited a multi-billion dollar deficit in his governorship and turned it into a half-billion dollar surplus by the end of his term. In so doing, he routed the deeply-entrenched Matt Amarillo (Big Dig bigwig) and crawled several miles up the asses of everyone with a hand in the project to get it completed in a reasonable amount of time, so the state could stop bleeding money into this massive endeavor. Meanwhile, his administration set up a subsidized health care program so pretty much anyone whose income is below or three times greater than the poverty line gets dirt-cheap health insurance from Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Because of it's affordability, it is now illegal to not have health insurance in Massachusetts. Let that sink in for a second: Pretty much anyone can get access to health care in this state because of his governorship. Health care crisis in America? Not here!
1, 2, 3, 4, 5... That's the combination on my luggage!
I like a lot of what Ron Paul says. Some of it may actually be workable. How he'd get it past the dinosaurs in Congress I have no idea. I'll still be voting for him in the primary if only as a yardstick of dissent. McCain will probably win the nomination. He's got way more experience and collateral than Romney. He's the "known choice" for Republicans, having been around for a while. He may well win just for being a comfortable choice for the uninformed. His stance on constitutional issues does nothing for me however. I would not discount Romney on the basis of his religion. Not many people here are old enough to remember when Kennedy was unelectable because he was a Roman Catholic. Tricky Dick being a Quaker never even came up. However, he's the biggest flip-flopper since Kerry. No surprise, they're both politicians from the same state. He signed into effect some of the most draconian antigun legislation while governor of Massachsetts and claims he's a friend of gun ownership and a lifetime member of the NRA. Yes, but only since 2006. I wouldn't trust him to stand in line behind me in the cafeteria, let alone run the country. Huckabee, while I like some of his positions on economy, immigration and constitutional issues, does have a base of the religious right. Which sort of makes his chances on par with Pat Robertson's.
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
To make it clear: I haven't seen a single nod of support on ANY technical board or from any engineers/scientists since Huckabee came on the scene. I don't live in the bible belt though, so they could exist, but I'd hazard a guess that most technical and scientific people are NOT for Huckabee.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Religion does take a central part in Republican politics, but I don't know that you could say the same thing about Democrats. On the other hand, it's true that the United States population is simply much more religious than many other first-world nations, so it's natural to expect religion to play a larger part in our politics.
I've started calling it "Every Child Left Behind"... Seems to sum it up pretty well :)
-Vort
or "She's Like the Wind" by Patrick Swayze.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
Oh yeah, aren't they the ones that secretly came from the same planet as the Randroids?
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
I don't really object to your final assertion (I *was* being an ass, though there was a point), but please elaborate on your original so-called point. What does eliminating the Dept of Education have to do with the privatization of public schools? My post was referring to the fact that teachers unions have such a stranglehold on the schools that it's very difficult to implement any sort of reform (another argument that doesn't follow from talking about eliminating the Dept of Ed).
We can debate about both points (and likely have neither one convince the other) but you were still changing the topic away from eliminating a cabinet level executive agency and towards public school reform.
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.
Do you really know who you're voting for? I mean, not that I mind: I'm a Republican, so I can live with all of the above, even if some of them have strong kook-factor. I'm afraid, though, that most Ronulans are ignorant of any of his positions other than the war in Iraq, or you'd think twice about voting for him.
This worked really well with George W. Bush. Well what the hell does that mean? Did it work BAD? Where did it work BAD? I don't understand these one sentece responses.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
He's about as likely to win as Alan Keyes...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
"Are religious people stupid and irrational?"
Only when it comes to religious issues. The brain is very good at compartmentalisation. And this doesn't only apply to religion. A person can be smart and rational on many issues, but if you trigger the wrong emotions or subjects, they will turn irrational. Also, there are several types of irrationality.
Dogmatic irrationality - Religion, Ideologism
Emotional irrationality - Think of the children, Fear of death
Shock irrationality - Happens after: Terrorist acts, Natural catastrophies, Losing someone you love
Of those, dogmatism is the absolutly worst. Responsible for most of the violence and destruction throughout histroy. The other types of irrationality are more a target of being exploited by the first one. Someone who fears death, may be exploited by religion leaders that preach eternal life. Someone who is shocked by a terrorist act, might not react when idelogical laws are pushed through immediatly after.
Thank you for clarifying.
Unfortunately, Christians are largely gullible in matters of politics. "I'm one of you!" is often enough to win their vote...then they realize too late that Their Man(TM) doesn't walk the talk. Four years later they will fall for it again.
Honestly I think it's because Christian churches don't have enough worldview education. The secularists in society tried to drive religion from the public square (by passing laws against political speech in churches, etc) and in so doing, have created a generation of Christians that are ignorant of how to properly live our their faith in the public arena. You end up with all kinds of distortions, like taking personal mandates to help the poor, etc., and applying them to government. In some ways, the secularists created the very monster they feared!
Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. This clearly implies that there are separate spheres of activity in human life. Civil government should not try to regulate religion, and religion should not try to run the government. Some would say this means there is strict separation, but it is a religious text informing this position. This shows that religious views can (and should) influence political views--you cannot divorce one part of you decision-making ability from the others--but also that you cannot run the civil government as if it were your own household or even as if it were your church. They are distinct, and though the same principles can apply to all spheres, the implementation may be very different!
To anyone (especially Christians) who would like to gain a good foundation of what a comprehensive Christian worldview really looks like, I highly recommend The Truth Project by Dr. Del Tackett. In 12 1-hour lectures, he lays a foundation of how a biblical view informs and influences every facet of life by getting down to the very basics (what is Truth?) and building up from there.
Constitutionally Correct
I am not asking the US to babysit the world.
Look, back in the 1st Gulf War the US got criticized for not staying behind to help the opposition overthrow Saddam.
The 2nd time around they actually stuck around and then they got criticized for that. No matter what they do they get criticized.
I am not openly advocating one way or another in the case of the 2nd Iraq war but I am a strong believer that in the case of the 1st Iraq war there was good reason to attack Iraq and push them out of Kuwait. I also believe that "other people's problems" quickly become your own. Everyone ignored Germany in World War 2 because it was "someone else's problem" until it became their own. The same is true in today's global Jihad war. One way or another we're all involved.
Yes I believe there is serious work to be done on the domestic front but I would also point out that the US would be in a much better situation if others in the Western World also pulled their weight. Take a look at what's going on in Afganistan. It was a UN sanctioned mission. Everyone was on board. Yet when push comes to shove the only countries sending any serious troops in are the US and Canada. If everyone else pitched in then I think:
1) Security would be restored a lot quicker with fewer deaths
2) The domestic impact to our countries would be less severe
Instead, we are pulling the weight for other people.
We need to be honest with ourselves: this isn't a foreign policy vs domestic conflict. It's an ideological conflict that we are fighting on both fronts. 20% of Britain's population is Muslim, and poorly integrated at that. If you've followed the news in the past years then you know what kind of a serious problem they're having with radical Muslims. This is a war that must be fought on *both* a domestic and foreign front in order for us to win. Ron Paul is taking the same approach as the NDP political group is taking in Canada: turning a blind eye and hoping the problem takes care of itself. How can those idiots honestly expects Afghanistan to improve if we follow their advice and pulled out all security forces and only left Engineers behind to rebuild? They'd be executed within a week and the Taliban would take over within two. We need to tackle radical Islam ideology both on a diplomatic and military level, both on a domestic and foreign-policy level.
The US might have implemented their foreign policy badly, but at least they're trying! Apathy is even worse in my eyes.
> Yeah the Constitution, REAL CRAZY. Thomas Jefferson
> called and he wants to Bitch Slap your momma for
> calling him a nutbag!
Thomas Jefferson spent no time at the Constitutional Convention, as he was Ambassador to France while it was going on. When it was proposed, he was against it. When it was enacted, he helped establish the political party for people who had been against it, which was called the Democratic-Republican party, and became the Democratic Party (shades of the RepCongo/DemRepCongo switch!).
Thomas Jefferson, if alive today, would be a Democrat, and would loudly proclaim his support for Obama, while secretly ensuring his defeat by Hillary (probably by using Aaron Burr), because he was notoriously hypocritical.
> IF George Washington, Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were alive today. WHO would they vote for?
Unless Abe Lincoln was also alive, they would all vote for Geo. Washington (Jefferson relucantly).
I guess Louisiana caucus delegates don't count? I admit Ron Paul didn't win them all. The invisible caucus with changing rules where the popular vote was for Ronald Reagan followed by Ron Paul, where Ronald Reagan only beat Ron Paul because the he got to change the rules and ignore the provisional votes? Huckabee stands less of a chance than Ron Paul, unless you really believe that Iowa represents America so much more than Louisiana. Of course, you could vote for Romney, video games should be treated like porn... You could also vote for McCain, conservative pundits Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh won't vote for me.
damn! you mean it missed hillary?!
"Neo, follow the white rabbit"
"Can i eat the white rabbit?"
"No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
Maine is as relevant to Republicans as Idaho is to Democrats (i.e. not at all).
"ENOUGH with the Ronulans"
:)
I prefer to call them Paulistinians
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
No, it goes to show how the media goes about shaping the news rather than reporting it. The media is completely out of touch with mainstream America that truly does resonate with Paul's "limited government" message, to the point that they preemptively decided he cannot possibly win and does not matter. For Paul to actually do so well (all things considered) results in cognitive dissonance...they cannot believe what they are seeing, and thus ignore (don't report) it.
Constitutionally Correct
Wow, you posted a link to a blog that just quotes another article. That sure is convincing. And then the second blog posts a false dilemma based pretty much on the first one. I'll see your blog of a story, and raise you an originally authored story that pretty much debunks the whole "racist newsletter" crap.
The funny thing is, though I'm a fairly libertarian person, I'm not even much of a Ron Paul supporter, or a "Rondroid" as you so cleverly put it. I view him as the least objectionable Republican, but it wasn't enough for me to register as one, as I am ambivalent about him as president as he's a bit too much of a social conservative for me and he maintains some troubling ideas about science (yes, I'm talking about creationism/ID) I just can't quite get past. I'd like to think he adheres to his libertarian principles enough that those things wouldn't matter, but I'm not sure I would trust myself in the office of president to not muck with things I shouldn't, so it's difficult for me to trust anyone else to behave either.
But it really pisses me off that, like calling someone a pedophile, it's so easy to smear someone with the "racist" label. It's pure fucking bullshit, and I'm calling it as such. All of this complete crap eventually comes from a single hit piece written by James Kirchick of The New Republic, which if you were wanting to smear Ron Paul is the actual article you should've quoted. It's right up there with the "Barack Obama is a closet fundamentalist Muslim who will institute Sharia law in America if elected!" bullshit that's been circulating. That little meme wouldn't have the traction it does if he didn't have a "funny" name. Likewise, it's really just too easy to take an old white social conservative guy from Texas and put a white hood on his head.
That people fall for this crap almost every goddamned time makes it extremely tempting to root for the candidate who will most fuck up this country because we're a bunch of mouth-breathing idiots and we deserve it.
Does he believe in evolution?
He might be a nice guy, but I want a president with views from this century, please (or even halfway through the last one...)
The complaint is as much about the concept of exclusion as anything. One of the points of a primary is to build consensus on a platform and debate issues, not just to choose a candidate. His movement has certainly raised issues and brought people to the party which used to be part of the core platform ("Free men, Free soil," anybody?) that haven't been discussed in years.
These issues obviously have active support, he has out lasted three other candidates, including two "first tier," and his block of delegates (completely different from the number of votes and based on separate caucuses where he is actually doing quite well) will affect the national convention which almost certainly will be brokered, and Huckabee has actually changed some of his rhetoric based on Dr. Paul's platform. The idea of excluding anybody in the race from the *debate* is idiotic, win or lose.
Even Giuliani supporters affected the issues and had a voice that needed to be heard. That's how a Republic (you know, "Republican") is meant to work, and that is why I support Dr. Paul's campaign as much as anything else.
First of all, Slashdot should be telling us who we can and can't talk about. Of course, this is one of the fundamental facets of liberalism (to which Slashdot fervently subscribes) - control of speech.
That said:
Romney: Would be a good President, and I hope would run it like a business that is supposed to have clean books and a balanced budget. He has flip-flopped on some issues, but his record of taking Massachusetts from deficit to surplus stands, and that is precisely what we need in the immediate term to combat the free-falling dollar and declining value of US assets across the world.
Huckabee: Just doesn't have it right in my mind. I am not inspired by his brand of religious evangelism, and am quite frankly scared of that kind of religious zeal threatening the separation clause. He also has no plan to improve the state of our economy on a global landscape.
McCain: Is not a republican by any stretch of the imagination
Paul: Is far more concerned with legalizing drugs than he is with coming to the amazing realization that, despite the fantasy land in which he lives where the US can be completely isolationist, the reality of the situation is that there are numerous kids in the sand box and they all have to play nice together.
So a restriction on the freedom of speech doesn't count as a destruction of the First Amendment of the Constitution?
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
News flash: Most public education is currently handled by the States. If the U.S. Department of Education went away, public education would still be around. Public education in some States would be worse for it, but other States would be greatly relieved that to have Federal interference out of their system.
There is a meme-disease that has infested our society, spread by power-grubbing politicians and money-hungry corporate interests (including the sound-bite-driven media.) It is the idea that if there is a problem, the Federal government should fix it. Any problem, great or small, anywhere in the country, is in need of a Federal "fix." There needs to be a new cabinet-level department, or a Federal bill, or a Constitutional Amendment, or a Supreme Court ruling, or a "War On *" to fix it.
You hear it from Obama. His resounding "Yes We Can" is saying "Yes, we, the Federal Government, can fix everything that's wrong!" You hear it from Hillary, or anyone else promoting Federal government-provided healthcare. You hear it also from McCain, Romney and Huckabee. You hear it, with a slightly different tune, from mainstream evangelical Christians -- the problems are different, but the solution, Federal Government enforcement of morality to "fix" immorality, is the same.
The problem with the idea is that it overlooks all the other options for fixing a problem.
When there is a problem:
- You or I can fix it
- You or I can educate people on its existence and what they can do to fix it
- You or I can start a non-profit organization dedicated to fixing it
- You or I can (potentially) start a business that makes money by fixing it
- Existing local businesses can make money by fixing it
- Local religious groups can (possibly) work to fix it
- Local non-religious non-profit organizations can help to fix it
- Local governments can help to fix it
- Larger / regional businesses can make money by fixing it
- Larger / regional non-profit and/or religious groups can fix it
- State governments can fix it
- National / Global non-profits can fix it
- National / Global corporations can fix it
- The Federal government can fix it
If a flood wiped out your city, who would you be most relieved to see: someone from the Red Cross (National / Global organization) or someone from FEMA?
If you just discovered you had heart disease and needed a triple bypass, who would you rather have handle it: your local top-100 heart hospital (could be for-profit, non-profit or religious), or the National Institute of Health?
If your kid is getting a poor education, who would you trust to fix it: a private school (also could be for-profit, non-profit, or religious, or even yourself if you aren't averse to homeschooling), or the Department of Education?
If there's a problem with people with drug addictions, who often turn to crime, who should fix it, a doctor, or the Federal government?
If there's a problem with internet regulation, who should fix it, ICANN or the U.S. Government? (Even the suckiest-run nonprofits seem less scary than the prospect of the US Government meddling in that.)
If there's a problem with one group of people who don't approve of the morality of another group of people, who should provide the solution? The groups who have the problem working it out with each other, or the Federal Government enforcing the will of the more populous group on the other?
The Federal Government was created to make peace between the States, to defend the States from outsiders, and to guarantee "Liberty and Justice for all." As long as it sticks to that basic plan it can do a lot of good, but when we look at the Federal government as "Mr. Fix Everything" we are setting ourselves up for trouble not just in things getting "Fixed" up in the FUBAR sense, but also in conflicts of interest, some subtle and some not-so-subtle, between fixing-problems and "Liberty and Justice for All"
I'm reluctant to water down the message by adding a cliche, but if eve
The requested URL
The issue wasn't "Is Ron Paul a better candidate?" It was "Is he a candidate?" The answer is "No, not anymore."
I'm not in what you would call the "conservative right", so McCain looks better to me than he does to Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter - who despite their rhetoric would sooner give up prescription drugs than vote for one.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Romney
I like the executive experience. I believe government should be run more like a business because businesses by and large have less waste. Their success actually depends on it, whereas government's does not. I like that he's a former governor, but the Mormon thing bugs me. I'm worried about voting for someone that believes God was once a man like us and that we will one day be Gods like Him. Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law." Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Romney though is his flip flop on abortion. I'm pro-life, but he ran on pro-choice and then did not stick to it once he was elected. I understand he had a crisis of conscience once in office with legislation in front of him, but now I see him as the type of individual that could change a stance on virtually anything if the argument was persuasive enough.
McCain
The guy would make a good enough general, but a horrible republican nominee. He could not beat either Clinton or Obama. The country is sick of the war, and he wants to continue it and start new ones too. He's been accused of being less conservative than Clinton. He is one of the Democrats go to guys when they need a few more votes to push legislation through. Even on his understanding of the Iraq war he has flip flopped. http://www.gadberry.com/aaron/2008/01/08/mccain-vs-mccain/ Romney is much more electable, even with the Mormon thing.
Huckabee
He wants to take back the nation for Christ. I'm not sure that it ever belonged to Christ, unless he's talking about the Monarchy we lived under before the Revolution. He supports a 23% flat (fair) tax. While I understand a consumption tax, I disagree with a 23% federal tax while in my area we already have a 7.75% sales tax. That brings my sales tax up to 30.25%. Huckabee is even less conservative than McCain. Granted, he has no flip flopping on abortion, gay rights, etc, because those are religious viewpoints, he literally wants a theocracy. He wants to legislate morality. That just doesn't work.
Paul
He's the kind of man that founded our country. He wants to get rid of the massive amounts of government that slipped in during the last ~250 years. He wants to take us back to the time when elected officials were "serving". Unlike the other's running he actually is a conservative and doesn't change his positions. I honestly believe if there was no media bias that he would get more attention. I'm not sure if it's cause the FED gives money to media, or if the media enjoys their ability to lobby, or if it's something else If you look at his record on voting the major issues he has been consistent and right 100% of the time. It may not come out until later that he was right, for example on the Iraq war, but he has always made the right decisions.
I guess it's obvious I support Paul, but the facts are the facts, and I think it's about time we had a man like our founding fathers in charge.
Ron Paul
McCain is just for more of the same crap we've had for the last 8 years....
Huckabee is a religious zealot...
Mitt is just big business...
McCain sits more middle of the road and is clearly the only solid choice at this point.
McCain is a lunatic and a Fascist to boot... more than any other candidate he represents a continuation of the GWB brand of neo-conservatismFascism... he scares me more than any candidate but Hillary Clinton, with her radical socialist agenda.
If Ron Paul doesn't get the Republican nomination, the best bet is to vote for the Libertarian Party nominee. Even better if that
person turns out to be Ron Paul.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
That's not quite right. Jefferson, one of the framers of the Constitution, felt that it should be a temporary document. In essence, he felt that we should follow the model that the French ended up with, with occasional revolts (political or violent, as necessary) to overthrow the existing form of government, to start over. He knew that a Constitution that was taken as sacred would eventually become hopelessly outdated, within about a generation. He'd be shocked that we treat it as sacred, and haven't thrown out the parts that are outdated.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Pierre a commie? I just love how you so transparently expose your greedy little anti-social authoritarian "mind" by labelling all the things you dislike using the most frightful to you thing you can come up with: "Red Commies!!! Booo!!".
I have news for you: you wouldn't know a commie if he were to kick you down and set up a farming collective on top of your ass. Here is a hint: Lenin was a commie. Chairman Mao was a commie. Trudeau was a socialist-leaning politician in one of the worlds most advanced industrial democracies.
And then there are these things about religious people having "values"...
What "values" would those be? The "values" of all those Catholic priests when they had their ways with all them fine young boys? Or those of that pastor down in the States found self-tied up, clad in two scuba rubber suits complete with flippers and a dildo up his ass? How about the "values" of all those TV "evangelists" scamming old ladies so they can afford their palaces, drugs and hookers? Would it be those "values" which cause these "pious" people to blow up abortion clinics? Or would it be those "values" which cause them start religious wars, all over the world, with frightening regularity, since times immemorial? Would it be the "values" of the oh-so-religious Spanish Inqisition of old, or the oh-so-religious Al Queda of today? Which of those vaunted "values" are you talking about?
Sure, because Harper's chanting the Communist Manifesto up in the Parliment every day is getting so tiresome, that and his insistence on collectivisation of all industry, surely?
(Note for non-Canadians: the present government of Canada is by all definitions centre-right "conservative" and our current prime minister, Steven Harper, is just about as "red" as John McCain or Mitt Romney down in the US. His ability to execute his personal conservative agenda is however tampered by the fact that Canada has a multi-party Parlimentary system and most Canadians do not find his policies very appealing, favouring centrist, or center-left approach - which the parent poster would probbaly describe as something along the lines of: "Soviets!!! Marxists!!! The commisars are comming!!! The commisars are comming!! Waaaah!!!" )
But of course none of what you said was really meant to make any sense, because that entire rant was all about one thing: you want a Dominionist religious fuck to be elected, who would promptly proceed to convert Canada into a theocracy where your kind would become dominant and be in a position to force your brain-rotting "values" on us all.
Now go bang your head on your Bible (or whatever "holy" book of nonsense managed to disable your cognitive circuitry) for a while until all of this registers.
"(Disclaimer: Honestly, I think with the way things are going, nobody can "fix" this mess)"
This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.
There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.
Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.
Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.
Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.
It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I don't think anyone should ever be excluded from debate, polls, etc., until after Super Tuesday. After Super Tuesday, start trimming down to those that have a snowball's chance or better. Until then, the media is deciding the primaries for you.
...write-in candidate Ronald Reagan (deceased and thus truly unelectable)...
...great distance...
...great distance...
I also wish for polling blackouts, until the last polls close in the "last state's latest polling location", whenever that is. As soon as all polls are closed, let us drink from the firehose of polling data. I wouldn't call this censorship. In fact, covering every sneeze with a "3% margin of error" affects the outcome (kinda sounds like Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, a bit, but I digress). Let's go back to the spirit of the Secret Ballot, not just the letter...
Otherwise, the race is being shaped by CNN, Fox, Slashdot, whatever. Want an example of that? Why did Giuliani get to debate, when Ron Paul didn't? Giuliani got 0 delegates (until just before he dropped out) and often got very poor polling data. (Tom Tancredo didn't get invited, either, after awhile, but that's another story, and he dropped out early).
If the media has already told us who the winners and losers are -- starting with Iowa and New Hampshire (but to predict anything that early is utterly insane) -- then people start tending to vote for those that are "electable". Actually, until February 5 (this year's Super Tuesday), anybody's "electable".
You know, Super Tuesday has so many delegates, that mathematically anyone left in the race could win, however likely or unlikely. It's extremely unlikely, yet mathematically very possible, that Ron Paul could be facing Mike Gravel in November (now there's a long shot).
Am I glad that Giuliani's out? You bet! (If it were Giuliani vs. Democrat in November, I would have considered voting third-party for President).
Yet this isn't the prerogative of the mainstream press. This is the prerogative of the voter, or *should* be. Do I wish that Ron Paul was winning and that he had a fair shake, from the beginning? Absolutely. (It's too late, now. And, I know it's entirely probable that if he had a fair shake, that he'd still not be in first place, but that's another matter).
So, the media goes from reporting the news in an unbiased way (journalism), to making the news (editorial).
Unfortunately, since the media once again decided for us already (instead of just reporting the facts), and since we are faced with lousy "electable" Republicans, I'd vote in this order, based on who's left:
Ron Paul (but now cast as a loser in the media)
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee (probably in that order)
John McCain
No, I'm not a "Ronulan" (except maybe in the Ronald Reagan sense) although I don't consider that an insult. He's just the best candidate this term, Republican or Democrat.
If it's such a low bar, then why do other candidates seem to have such a hard time clearing it?
Did anyone else read that as ENOUGH with the ROMULANS?
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
He's not the best candidate ever, but he's the most experienced and the most conservative of the three.
Four More Years! Four More Years! Four More Years!
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Comments are funnier over on the democrats article. I'm voting for them.
(don't mod me +1 Funny or my unique decision technique will be in shambles)
Atheism is a non-prophet organisation
"I am a registered Republican, and I will be most likely be voting for Ron Paul next week"
I don't understand why you're a Republican in the first place. You sound more like an outright Libertarian to me. If you're so passionate about Paul's positions, I'd say the GOP is the wrong party for you. We're never going to be an isolationist party again. We're not going to blame Israel for the world's woes, not complain about how the Jews are running Washington. While you're at it, do us a favor and take Pat Buchannon off our hands, too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
> runs, the more exposure those ideas get.
Tell it to Harold Stassen, who was a real Governor with real support, before he became a running joke at the Republican conventions. How many current liberal Republicans do you know of?
Tell it to Gus Hall. How well do Communist Parties do, in US elections?
Tell it to the guy who always came on with a single half hour commercial, consisting of a dry lecture of obscure historical claims, decrying the Queen of England and her influence over the Federal Reserve, whose name I cannot even remember, now.
His running will do little. Lots of liberaterian leaning candidates running for lots of offices as Republicans might. Even running campaigns for non-liberaterian leaning candidates could.
with the exception of ron paul. mccain especially makes me wanna puke. literally i mean, i physically feel the urge to throw up when i see his face. dishonest bunch.
Read radical news here
Sorry, missed the west part. All that typing for nothing.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
That was called "sarcasm". You didn't get it because your kind actually believes that George is a "good" human being, full of religious "values" you share with him, and thus could not possibly be the mass-murdering, thieving war-criminal fuck everyone else sees, who is to go down in history right next to the likes of Pinochet (also a religious "values" man). And this alone says much more about your nature then a million of "values" you can spout out from some moth-eathen religious gobledey-gook nonsense.
For your reference: George's religious "values" were played up during both of his elections. And "bad" does not even begin to describe the outcome.
This is bullshit, Taco. Ron Paul has every right to be up there. He beat Huckabee in several states. He beat McCain in others. Leaving him out is pure crap.
Not sure what is most annoying with the Ron Paul fanatics; that they agree to virtually everything coming out of his mouth, or that they believe that those of us not supporting him have no idea about his politics.
The difference is that Thompson didn't campaign, and Guiliani thought he didn't need to campaign until Florida. Meanwhile, Ron Paul's campaign and his supporters were frantically campaigning everywhere they could, and all they managed was minor percentages in the states that matter in our retarded primary/caucus system. Try putting things into context before your tell people off, please.
That's a good question. George Washington privately supported John Adam's efforts to arrest dissenting newspaper editors, one of whom died in jail. They were both for powerful federal governments, and Washington was known to strongly support a powerful executive. Franklin never wanted our version of a republic to begin with; he was aiming for a much more democratic system. Maybe. Jefferson probably wouldn't be going for any Republican candidate, but if he did, it might have been Paul, given his opinions on a national bank (which many founding father's supported) state's rights -- although how much of that was because of the Federalist's actions while in office is questionable, I think.
The Founding Fathers were not the sacred, allwise men who would all unanimously support your candidate. They were politicians and businessmen just like the ones we have today. They had violent and bitter disagreements. Adams, hated Franklin -- read his correspondence while he and Franklin were in France. Jefferson was too much of a coward to publicly speak up against Adams' policies while he was Vice President, even though he privately strongly disagreed with them (trying to start a war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts, etc.
The more things change, the more things stay the same. The Founding Fathers were not some kind of Jesus Team. You shouldn't have to wrongly invoke them to lend credence to Ron Paul's political theory, which many of them would have been bitterly opposed to.
I agree with you that the 1st Gulf War was not followed through, just like Korea. If the generals were allowed to handle war instead of politicians, wars would end quicker. We have full right to be in Afghanistan, not to rebuild, but to find Bin Laden. Does anybody remember him? I'm not saying to completely ignore the rest of the world. I believe we should help the less fortunate, but in 20 years, we are going to be one of those less fortunate and who is going to be there to help us? Iraq, Kuwait, Israel? They only care about themselves. We have so many policies that they conflict with one another. Why do we show leniency to North Korea, but not Cuba? I think Germany and Britain is more than capable of taking care of themselves now, so why are we still there. If we pulled our troops out of most of the foreign countries and station them here, we could get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, since they don't do anything at all anyway. During your two posts, you spoke nothing of how we are going to do it. You just say that we need to. How do we get more people to enlist in the Armed Services and more importantly, keep them in. I know, lets either slow down or stop sending them to the worst places on Earth. If we are so concerned with Cuba, lets invade them. I hear they have great beaches there. I wouldn't mind being deployed there for a year if I was still enlisted. Lets take care of Chavez, isn't he a dictator too? He controls alot of oil too so we would benefit (notice hint of sarcasm). What about Myanmar, wasn't their coup just obliterated? Guess since they aren't in the news anymore, nobody cares. Our problem is we care for the Middle East too much at the expense of the rest of the world. Iraq may be the cradle of civilization, but that's how long they've been fighting, and we cannot stop it, even in 100 years. I think all the money that we could save by downsizing our government would be better spent on research and development. Remember when we used to be #1? Our kids are not getting the same education that we all got over the last 60 years. Lets develop technologies to get us off of oil, then we'll see how the Middle East likes us then. When you fly, the airlines tell you to put your mask on first before helping others in case of an emergency. They do that because you can't help others if you cannot breath. Our economy is getting to the point where it cannot breath and it's going to prevent us from helping other nations who really do need our help. At least Ron Paul is throwing ideas out there, unlike McCain and Romney who want to bicker over who said what like school children. I for one do not want a temper-tantrum child in charge of my country. I want an adult who can make decisions. I've said it before, not all of Ron Paul's ideas are golden, but at least he has ideas, and if he is still in for the Texas primary, then he is who I'm voting for. And you can take that to the bank. Oh wait, I forgot, banks are too busy foreclosing on Americans.
These guys don't increase their bid for you on the basis of how much you beg to be their little bitch.
Seastead this.
Known for drawing a hard line based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, fiscal responsibility and libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is considered somewhat of a maverick - once described by current opponent John McCain as "the most honest man in Congress."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-treul/an-interview-with-ron-pau_b_71108.html
Brief Overview of Congressman Paul's Record:
He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/
Alot of candidates in this race like others in each presidential race have promised change and many time and time again abandon promises and by doing so betray the American populace.
Regardless of issues you may have with Ron Paul he is by far the most honest of all the candidates and surely intends to do what he is talking about.
Remember to vote this coming November!
Muahahahahaha!
Mulroney!? Disliked because of religion?!!!
That is just precious.
Suuure, it was religion ... not the thievery, corruption, kick-backs, lies, the NAFTA sellout, Meech Lake etc and so on?
Nooooo. Religion!
For your reference, since your ex-Canadian status seems precluding you from getting news apparently, just the latest in the never-ending stream of filth coming from the direction of that "values" man: Mulroney is on the hook for $400k of bribe money he took in brown envelopes to facilitate "trade arrangements" while being Prime Minister. And the investigations are still rolling.
Aren't religious "values" grand, eh?
Why is the parent marked as Flamebait? I'm serious. Can someone, anyone, explain this? And before anyone tries, remember that most if not all the comments in this thread could be labeled "Flamebait", given the nature of political "discussion".
Ron Paul deserves more attention -- when compared with how he is doing with the people, the media snub he is getting is sickeningly biased and unfair. Period.
The Income Tax provision has never been properly ratified. It is illegal, and 100% abused. Do your research before you attempt to argue this.
The Federal Reserve is the other half of the Income Tax fraud. Once a private company got in the position to loan the government all the money it wastes, a means was needed to pay back the "interest" (i.e. illegal profits). Income taxes started when The Fraud did. Check out Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom To Fascism" (or any one of countless other works detailing this conspiracy -- yes, conspiracy).
No one is more consistent in their thoughts, words and deeds than Ron Paul. This point alone makes the "Flamebait" mod ludicrous. Check out "The Case For Gold", published in 1982 -- Ron Paul co-authored this and his position is unchanged today...25 years later.
Should the US be policing the world? Few would say "aye".
What happened to freedom of speech, expression, and the PEOPLE choosing their president?
Hang on, I found out why the Flamebait mod. We can't have PEOPLE running things, can we?
I come here for the love
On betfair.com, the world's biggest betting exchange (where odds are determined by the market, not by a bookmaker), Paul's odds for becoming the Republican nominee are currently around 110 to 1 while Huckabee's are around 130 to 1. Imo these odds are the most objective assessment of candidates' actual chances. Hence, excluding Paul from a debate while including Huckabee is a clear case of bias. I'm European btw, not gonna vote for any of these guys, just wanted to point this out.
The boots! No wait, the cape!
;)
Whoops - I got this discussion confused with the poll.
Too similar!
All of the money collected in the personal income tax goes to pay for interest on the national debt.
Wrong
It may be impossible that a truly Christian individual be elected since politics and religion are separated more than science and religion are, It's more likely that a Christian would have to do things that counter their beliefs to be in politics, that they would never run.
Original poster... why leave Ron Paul out of your comments? What has he ever done to you besides fight for your liberty, fight for your taxes to be lower and fight against out of control spending in Washington so they don't waste your tax dollars. I hope your eyes can be opened one day soon as mine have. I see so much more clearly now that I stopped believing everything I see on t.v. ;-)
"As president, I will order an immediate review of our overseas deployments - in dozens of countries. The longstanding commitments we have made to our allies are the strong foundation of our current peace. I will keep these pledges to defend friends from aggression. The problem comes with open-ended deployments and unclear military missions. In these cases we will ask, "What is our goal, can it be met, and when do we leave?" As I've said before, I will work hard to find political solutions that allow an orderly and timely withdrawal from places like Kosovo and Bosnia. We will encourage our allies to take a broader role. We will not be hasty. But we will not be permanent peacekeepers, dividing warring parties. This is not our strength or our calling."
- George W. Bush
Thursday, September 23, 1999
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
You can't take the sky from me...
Seriously though kids, I'm not excited about any of these candidates, on either side. I guess this election, at least for me is going to be about "who terrifies me the least." McCain seems too frail. I mean, look at the dude, he's not in office yet and he looks like he's ready to fall over. Being the President is incredibly demanding. Neither Romney nor Huckabee are really doing it for me either. And Ron Paul? Interesting ideas, but just a bit too "out there" for my tastes.
But hey, that's me. Bob & Norm all the way!
The unsig!
When I read the following I can think of only one candidate that will work... Ron Paul...
I agree with you that the 1st Gulf War was not followed through, just like Korea. If the generals were allowed to handle war instead of politicians, wars would end quicker. We have full right to be in Afghanistan, not to rebuild, but to find Bin Laden. Does anybody remember him? I'm not saying to completely ignore the rest of the world. I believe we should help the less fortunate, but in 20 years, we are going to be one of those less fortunate and who is going to be there to help us? Iraq, Kuwait, Israel? They only care about themselves.
I disagree with this because of what I wrote earlier: other people's problems inevitably become your own. On the flip side, the more democratic countries there are in the world, the more McDonald's we could open up and our economy grows. From a reconstruction point of view, the US is suffering from the fact that other countries chickened out (yet still expect to be awarded lucrative reconstruction contracts). If everyone chipped in then what you wrote wouldn't be the case. Take the prime example of Afghanistan: the invasion was UN and NATO backed and politicians routinely speak about how much they believe in their reconstruction yet they rarely translated words into action. We have to start rewarding countries based on their actions, not their words.
We have so many policies that they conflict with one another. Why do we show leniency to North Korea, but not Cuba? I think Germany and Britain is more than capable of taking care of themselves now, so why are we still there. If we pulled our troops out of most of the foreign countries and station them here, we could get rid of the Department of Homeland Security, since they don't do anything at all anyway.
I agree with this point 100%.
During your two posts, you spoke nothing of how we are going to do it. You just say that we need to. How do we get more people to enlist in the Armed Services and more importantly, keep them in. I know, lets either slow down or stop sending them to the worst places on Earth.
War is never pretty, which is why it should be the last resort. I don't think you need more troops. I think you need more foreign countries to chip in.
If we are so concerned with Cuba, lets invade them. I hear they have great beaches there. I wouldn't mind being deployed there for a year if I was still enlisted. Lets take care of Chavez, isn't he a dictator too? He controls alot of oil too so we would benefit (notice hint of sarcasm). What about Myanmar, wasn't their coup just obliterated? Guess since they aren't in the news anymore, nobody cares. Our problem is we care for the Middle East too much at the expense of the rest of the world. Iraq may be the cradle of civilization, but that's how long they've been fighting, and we cannot stop it, even in 100 years.
I think Cuba should be on a long list of countries we'd like to pressure to improve their government but it is near the bottom in terms of priority because the level of oppression and threat to the outside world remains low. I agree with you that the middle-east should not be the primary focus of international community because there are many other important causes to focus on.
I think all the money that we could save by downsizing our government would be better spent on research and development. Remember when we used to be #1? Our kids are not getting the same education that we all got over the last 60 years. Lets develop technologies to get us off of oil, then we'll see how the Middle East likes us then.
I agree with developing technologies to get us off oil, if only for the sake of political independence. I believe that the recent economic downturn has more to do with China and India then it does with anything else. I still believe that the US should work very strongly to reduce its debt (and reeducate its population in individual debt reduction whi
You gotta be kidding!
Some of the history worst attrocities and murderous rampages of savage persecution and butchery of anyone not conforming to their twisted dark vision of the world were done by these Christian men. It was the Christian men who persecuted science and who propped up the feudal order. George Bush, a bona-fide war criminal, fancies himeslf a "born again" Christian. Adolf Hitler called himself a Christian and his armies sported "Gott mit Uns" on their belt-buckles.
A growing list of media blackout events has been, and continues to be documented at RonPaulTimeline.com. The greatest grassroots movement for a presidential candidate in history, being ignored by the media, is also being documented there. Some examples:
The reason that we get less-than-adequate choices for candidates year after year is because WE LET the media make the choices for us! If you don't believe this or don't understand why, then you're not really paying attention. With this article, Slashdot has proven that it is no better than any of the major news outlets, and the comments prove that Slashdot readers are as much sheeple as the rest of America.
Well, at least it gives them the necessary skills to vote for the approved major-party candidates in future presidential elections.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Thanks for the correction. I will adjust my logic accordingly. For the record, Paul never said this, I just put it together, evidently hearing it from an incorrect source.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
There is sane fundamental reform and there is insane fundamental reform.
This is the very reason we have a Republic, not a pure democracy.
Example: You are hiding in a secret basement with a few dozen of your closest friends and relatives. A baby starts crying as your enemy is searching the rooms above. What do you do?
If you hesitated answering, you shouldn't run a country. The answer isn't popular and sure as hell wouldn't be the view of the public.
MANY more example are documented at RonPaulTimeline.com
How? By suggesting to dump more money into it? That's about as much control as the President has in this matter. Private schools are producing kids with better educations than public schools. Are you sure that schools will not try to compete with each other and hire the best teachers? Do you still think they will only have one school per district? (ie: Government controlled monopoly) Where is the basis that decides that public schools are better off with someone in D.C. deciding what your kids learn? Wouldn't you prefer to have a stake in voting (with your wallet) where your kid goes to school? Do you think you won't have any choices?
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
I'm justing waiting for one of the Republicans to man up and admit that it's time to get out of Iraq. That's something at least 60% of the electorate want (www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/the_war_in_iraq/iraq_troop_withdrawal). It should not be viewed as a partisan issue. The top two's support of Bush's Iraq policy is obstinate party loyalty and will be suicide in the general election.
Although the Republicans claim to be fiscally responsible, its just not the case. I still have trouble believing this chart. (www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html) It says to me that counterintuitively, the democrats are more fiscally responsible than the republicans. The Iraq war is waste of money. Our interests are not served by being there.
During the last debate, I noticed Romney and McCain smirking the whole time the 'nameless one' spoke. The 'nameless one' has some good ideas, but these two give ideas other than their own no credence. It's one of the flaws of Bush. Romney is a smart guy, but noone knows everything.
Huckabee has as much a shot as that other guy, so we don't need to talk about him.
I'll vote for "He whose name we shall not mention" while in the race. After that, I don't vote for anyone who wants to stay in Iraq.
You're annoyed?? Well we're annoyed that the only candidate who genuinely cares about improving the country is getting shut out of the election by the mainstream media, and that sites like this which are supposed to be the voice of freedom of information contribute to that. This country is getting ruined by media control and you're annoyed that people complain about it? Give me a break. The reason Ron Paul's support hasn't translated to as many primary votes as it should is that the majority of the country still gets its news from TV and mass-media newspaper sources, rather than the Internet, so news sources like the writer of this article are blocking Ron Paul from reaching the public. His supporters are "fanatical" because he's the first non-corrupt Presidential candidate in more than one generation. He's a candidate who could be a great leader for this country, and he has a lot of support. That's something this country desperately needs, and there is something people SHOULD be fanatical about.
McCain is too willing to blatantly lie.
Huckabee is too far deep in the religious right.
My vote is to Romney, because he is the best to handle the recession.
It is both a party bias and a media bias. And your reasoning for voting/not voting for him is scary.
What you believe is clearly based on the misinformation that the media has (and hasn't) fed you.
Ron DOES talk about methods, but because of the media bias, you don't get to hear it, or you only get to hear a rushed, 30-second snippet of it. One simple example: how many times did the media talk to the other candidates about the president's economic stimulus plan and what they would do in comparison to Ron?
Show me one TV interview that was played equally as much where Ron was able to talk about his own stimulus plan. You won't be able to do it, but he DID publish one, complete with a list of bills that have ALREADY been introduced into congress to help him achieve that plan. And it's the only NON-tax-and-spend plan I've heard of yet:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/Prosperity
Because back then they did it based on what should be codified as law, not what was 'moral'? I have plenty of moral beliefs, they shouldn't all be law and they certainly shouldn't be constitutional, as that devalues the importance of the constitution. Think things like prohibition and sodomy laws.
Morals change. We shouldn't need to update the constitution to reflect that when we could just not change it in the first place.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Then (I assume) you haven't seen charter schools, private schools under a decent voucher system, Montessori schools, or active homeschool groups (with shared activities and teacher/specialist swapping, shared seminars) in operation. I have, and the quality of education I have seen far outstrips what comes out of (most) public schools. The small underfunded private school I went to growing up ranked 3rd overall in the state. We regularly beat public schools in scholastic competitions and the high school had no idea what to do with us because we already had HS/Regents credit in a number of courses when we got there, freeing us up for APs in High School, even though I left two years early. When I got to college, a friend of mine was younger than I was, was homeschooled, and already had his AA. The charter elementary school my company was helping wire a few years back had phenomenal tech education and computer labs (they taught UNIX/Linux, basic programming). A small homeschool group I tutored medieval history for had eight-year-olds reading Virgil in the original. I am working on possible weed walks and field biology outings for a group here. There are more and I have yet to see one bad example, though I know there must be. A local public high school regularly graduates people who can't read more than road signs, and they get decent grades. That has been true before the current administration and I don't see it changing any time soon.
Are all private schools good? No, but they do have to compete and that puts them under a good deal of pressure, to rank well, educate well (get kids into good colleges), and keep costs down. For the most part, that process works. Public schools can dip into your wallet whenever they want. You have a chance of influencing that locally-- you directly elect your school board-- but your effect over the Department of Education is negligible.
Yes, this comes from meeting both parents who home-schooled their children as well as the children they home schooled. Because people are under the stupid impression that all you need to be a teacher is the ability to read through a book, most parents who home school their children are actually tragically sub-standard teachers as far as true understanding of subject matter is concerned. This is less pronounced in subjects like Math and (frighteningly) more pronounced in subjects like History and Science.
Lacking any real knowledge of the origins of World War I or the Wave-Particle nature of light, most parent-teachers simply recite what some book says, making sure the student knows what to answer when canned questions are presented. This discards the more important lessons behind abstract topics, robbing children of a better education in an effort to see that they only pass the test.
And yes, public schools are increasingly just as guilty. That is what happens when you pass laws like 'No Child Left Behind' which make high standardized test scores the first and overwhelming priority in education. Things like actual understanding, enrichment, enjoyment and the use of abstract thought to understand new situations is something teachers are left to fit in between government mandated crap like "Constitution Day" and the weeks of testing.
I saw "best presidential candidate" and "republican" in the same sentence and just couldn't help but laugh...
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
"However, I find it utterly bizarre and disturbing that religion take such a huge place in American politics."
You're not alone, but that doesn't change the fact that for the vast majority of Americans, religion is very important to us, and has been from the beginning. Our Puritan roots are still pretty strong. Alexis de Tocqueville noted just how religion was ingrained into our national character. You wouldn't know it from reading slashdot, which has a heavy agnostic/atheist tint to it, but then again, slashdot isn't very representative of the general public in America. Something like 80+ percent of Americans identify with a religion, and over half claim to be devout, attending church on at least a semi-regular basis. To my knowledge, this is much higher than the rest of the Western world at present. You (and other slashdotters) may lament that fact, but we are what we are. I would never say to American slashdotters "if you don't like it, get out". It is a free country after all. But I also think its rather disingenuous to expect the rest of the country to change its identity, too.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I entirely agree. I'm writing his name in, too, if it comes to that.
If Ron Paul doesn't get on the November ballot, I honestly don't care if Romney, Juan McCain, or Billary gets elected. It's going to be a disaster either way.
All I'm saying, and I didn't want to make this a religious debate, that when you take a few people, compared to millions of people you don't hear of, to bias your point of view, is only destroying your point not enhancing it. What your doing is equivalent to pointing at a couple of bad apples and making the blanket statement that all apples are bad because of that couple!
Surprising to say the least. Seeing the general news media ignore Ron Paul is one thing, but Slashdot? I mean, Ron Paul has come in 2nd in two states so far, and just beat Huckabee in Maine. Is it really so hard to include all the official rep candidates, seriously, there are only 4 left, one more name to type can't be that hard. A little bit concerning...
It's like those stupid television debates where they just let Romney and McCain sing and go at each other for the whole duration and let Paul and Huckabee speak for two minutes. What ever happened to fair debates? Put the question out, and let each one answer in a allotted time. Does that make too much sense?
You are comparing the situation in the US with that in another country where, to the best of your knowledge, there might not be a democracy. You clearly have high exectations for your own country!
That you seem to think that Iraq is currently a democracy is quite telling, by the way...
I think our views are pretty much alike. I'm a registered Libertarian myself, but I think the "traditional Republican candidate" (as defined, perhaps, by Ronald Reagan?) and Libertarian views aren't all that far apart. (Probably, the main difference would lie in specific "individual rights" issues like drug legalization?)
The problem I see is, today's "standard issue Republican" seems to be all about a bigger, more powerful federal govt. with more rights to monitor, investigate and catalog citizens - and this mission of "squashing any and all terrorist threats" at all costs.
Given that, I just don't see a candidate *besides* Ron Paul I can give my vote to. This election, I'm just not feeling that concern about "making sure a lesser of the evils" is elected, because I see serious problems with any of the Republican or Democratic candidates in the running. I can't, in good conscience, cast my vote for someone with a political agenda so counter to what I feel this nation needs to get "back on track".
(I know this discussion is not supposed to go into Democratic candidates, but I have to digress for a second here and comment that Obama is running an "interesting" campaign right now. He seems to really be pushing that idea that a vote for him equates to a vote for "real change" in govt. Ironically, Ron Paul is the one proposing the REAL changes, not Obama. I have to wonder if Obama is sapping away a number of votes from Ron Paul with this strategy? I've talked to quite a few college students who are sold on Obama purely out of their distaste for the current state of things and his promises of upsetting the "status quo" if he's elected. Yet what real "change" is Obama planning to make? His policies pretty much mirror a traditional Democrat's promises. He's for some kind of national healthcare system, just as Hillary is. He's not talking of an immediate end to the war in Iraq, or a promise of repealing the Patriot Act. He's still proposing concepts that will surely raise all of our taxes during his presidency.)
McCain was one of the Keating 5 which, unless Clinton is the democratic nominee, is sufficient reason for me to vote against him.
Charles Keating bribed 5 Senators (aka The Keating 5) to carry legislation for him that relaxed rules on the Savings and Loan industry. The ensuing S&L meltdown in 91 was partially due to that legislation. The Senators kept their jobs while Keating went to jail. In my book, all of them should have gone to jail.
To make amends, McCain teamed up with Feingold to "keep money out of politics." Together, they crafted the McCain-Feingold act which didn't do a thing to keep folks like Norman Hsu and Tony Rezko from bundling huge amounts of money for favored politicians. What McCain-Feingold did do was muzzle advertising critical of incumbents which comes as little surprise as it was written by two long-time incumbents.
McCain might be able to beat Clinton but Obama would thrash him.
Abstinence in choice is simply letting someone else make that choice (and then living with it). Not that I don't understand the sentiment, but to be proud of it?
Quack, quack.
I for one welcome our future monkeyboy press conferences.
I'll throw my $0.02 in here: IMO, Ron Paul is probably not going to be the next POTUS, but I have worked damn hard and donated a fair bit of cash to get him there anyway. If he does not win the Republican nomination, I'm writing him in.
The key point here is that the Paul candidacy has raised the Constitution, and the notion that government should be limited as a serious issue to hundreds of thousands of Americans who otherwise may never have considered these things.
I hope that, win or lose, these people continue the fight.
That's what Ron said when my wife spoke to him, anyway...
Part of the Second American Revolution!
There isn't enough gold (or silver) in the world to support a pure specie currency, even with a serious correction to the value of the dollar, so you are correct on that point. A gold-stabilized standard failed in the '70s for various reasons. Ron Paul and the economists advising him advocate a hybrid gold-stabilized standard where the laws forbidding trade of gold/silver specie are lifted and the specie-pegged currency competes with the fiat currency giving people a hedge against paper instability and stagflation like we are going into (and discourages runaway printing of new paper). There is apparently a bit more to it than that, but I am not an economist.
"At least Reagan presided over the fall of the Soviet Union, although he can hardly take a lot of credit for that."
That statement is stupid beyond imagining. He certainly didn't bring down the USSR by himself...he had help....the Pope's influence in Eastern Europe, the Solidarity trade union in Poland, Margaret Thatcher, the Soviet's own corruption...but for anyone to claim that he had little or nothing to do with the Soviets falling is just whackjob land. Do us both a favor, and skip on over to the Libertarians. Because even when Barry Goldwater was running, he didn't have the outright hostility to religion and projection of American power abroad that you do. And please, no bullshit about how the GOP used to eschew religion....this party has had religious enthusiasm since its beginnings. Bibles were sold at Barry Godlwater's campaign rallies to raise money. If that kind of thing makes you uncomfortable, you need to find another party. And if you're not a Republican in the first place, then you're just trolling here anyway.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I agree that you'd have to be crazy to support Ron Paul.
But you'd have to be crazier to support any of the other GOP candidates who want to drive this country into hundred year wars, massive debt, the destruction of the middle class, and our eventual third world nation status if they win.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I just need to know. It seems Ron Paul has a powerful following among younger, technologically-savvy professionals. And these folks generally have a strong respect for science (I know, an unfounded assertion). But Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution.
For those of you supporting Paul, vociferously on Slashdot and other websites, how does that work? Doesn't that undermine some of his credibility?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
Wow, you touched off a decent fight here, didn't you? :-)
..." religious rhetoric everytime they answer a question. However, I'm not sure that much of the disdain many Canadians direct towards Harper isn't at least partly because of the social and religious conservatism of his party. They definitely try to appeal to a Christian conservative base and that is more successful in some regions than others, as what flies in Alberta probably won't work in Quebec for example, and there's a good reason large parts of Atlantic Canada often vote in stark opposition to the rest of the country. Harper definitely speaks a different language in Duceppe's neck of the woods :-)
I'm not sure it's entirely correct to say that religion is not a factor in Canadian elections. Sure, we don't print off big banners proclaiming our religious affiliations and our political leaders don't parrot the tired "Well, as a Christian with a great respect for family values and the sanctity of life and morals and bla bla bla
I think it comes down to our overall centre-left politics and to the regionalism inherent to Canadian politics. Generally, we tend to be more concerned with ascertaining whether their policies will make Canada a better country than what religious text they keep on their nighttable. What a concept.
I guess the sarcasm flew right over your head.
If not Ron Paul, then who? Do you honestly believe the dems are any different than the repubs? Big government A vs Big government B? please.
The fact of the matter is that we waste billions of dollars making the same decisions in thousands of cloned professional schoolboards across the country so that busybody mommies can meddle in something that they have no background in. Centralizing our schoolboards to some extent would lead to huge monetary savings, and if the statistics of the 15 industrialized nations that trounce us in the educational quality ratings are any example it would actually improve our educational system in other ways too. School curriculum should be *more* centralized, not less. Doing so would actually *reduce* the size of our government by double digit percentage points.
And yes, I consider myself to be a small-government conservative.
Ron Paul is definetely the only true Fiscal Conservative. I for the most part agree with his idea that smaller government is better and all that. I've heard the arguments against the Federal Reserve and FIAT money. I personally think that we could change the banking system here but coming off of FIAT money would be tricky if not impossible. I still haven't heard how he intends to go back to the Gold Standard. Moreover, most Americans don't know what the Gold Standard is which explains why he is behind in the polls. I think his message needs to be heard and the media is being lame/complicent in silencing him. Anderson Cooper actually cut him off mid-sentence and lied directly to his face during a debate.
I do need to take issue with your characterization of the other candidates as all the same though. If you know anything about political leanings then you know that there are two measures of conservativeness. Fiscal and Social. Mike Huckabee is the ONLY true Social Conservative in the bunch and to leave that information out is telling of your views. Huckabee intends to bring the law back into line with the idea of morality that at least half of the people in this nation see as right. I'm not talking about legislating morality. I'm talking about laws that prevent one citizen from harming another or forcing bias against another and disolving equality. Unlike Ron Paul, Huckabee is for a consitutional ammendement which would ban abortion in all except the most critical cases of endangering the mother's health. This isn't ignoring the consitution, it is bringing it in line with what is right and just. In addition Huckabee is for spending when it comes to certain things like infrastructure. Let me break down why this is important.
You state in your post that when an ill or a problem in society rears it's ugly head that many different approaches can be taken that fix this problem of which the Government is only one. This is true. But then you seem to advocate the Government almost never getting involved. I take issue with this. The obvious example would be roads. Infrastructure like roads are put in place by the Government because they are a shared resource that ADDS value to the economy and that would not be built except at great cost to the users if the Government didn't do it. For instance I take two toll roads and a major freeway on the way to work. In addition I traverse many public streets. The Toll Roads are underutilized because they cost money. If there were no tolls it would bring in much more to the economy of two different counties. The Public Freeway I take is utilized to full capacity. It's 7 lanes wide plus a carpool lane and well maintained. It is a main throuroughfare to much of the Greater LA Basin. If the government never built this then there is not way I would work where I did.
But infrastructure is easy to see the benefits of. Let's tackle healthcare since you seem to advocate Laissez-faire most for it. I would agree with you that the government should keep out if the free market proves to work in this interesting and complicated industry. In real life though this dream world couldn't be further from the truth. Millions of American's can't afford healthcare. Is this because providing healthcare costs too much? Nope. It is because once you add in the profit that health insurance companies take to the cost that it becomes too expensive for many middle income families to afford. This isn't the only problem. If left to their own devices insurance companies will do the follwing things:
1) Cherry Pick only the most healthy clients
2) Allow only group policies to keep administrative costs down
3) Allow people to join those group policies only once a year
4) Pay claims only after the clients complain or not pay the claims at all
5) Never respond to complaints and requests for claims to be reviewed
6) Literally steal their clients money
Therefore it is my view that at the very least the Government HAS to step in and enforce some rule of law. In addition I feel
If you cannot see the connection between politics and a presidential elections on one side and on the other, `stuff that matters' (even in the very small realm of technology), you have to turn your geek card back.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
McCain, Romney and Huckabee have all waffled and started puking platitudes when asked about waterboarding. The simple question for them is, "If waterboarding is NOT torture, then why are they doing it?" If we want a nation that is at least in appearance against torture, we need to avoid those candidates.
that's one thing that really does set him apart from the other candidates.
I want a pro constitution pro honest money pro limited government candidate. One who will end the war on drugs, One who will cut back the constant unrestrained growth of government that has happened over the last 60 years. Never once has the size of the federal government ever shrank. Never once has the amount of spending gone down. One who will get the Iraq war off our back, reign in the USA empire and bases all over the planet, one who will drastically reduce taxes AND spending, but not screw us over regarding the value of our money, and not load the future generation with 10 generations worth of debt.
Dammit. WTF is wrong with people? The fact that I don't even need to mention this candidates name should tell everybody everything that they need to know.
Oh, I don't know, after the track record since Ike, it looks to me like if you don't mind ruinous debt, unneeded foreign wars, and expansion of government crony contracts - then sure, voting GOP makes perfect sense.
Or you could be a patriot and vote for any of the Dems and save our country instead.
It's your choice.
But don't pretend it doesn't have consequences.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If Ron Paul doesn't make it, maybe someone in the next election will run on the same basis. They may not get in, but over time (hopefully) people will wake up and realize that Government control is not the answer.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
So the question becomes: Do you not believe that someones faith makes up a large percent of the total character of a person?
Huckabee seems more fun cause he laughs more.
Would I vote for someone that does not believe the same things I do, fundamentally? If they have one or two things different sure.. but I am talking something a large as faith. Belief in higher power, The Rastafarian Party, etc?
Make a list of things:
Abortion
Death Penalty
Stem Cell Research
Teen Pregnancy
War in Iraq
Tell me that all of those have nothing to do with Religion in the end.. and your position on it.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
If you're not voting for who you think is the best candidate, then you're playing some kind of game. If Hillary wins the D primary and McCain wins the Republican, I get the impression that Hillary *will* beat him, even though I like him more than Hillary. Right now the right way to play the game looks like voting in the D primary for Obama. Be it that I'm a Republican, my best hope is then to throw my vote in hope of some 3rd party or Ron Paul taking up the reigns. Basically, the issues that the Democrat versus Republican candidate will have nothing to do with what the party is actually about. I hope that with any luck, this election brings the downfall of the current party system.
No candidate of these three has done all of these:
- Is a constitutionalist.
- Has never voted to raise taxes.
- Has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
- Has never voted for the Iraq War.
- Has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
- Has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
- Has never voted to raise congressional pay.
- Has never taken a government-paid junket.
- Voted against the Patriot Act.
- Votes against regulating the Internet.
- Voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
- Votes against the United Nations.
- Votes against the welfare state.
- Votes against reinstating a military draft.
- Votes to preserve the constitution.
- Votes to cut government spending.
- Votes to lower healthcare costs.
- Votes to end the war on drugs.
- Votes to protect civil liberties.
- Votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
- Votes to eliminate tax-funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
- Votes to protect religious freedom.
If one of these three candidates has all of these qualities and has had these qualities throughout the entirety of their political career, please call me out on this and cite your sources so that I may read them and learn from my mistake myself.Colin Dean Go a year without DRM
Just a few follow-up statements. First, a country does not have to have a democratic society for us to open businesses there. We have a McDonald's in China and they are Communist. War was not a last resort in Iraq this time around. We declared war on a country who did nothing to us. But they could have done something to Israel, which I don't understand why we are protecting them. Why do we protect them, they do not give anything in return. Cuba is no less of a priority than any other dictatorship. My wife is Cuban, but she was born and raised here. She's visited down there and the majority of people are living under the poverty level, Castro controls everything, including all media. We are the only country that won't trade with them. Other countries are allowed to drill for oil off their shores, but we are not. Our military is shrinking, especially in the upper ranks. People are just enlisting to get the college money and then leaving. After the older people retire, we will be left with a very small military in 10 years. I agree that China and India have played a major role in our economic downturn, but if the government would tax the people less, then we could work for less money, and businesses would stay here. We may not be strapped for resources now, but we are on the road to getting there in 20 to 50 years. I for one, do not want to leave a crippled country to my kids and grandkids. Too many people vote for what a candidate can do for them right now. We need to vote for somebody who will ensure our country will be here for future generations. Every empire that has been built throughout history has eventually fallen. Ours will be no different. We need to stop pretending that our current economic system is the right one. You cannot print more money in hopes of solving our crisis. It needs to be backed up by something. Other countries are in the same boat. We have found out that the last eight years does not work and so far, most candidates are sticking with the status quo. We need to change our broken system. Even if we don't enact all the changes Ron Paul suggests, (seriously, how can he accomplish all of those changes) some of them are not bad. I read that we work until May for the government, then the rest of the year is for us. If they spent my money the way I wanted it to be spent, then fine, I'll have no problems paying taxes. Personally, if I earn money, it is mine to keep. There are a thousand ways for the government to collect money. I would love to see alot of the wasteful departments and programs eliminated. A good start would the the IRS, then the federal reserve, Departments of Energy, Education, Homeland Defense. What in the world do they do? I don't think anybody knows. As soon as the Department of Education was created and the government started grants and loans for students, the price of college skyrocketed. Everything the governemnt gets their hands in, gets more expensive. Nobody in Washington wants change, cause they are comfortable receiving their kickbacks from the drug companies, gun companies, oil companies and all the other lobbyists there. You say that we need to help other countries rebuild? How about rebuilding our country? The levies in New Orleans and the bridge in Minnesota are indicators of our infrastructure collapsing. But lets make sure that other countries don't experience these atrocities. We are the richest nation in the world and we cannot even protect our citizens from events like these. Makes me want to move to Canada. One last thing. Foreign policy is not the only issue this country faces. Everybody wants to just sweep the economy under the rug so that hopefully it fixes itself. With no economy, there is no foreign policy. In fact there won't be a United States of America.
"Also I dislike that he is in favor of gun control legislation, when the 2nd amendment clearly states 'Congress shall make no law.'" The Second Amendment actually reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously, laws have been made and passed regarding ownership of guns and other arms. Many of these laws have been upheld by the SCOTUS; therefore, they are Constitutional. I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal for you to own a nuclear bomb. This is not a response for or against Romney; I actually think you've summed up the candidates pretty well. But your wording of the Second Amendment needed correcting.
I'm not a human, but I play one on T.V.
9/11 was being planned while Clinton was in office. It was his destruction of our military that gave the terrorists an opportunity to strike. How many attacks anywhere near 9/11 have happened on our soil since?
In most of the western countries, being religious will only harm a candidate campaign, so it's not an issue. Yet, it is important. Blair said, lately, he hid the fact that he goes to church regularly, for political reason (and now, after he left the politic world, he can expose this fact).
Besides, what do you expect from a country putting "in god we trust" on their bills? I'm isrealy, the country has religious institutions, religious parties hold about fifth of the parliament, a government once fell (the parliament reelected) because some airplanes landed after sabbath started (it was 30 years ago), and yet personal belief is never discussed in politics. But in the USA, it seems as if personal belief is extremely important, perhaps because almost everyone there is religious to some extent. I assume that most isrealy politicians are atheists or at least religion will not be part of their decision making (except the publicly religious, about fifth of the parliament), and so nothing more should be said, in the USA, everyone are religious and it might interest you to what extent. It seems like it's been a major part in the current president's foreign policy.
As long as it was with chainsaws on top of a floating log.
SHIT! I just put my whole damned paycheck on the donkey. SHIT SHIT SHIT!
I don't get it. McCain is a bad choice because he's "Not electable", but then you push for Ron Paul?
I'm posting anonymously because I have mod points today
Appreciate that explanation, because I've stopped replying to AC's.
I don't see why this is necessarily a good idea. Simply by virtue of having children does not not make one an expert on how to educate children. Why not let the people who know about such matters make the important decisions.
And you're saying that unionized public school teachers know what is best for the student? I think not. First, standards in markets are set by what the community shows need for based on how they spend their money. In my town, definitely a lower class town, our local stores don't carry a lot of expensive items, because they don't sell. The town south of me is almost entirely hispanic, and their shoe stores tend to carry a lot of shoes in smaller sizes -- because their population tends to have smaller feet. We have a lot of taco restaurants, but no steak houses. The market has answered it's need. When the Federal, or even State government gets involved in trying to fulfill a market need, it does so with a blind eye to what the local population needs. Some people want cheap, small shoes that they can afford, and others want expensive designer shoes in size 14. Forcing the same standard on all localities leaves people with a product they can neither afford, nor need at the level they want. Education to me is not a right, and by making it one we've only made education worse for the average person who wants it for their kids.
I have read some of his campaign material, and I think the above statement is more than a little dishonest. He is trying to have his cake (he holds strong anti-abortion beliefs) and eat it to (by insisting it is a state rights issue).
What is wrong with a person saying "I believe in this, but I have to tell you that if I take this position, I really have no legal authority to dictate the issue, so my answer is that it's none of my business." That's Paul's position.
Unless you (or your spouse) are teachers or administrators with real-world experience in such matters, your comments strike me as needless flamebait.
I've been going to school board meetings since I was 19 (14 years). I've read almost 16 school year budgets. I've discussed actual needs with teachers AND administrators. The teachers' unions are lying, methodical thieves, who give nothing to the teachers they're supposed to protect. Little surprise, since most national unions act the same way. The administration is meaningless, too. In my state (Illinois), kids are getting dumber, but the administrations are fighting for freaking artificial turf for their sporting fields! The kids are dumb as bricks, but they need better grass for their football games? Right.
The parents, and only the parents, have the responsibility to lead their children in the proper direction. If the parents can't afford an education, that is what private subsidized education has been about. We've always had private churches and organizations providing for inexpensive education, until we taxpayers were forced to foot the bill on substandard "everyone's equal" education. It sickens me, because I do see the average person getting dumber and dumber. One-size-fits-all doesn't work, not even with gloves or hats.
Like anything else in the world, you get what you pay for. If you want the lowest costs, you are going to get the lowest quality.
Wow that is SO untrue. I bought a notebook for $2000 3 years ago that is sub-par to the notebook I bought recently for $600. Recently I found an oil-change service (prepaid annually) that is 1/2 the price of my previous place, but does a MUCH better and faster job. I'm a foodie, and I guarantee you that price does not equal quality of service. One of my businesses is the cheapest in the industry nation-wide, and we consistently get higher ratings than our competition that is 3-4x more expensive than we are.
Price and quality do not go hand-in-hand. Remember, with p
USAElectionPolls.com: Ron Paul
Rasmussen Reports, 1/22/08, Georgia, Ron Paul 12% Source
Rasmussen Reports, 1/29/08, Illinois, Ron Paul 10% Source
Non-Super Tuesday states:
Final Nevada Results, 1/19/08, Ron Paul 14%, Source
Final Iowa Results, 1/3/08, Ron Paul 10%, Source
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll, 12/11/07, South Carolina, Ron Paul 11%, Source
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
The responsibility of your children's education falls on you , jackass! The Dept. of Ed. is just something that makes it more difficult for you to make sure your kids get a good education.
At the risk of talking on topic. How about tech issues?
Here are two sites take on tech positions for canidates.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/01/29/the-techcrunch-tech-president-endorsements-barack-obama-and-john-mccain/
http://www.itconsulting.com/features/technology-presidential-vote-candidate-positions-020507/
Not much support for net neutrality legistation on the republicain side.
As the conservative position of "let the market decide" is the general consensus. i'll let you decide wether thats pro or con for techies.
On the plus side making the internet tax free and keeping the fed out of cell phone bills is definately a strong republicain position.
What we can be sure of none of these issues are on the map for the canidates or the mainstream media - unless some brain cells fire
and the "it's the economy, stupid" people realize that tech is a huge driver of the current US ecomony.
So virtually no canidates are talking about these issues and only Ron Paul and McCain have any track record to look at.
I'm from Texas so I don't have much say. We're too late in the game to affect the republican primary and the state will go
republicain in the national election unless something drastic happens ie: Democrats come to Jesus, go pro-gun, pro-life, anti-tax, limited government
It shall be spread.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Most or all of these guys are not republicans. They're the Evangelical Big Business party. You can come up with a better name, I'm sure. If you guys would just split into two parties, you could get some actual Republican platforms to run with. Wouldn't that be great? Then we in the Democratic party could shove a who bunch of "centrist" (who fill the whole left when the Republicans got bought by the VERY big business (as opposed to just pro-business in general) slash televangelists consortium) and we could get some ACTUAL liberal platforms.
I'm not a Democrat. I just vote for them as the slightly lesser of two evils. Wouldn't you like to vote for someone you'd actually want in office?
We need a three-party system and YOU need a three party system.
CNN is projecting Maine's results, with Ron Paul at 19%.
Source
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
I agree completely with your sentiments on Paul, except I cannot support him in the White House. As is mentioned in the Federalist Papers (kind of the liner notes to our government as drafted by the early patriots), the office of the President was never meant to wield the power that it does today.
In my interpretation, the office of the President is the only one-man branch of government simply because in some cases, snap decisions need to be made (under the laws set by Congress and the oversight of the Judiciary) when it is just not practical to convene the Congress. Military action is a good example, hence the reason for the Commander-in-Chief title. But snap military actions are supposed to be judged and authorized by the other branches, even if retroactively.
Diplomacy is also another reason for a one-man branch. It would be impractical to fly all of Congress to another country for a sit-down with another head of state. It would be equally impractical (especially at the time of the drafting of the Constitution) for Congress to convene to meet with a visiting dignitary and conduct any meaningful business.
But over the years, the office of the President (and some administrations more than others) have used their control of foreign policy and military action to dilute the power of the Congress and draw more powers for themselves. And that's bad.
Indeed, if powerful, persuasive and right-minded people were allocated to Capitol Hill, we would have a government far more representative of the people. I would like to see a lot more Ron Pauls on the Hill, but don't think he could do anything of any consequence in the big chair under the present government.
Of course the Presidential election is supremely important (precisely because the office has wrangled so much more power than it was originally intended to have), but we often fail to see that the Hill is equally, if not more important.
With that in mind (and to get this post a little more on-topic), I think that McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer.
Mitt is an open liar (claiming vehemently that no one affiliated in any significant way with his campaign was a lobbyist) and too deeply in love with corporate America.
Huckabee just plain scares me. It's people like him that cause America to confuse conservatism with right-wing theocracy. I have no problem with people openly being religious, praying, thanking God, etc., but this guy seems to want to make everyone fit into his Sunday morning routine. And I certainly don't find him charming or socially skillful enough to successfully relate to other heads of state.
Ron Paul will do more good as a voice for the people than as President.
McCain is a respectable (although I don't pretend he's squeaky clean) elder statesman, and one who can empathetically relate to others. He has nearly 80 years of diversified life experience in all kinds of situations. That is much more 'experience' than other candidates on either side can offer. He is an honorable man and one who takes respect very seriously. He has an awful temper, but that has not been a limiting factor in other administrations (ahem, Teddy Roosevelt). People accuse him of being a flip-flopper, but I think it's important that people have the ability to change their position when confronted with new/better evidence and arguments. Maintaining that the world is flat long after it was proven to be round just to avoid 'flip-flopping' would be dumb.
One of the biggest McCain issues for me is that I'm not entirely sure how ingrained he is with the Republican cronies we've seen over the last few administrations. I'm sure he lunches with them, I just need to know he's not in bed with them.
The other problem could be his choice of VP. The thought that Rice or Giuliani could be VP under an aging President scares the hell out of me. I don't think McCain is too old to be President, or that he will invariably die in office, but as an older man we can likely expect h
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Again, thank you for your post and I wish you were mod'd higher!
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Yeah, lots of racists are supported by a president of the NAACP. Look it up.
You're joking right?
Stockwell Day was regularily burned in the media for his religious view. (which was odd when you consider his foot-in-mouth disease gave the media a near endless supply of stupid things they could have kept harping on)
In both of the last federal elections the media has made a big deal about Harper not campaigning on Sundays. Not to mention the numerous people who claimed that Harper was going to change the country into a church run state.
While its certainly true that religion is not as visible in our politics as in the US, don't pretend its not there.
We did vote for the Dems. Then they took impeachment off the table and grabbed their ankles.
Why is there no humor label attached to this post? Ron Paul got 3rd place in Maine (the latest election) and 2nd in Nevada. We should discuss Hackabee instead? Honestly, if CmdrTaco wants to pull jokes, why not put the humor label?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
In contrast, I disagree with John McCain on several issues (primarily in the area of corporate business incentives vs. lowered spending and de-federalization resulting in lower taxes) -- but he will probably get my vote in spite of the fact that he is also a Christian because he at least practices what he preaches -- fiscal conservatism, governmental responsibility, big-stick diplomacy (which in some ways is roughly the same as it was in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- "don't mess with the American citizens, lest we come stomp on yer heads"). Is he right? I don't know. But in the primary, he gets my vote.
In the general election? I don't know. Depends on whether or not he is nominated, and whether the other person I consider to be an honest candidate (Obama) gets through as well.
Bottom line? I support people with a reputation for telling the truth.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
Not supposed to talk about democrats; but as far as I am concerned, it is either one republican or else it's a democrat. So I have to bring it up.
Given the opportunity, I will vote for Paul. If Paul isn't an option (not in the race when it comes time), I'll vote for Obama, mainly to avoid Ms. Clinton, who I think is even less presidential than the usual run of offerings. I'd like to see a woman hold the office just for the sake of the country having to admit that one can, but not *that* woman. Thankfully, the same applies to a black person, and plus, he's considerably less annoying than the other candidates. Maybe he'll do some tiny fraction of good. I doubt it, but one can hope. I think she would screw things up from day one.
There are only two arguments that make any impact on me. One is the one where people point out that Paul is a religious wacko; I agree, he is, but so are all the other candidates, and Paul has made it abundantly clear that he has no intent of subjugating me and mine to his religious outlook. That's about as much as you can hope for in a country where 80% or so of those polled respond by selecting "I'm superstitious." The other is immigration; I'm pro-unskilled-immigration and anti-"we are special because we have citizenship papers." People are people, and immigrants have a time-honored and useful place in our economy, from which they can leverage themselves up, or not, as opportunity and drive allow for. In the meantime, there are lawns to be mowed, kids to be watched, vegetables and fruit to be picked, and ditches to be dug, etc. Jobs which most pompous Americans wouldn't do for similar wages even if they were starving. So I am at odds with Paul here; but he is so spot-on with the rest of his outlook for governance that I'm afraid I'm going to have to overlook the whole immigration thing and hope his conscience will change his outlook on that issue over time.
Finally, I am of the opinion that 50 states doing 50 different things have a considerably better chance (50x!) of getting things right than one country, especially since the country itself has failed to do so and is going the wrong way at quite a distressing rate.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Any more bad assertions you'd like to make?
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
According to a few web forms asking me how I feel about issues, my best pick for my primaries is Ron Paul. For real. But as I expect he will not be getting the Republican party behind him, my second best republican pick is McCain on these web forms. (OK, one of them put Huckabee as my second R pick, but after seeing some of his super-religious stuff he wants ammended to the Constitution then he's out for me) So I'll vote Paul in the Primaries and expect to see McCain on the final election ballot.
But even though I'm registered R, I may find myself voting D in the finals. I like the oldschool R ideals of small government and things like that, but in recent years Dubya has tossed that ideal in the trash. Things my dad still uses as reasons to support the R party no longer seem to apply at all. Bush is for big government. I can see him and Cheney and friends taking our guns away someday. (I'm not a gun nut, but my dad is and this is one of the big reason's he uses to talk people out of going D, the other being that he doesn't want the Ds to turn America into a socialist state)
Even the other comment on this was modded 'funny'. I don't think people realize how much he is affecting this race.
What does FOX news show? The 'top 3' candidates: "Romney 51%, McCain 13%, Huckabee 8%" Paul got nearly twice the votes of Huckabee yet he doesn't even appear. Almost no mention is made of this anywhere. He is not allowed in debates even though he had more support than several other candidates that were invited. This is a case of the media making the news people. I can actually see why they might have the three people listed that had won other states, but even then I think a special note should have been made of Paul's strong showing.
What the republicans should be worrying about is Obama getting the democratic nomination while they should be praying for Hilary to get the nomination. I wouldn't vote for Hilary in a million years. There are only two candidates for real change in the race after Edwards dropped out, Ron Paul and Barack Obama. I expect Paul supporters to flock to Obama if he gets the nomination. Hilary is business as usual. Go to Obama's web site and read about the issues. Heck, go to all the candidate's sites and do the same. Obama is the one that actually thinks about the issues. He opposed the war when that was unpopular. The things Hilary says in her speeches now with 'hindsight' (I didn't know Bush would do this, etc) are exactly what Obama said in his speech against the war before he voted 'No'. Hilary will get advice and money from the same lobbyist groups that the republicans will. Obama and Paul let their intelligence and their conscience guide their decisions. If Obama gets the nomination and either Romney or McCain get the republican nomination then Paul supporters and many others that think of themselves as republican will flock to Obama and we will have a democrat in the whitehouse in '09'. If Hilary gets the democratic nomination then I will be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate just to help show that reform is needed in the election process to make them viable (more people would vote third party if the process wasn't setup so they were throwing their vote away).
Oh, Canadian. I thought for a second you were an illegal immigrant.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
McCain is the flip flopper? Wasn't Rommney a pro choice pro tax republican until his miraculous conversion a few years ago?
McCain has stronger conservative credentials anyday.
http://saveie6.com/
The Republican candidates left are the dud ones. McCain is too old (72), and Huckabee is too weird. Neither has any management experience. Romney is the best of the lot, and would probably do OK.
Both Edwards and Giuliani looked better than the three remaining candidates.
None of these men came out of the Bush administration. Coming from "Team Bush" is a political kiss of death at this point.
I agree with most of what you say. There has to be a balance between Federalism and States Rights. The Articles of Confederation failed miserably because they did not provide enough central government. There has to be a balance somewhere (whether it is ever or ever has to be "comfortable" is another argument), but we have far overshot it. I am religious, and I hope that my actions, when I am not royally screwing up, might interest others in my beliefs, but hitting people over the head with them is just not the way to go.
One of the few statements I disagree with is on immigration. A good chunk of my family were recent immigrants, but they came here legally, working hard and sacrificing to do so. As for most of the jobs you mention, I did many of them growing up to pay my way through school. I also worked the bunker in trap shoots, over 110F operating the machine. My dad did the same thing picking potatoes for 60 cents a day growing up. I have gutted chickens. I have dug ditches and hauled rocks. I have worked in a butcher shop. Good luck doing any of that now. You can't compete with the illegal immigrants for those jobs that were traditional for high school or college students on break or temp jobs while trying to land better employment. I'd do dirty jobs, but not if I have to break the law and can't pay even my (basic) rent, buy food, or get to the job and back, again, without breaking the law.
Shame on you. While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him. I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous. If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
I'm not sure I understand your problem with the fair tax. You didn't give one, other than not wanting to pay a 30% tax. You seem to be missing that with the fair tax you take home your WHOLE PAYCHECK. To anyone that is working a mildly respectable job, this equates to taking home that ~30% of your paycheck that is currently being taken out for federal tax, Social Security, and Medicare.
In the end it equals out, with the exception that congress can no longer write in companies for earmark tax exemptions.
The difference is that Thompson didn't campaign, and Guiliani thought he didn't need to campaign until Florida
Both Thompson and Giuliani spent more time in Iowa than Ron Paul "frantically" did:
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2008/ia08/iavisits08r.html
The "not campaigning until Florida" decision wasn't some strategy that Giuliani had from the beginning, it was an attempt to lower expectations after it became obvious that he wasn't going to win Iowa no matter how much work he put in there. The only thing Giuliani's campaign thought was that conceding the Iowa race wouldn't look quite as bad as trying his hardest to win it and then losing anyway.
While Paul is admittedly far-right, his policies are more in line with the historical republican platform than McCain's.
War was not a last resort in Iraq this time around. We declared war on a country who did nothing to us. But they could have done something to Israel, which I don't understand why we are protecting them. Why do we protect them, they do not give anything in return.
Israel gives plenty in return. For a quick overview you should visit http://www.israel21c.net/
Allow me to list a few:
1) A strategic ally: the only democracy in the middle-east, a place that both Russia and the US are trying to get a foot-hold in.
2) Exports tons of high-quality technology: a large portion of Intel CPUs, cell phones, health care products are designed there.
3) Business opportunities: their GDP is through the roof and all major US companies have an Israeli branch. You will find that the vast number of startups that make it big have started in Israel.
4) Security exports: Israel is the #1 exporter of security technologies, ranging from protective vests to anti-missile systems to unmanned reconnaissance vehicles, etc.
I would ask you to compare this to what Britain and France does for the US given their relative sizes. It's pretty impressive.
Cuba is no less of a priority than any other dictatorship. My wife is Cuban, but she was born and raised here. She's visited down there and the majority of people are living under the poverty level, Castro controls everything, including all media. We are the only country that won't trade with them. Other countries are allowed to drill for oil off their shores, but we are not.
Yes, but Cuba is not funding terrorism against the US, nor is it gassing its people. People might be poor but there is no active genocide going on. The same can't be said for other countries around the world.
Our military is shrinking, especially in the upper ranks. People are just enlisting to get the college money and then leaving. After the older people retire, we will be left with a very small military in 10 years.
I can't speak to that. The same is true for the armies of many countries around the world. To a certain degree, technology is stepping in to replace certain positions. Still, you probably know more about this than I do.
I agree that China and India have played a major role in our economic downturn, but if the government would tax the people less, then we could work for less money, and businesses would stay here.
It's not that simple, otherwise other countries in the world would have done the same. India and China is so cheap that even if the tax rate was zero you still wouldn't be able to compete with them on all levels. I think you need to wrap your head around the fact that some of their people work for around $2 an hour. I don't think any American employee wants to lower his standard of living to that.
We may not be strapped for resources now, but we are on the road to getting there in 20 to 50 years. I for one, do not want to leave a crippled country to my kids and grandkids. Too many people vote for what a candidate can do for them right now. We need to vote for somebody who will ensure our country will be here for future generations.
I think each and every one of us has the ability to do exactly that. First, take responsibility for your own actions and clean up your personal debt. Then encourage others around you to do the same. If everyone did that I promise you it would do more to help America's future than anything else. I find it silly that Americans expect the government to take care of problems for them which are completely within their control. I would personally only expect the government to take responsibility for anything *beyond* my personal control and I believe this attitude will lead to a smaller government which is what most people want.
Every empire that has been built throughout history has eventually fallen. Ours will be no different. We need to stop pretending t
Wow, you've surely been reading your (public education forced) history books!
Shame on you.
No, shame on you for not researching Lincoln's traitorous nature deeper, and accepting history based on what the powers that be want it to say.
While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him.
Lincoln proved to Congress that he was a tyrant and a dictator. He deported a Congressman who disagreed with his interpretation of Presidential powers. Read up on it, it's amazing. He jailed hundreds of the PRESS who disagreed with him. Lincoln supported the laws in Illinois when he was a State politician that banned blacks from immigrating into the State. He was the worst president, provably.
I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous.
Sure, because the current court of law takes its power from the dictatorial creation that Lincoln left in the wake of the War between States. I'd say that Roosevelt was worse in terms of destroying the Judicial branch, but Lincoln opened the door for him. See DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" for an amazing amassing of Lincoln's own words in his hatred for the Republic.
If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Lincoln hated blacks. He wanted all blacks deported to Haiti or Africa. He believed blacks were sub-human, and didn't want them in Illinois. Lincoln never freed a single black, actually. His "Emancipation Proclamation" was written specifically to only free blacks in a country that he wasn't President in. His war was one of terrorism, raping and pillaging (see: Sherman's March to the Sea). He destroyed the powerful dollar by taking it off a metal standard, created one of the worst economic situations with his Greenback, and proceeded to jail thousands upon thousands of dissidents. He found an unconstitutional war (secession was a right held by many States that entered into the voluntary Union from the start).
The War between States was not about slavery, either. The primary reason to fight the war was so that Lincoln could tax southern states in order to provide the money for his corporate buddies to build "bridges to nowhere" type internal "improvements." Lincoln did this while an Illinois politician, raising billions in taxes to build canals that were never built (but the money spent), and other improvements that improved nothing.
He was a tyrant. As a person of mixed race myself, I would never believe that Lincoln freed anyone. He was racist, a criminal, and doesn't deserve the heralding and cheer that confused people give him.
Forgive me if I start swearing up a storm here but when in the name of gods green earth before 2007 did any of you in the party assume John McLame was a conservative? How about ever time I look at Flip Romney I see a sleaze bucket that blows in the wind.. he reminds me of Bill Clinton.
I voted for Bush twice I've always been a Republican and for god sakes I came to my senses. Our party is going to hell. We had two really good really conservative people in the race for president, Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul and we have ignored them both so we could vote for these jerk wads so they can give us total illegal amnesty, gun bans, and wreck our economy even further with their aimless runaway spending??! WHY?
Whats wrong with the Republicans anymore, have you all lost your minds? you all need to take a serious look at who you are supporting and why.. your all lucky Ron is still somehow in the race.. I still believe we will come to our freaking senses in a mass epiphany tomorrow and all vote for him while there is still chance to save this party.. and the Republic of the United States as we know it..
Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
Anyone can sit back and vote no on everything. It is far tougher to assemble and organize a coalition of legislators that succeeds in actually changing things. McCain has done this numerous times. Paul has never, as far as I can tell from his record, even come close.
His votes tell a good story. But that's all they are. I've looked for any real change that he has captained, and I haven't seen anything substantial.
His supporters say that he has not had a good enough platform--put him in the White House and he'll use the veto to make the changes. But the fact is that a veto is only as strong as the coalition that backs it. If President Paul cannot succeed at the political maneuvering necessary to make Congressional Republicans follow his line, they'll simply make their own decisions and go around him. So far I have not seen any proof that Paul is adept at that sort of thing. What good are strong principles if he's not effective at implementing them?
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I'm not talking about tactical strategies here. The issue is abortion, and he should not have advertised one way when he actually believed another. I lump abortion with things like separation of church and state, gun rights, etc... These are the things a candidate should have resolved before taking the oath of office.
Of course things change, but there was no sudden surge of or outcry against abortions in Mass. No facts changed on abortion between the time Romney ran and the time he became pro-life.
I stand corrected about Stockwell Day. However, the guy never did get much airtime in my part of the federation (Québec), hence why I may have missed it. Back then, the Alliance was not very popular around here ...
:wq
After reading a lot of these comments I have 2 thoughts that I want to share:
1) Maybe I just didn't look deep enough.. but there has been little or no discussion about something that I consider to be a really important issue - Ron Paul is now the only presidential candidate that is *against* the Real ID act. That's a big deal for me. I definitely don't want a chipped and trackable national ID card that I am *required* to carry by law. That is so blatantly unconstitutional it's scary. I don't want to elect anyone that will be willing to give up our constitutional rights of privacy and citizenship anymore than they already have been. Actually fixing these issues we have now would be a plus (like the current lack of Habeas Corpus - "Wait, you're saying you can come into my house without a warrant and put me in prison for life without a trial? And it's legal for me to be tortured there??". Sure, maybe this will never happen to good, law-biting, non-terrorist citizens like you and me, but the fact that they can if they want to is way too much power. Same for the ID cards... what are the implications of a system like that?
2) The entire concept of "electablity" implies that the *media* has already decided who the winner of the elections will be and that our votes don't really matter unless we vote for the candidates they've selected. I understand that in the end it may seem that we have to chose the lesser of two evils and throw our vote to the most likely candidates so that our vote can have some semblance of meaning. However, not voting for who you believe in and instead voting for who you are told will be the winner is essentially allowing the media to elect our president (and of course they're voting for whoever brings them more money). Regardless of what the surveys and polls try to suggest, they are not the election, and the decisions aren't made until the actual votes are tallied. But even then, we've allowed a system to be put in place that actually devalues our voting power (Bush didn't win the popular vote, but he still became president), so maybe this is a moot point... In the end, meaningless or not, might as well stay true to our values.
Not only the conservatives can make a point on principle. Is that the same thing with Ron Paul.
And what about the Green party? In 2000 with Al Gore IIRC, they had the same thing. And what we got was W.
You have evidently been listening to the media about the Fair Tax. You should really investigate what it is before judging it. Try reading some of the economist analysis and what it really means. You can easily do some research on it by going to http://www.fairtax.org/
As for Huckabee? Do you honestly believe a president can force a theocracy down the throats of a nation? I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe that. However, he is shrewd enough to know where his base is and I'm sure that he plays up his Christianity to consolidate it.
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
I don't have a large problem with the fair tax. I guess it comes down to a lot more business being done under the table. I've asked local businesses for their best cash price before, knowing that they might go under the table and discount me half the taxes. With the fair tax this kind of business would increase drastically. It adds a 23% difference to the already attractive dodging of business taxes and sales taxes.
Not only does the tax code need to be changed, but we need to have an amendment against an income tax, and we need to stop stifling our economy with such his tax rates. 23% of every dollar spent should not go to the federal government. Period.
I sure hope Hillary and Obama were on the same flight!!
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You win or you don't. Right now Ron Paul is staying in to shift the debate, not to win. He is killing Romney's business voters. Watch him endorse McCain after he concedes.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
You do realize that many certain private schools and home-schooling groups exist solely because the public schools are poorly equipped to deal with learning disabilities? Or kids who learn differently, but are not considered "disabled". Even have or know kids in the public school system who have to fight to get a decent Individal Education Plan that is most that just fancy daycare?
Let us talk dept for a moment. Dems say we can't mess with any welfare program such as social security, medacaid, or medacare. They want to give free healthcare to everyone. How do we pay for this and add more? We can't afford what we are doing. We are discouraging people to work. I won't be able to afford my house when I am paying 60% or more in income tax alone. Remember the government can't give you anything. The government doesn't have a job. It can only take and redistribute. If it goes after business for the money the cost gets passed to the consumer, and once again you take it. The answer to debt is simple - Stop spending money. Thomas Paine said that the duty of a patriot is to protect his country from his government. I am willing to vote for someone that will not take everything that I have and give it to some lazy ass, some business, or some other country. I should choose which lazy ass, business, or country to give my money to. If a charitable cause is that important to you give to a charity that helps them or start one for yourself. FYI Vietnam was on LBJ's watch.
Sic Semper MicroSoft
How would they get enough votes? The same way you get things past a Senate filibuster--by buying votes with earmarks and pet projects. The more votes you need from the other party to get a bill passed, the more pork you're going to need to load onto the bill.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I don't believe Huckabee would succeed in making us a Theocracy. I believe he would waste most of his political pull on religious issues though (with the exception of the tax code). After Bush and his 3 trillion budget we need a Republican that acts like a Republican and makes some serious changes. If he's busy throwing around his weight on religious issues how can he address the real problems?
Independent journalist Allan Nairn and American Conservative correspondent Kelley Beaucar Vlahos discuss a little-addressed facet of the 2008 campaign: many of the top advisers to leading presidential candidates are ex-U.S. officials involved in atrocities around the world.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us
[Most likely DemocracyNow can handle plenty of hits, but you never know... so here is the full transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: Presidential candidates are scrambling to win last-minute support in Iowa ahead of tonight's caucus. Thousands of reporters have also descended on Iowa this week, covering everything from Mike Huckabee's haircut to John Edwards's rally with singer John Mellencamp.
But little attention has been paid to perhaps one of the most important aspects of the candidates: their advisers, the men and women who likely form the backbone of the candidate's future cabinet if elected president. Many of the names will be familiar.
Advisers to Hillary Rodham Clinton include many former top officials in President Clinton's administration: former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former National Security Adviser Samuel Berger, former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Senator Barack Obama's list includes President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, former Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross.
Rudolph Giuliani's advisers include Norman Podhoretz, one of the fathers of the neoconservative movement. John McCain's list of official and formal policy advisers includes former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, General Colin Powell, William Kristol of The Weekly Standard, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. One of Mitt Romney's top advisers is Cofer Black, the former CIA official who now serves as vice chair of Blackwater Worldwide. Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Elizabeth is advising Fred Thompson.
As for Mike Huckabee, it's not clear. In December, Huckabee listed former UN Ambassador John Bolton as someone with whom he either has "spoken or will continue to speak," but Bolton then revealed the two had never spoken. Huckabee also named Richard Allen, but the former National Security Adviser also admitted he had never spoken to Huckabee.
To talk more about the advisers behind the presidential campaigns, I'm joined by two guests. Kelley Vlahos is a freelance journalist in Washington. Her article on presidential advisers called "War Whisperers" appeared in The American Conservative in October. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn joins us here in the firehouse studio. We welcome you both to Democracy Now!
I want to begin by going to Washington, D.C., to our guest there, to the author of "War Whisperers." Talk about why you focused, Kelley, on the advisers of the presidential candidates.
KELLEY BEAUCAR VLAHOS: Well, it was becoming clear to me and to others here in Washington in certain circles that the advisers that were emerging for the campaigns, whether it be Democratic or Republican, were part of some seriously pro-establishment cliques. And I say "cliques," because there is really no other way to describe it. But these cliques generally can be categorized as not only pro-establishment, but more pro-interventionist, whether it be the so-called liberal interventionists on the Democratic side or your war hawks on the Republican side.
But what became clear is that the candidates weren't reaching outside of these establishment cliques and that they were getting no fresh ideas, no vision outside of these pretty standard parameters. And we thought--me and the editors thought it might be a good idea to explore a little bit under the surface about where these of advisers were coming from, in hopes of maybe deciphering where foreign policy might be going in the future.
AMY GOODMAN: Let's begin with Hillary Clinton, Kelley Vla
Well, Thomas Paine - he did not go by Tom, by the way - was also a bit of a nutter.
... and the lack thereof indicates a post written in haste.
I find the use of paragraphs indicates taking a breath between thoughts
Our nation has had enough with GOP solutions, all of which amount to putting our nation in a race to the bottom, while piling on massive debt.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Shouldn't a Christian vote with their Bible? Certainly, it would be stupid to vote for the candidate just because he labels himself Christian. It is shameful so many made that mistake with Bush II. But if religion is more than just a hat you wear, shouldn't your beliefs strongly influence everything you do, including voting? As a Christian, I search for the candidate who will do the most good and the least evil. I want the candidate who will make the USA the kindest country possible, the candidate who will support life at every age (not just conception through birth!), and a candidate who will otherwise lead us in being the best country we can be. Just so, as a person with a disability I'd like them to support the repair of the ADA. As a citizen, I want someone who will support civil liberties in all their forms and restore those that have been abridged. I vote my beliefs, on a balance of all my beliefs, every election. Everyone should. If your beliefs are truly held, how can they not help you decide who to vote for? I haven't decided on way or another on Huckabee or any other candidate, but when I do it won't be based on his club membership card. It will depend on how well his platform and predictable performance matches up with my beliefs, biblical and otherwise, as compared to the other choices.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Faith means not having to plan. It means believing that your actions are guided by a higher purpose. Not planning is precisely where this administration went wrong.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Seriously? Egypt? When was the last time they had a change of government because someone lost an election? Palestine is not currently recognized as an independent nation. You are probably right about Lebanon being a democracy, but with elections being constantly threatened by assassinations I am not sure that it can be claimed that they have a truly representative government. Afghanistan does not have a democracy. The president was elected in a manner similar to US original electoral college -- the local warlords got to pick who they all agreed on. I must admit I don't know enough about Indonesia, so you might be right about it. Chad, yemen, UAE are actually theocracies, so I don't know why you would bring them up. Interestingly, you forgot the most obvious one -- Turkey. It is certainly predominately Muslim and it is certainly democratic. They actually have a full separation of church (so to speak) and state.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Considering the decline in Christian religious attendance over the course of the 20th century (not to mention other religions gaining footholds in GOD'S COUNTRY) it sort of indicated that not that high a percentage people in the US want to hear what Preachers have to say. He's been backpedaling from when he was one and trying to play up how he's an effective Governor not a Priest. It's not sticking. He might as well carry a cross to his rallies and most of the people attending wish he would.
Fundies Only Fundies will vote for him, any other sort of Republican will run in terror.
By that mark, you can see the percentage of Fundies in the party showing their colors.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
...if Ron Paul were elected President, he would be persona non grata on the Hill, and therefore could get nothing done. Just based on the powers of the president that every sixth-grader knows about:1) He is commander-in-chief: he can tell the military to leave Iraq immediately.
2) He is head of the executive branch: he could order the justice dept to either charge all the people in Guatanamo, or let them go.
3) He can pardon: he could pardon every prisoner in the country who is in for consensual drug crimes ( this is something like 1/3 ).
4) He could nominate SCOTUS replacements who have read the constitution recently.
And that is just the obvious stuff. Then there are all kinds of obscure powers, such as directives and signing statements.
Then there is the ability to veto.
Indeed.
No politician who supports the hideous, free-speech-trampling,
McCain-Feingold bill can be considered conservative.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. -- George Orwell
No, the minority GOP who can block the impeachment took it off the table.
Facts are like rocks - if you hold them up to the light, you see things.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
He is the most liberal Republican in memory. The only conservative value he has is for the war effort. He will never get the conservative vote. Being a nominee will split the party and destroy it. He should run as a Independent. I won't vote for him as a Republican.
I have no delusions about his actually winning, but I sure as hell am not going to throw my vote away on some other candidate when I can vote for the guy I actually agree with.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Actually the straw polls for the media is entirely different than the delegates elected at the caucus. As of now, Maine, Iowa, Nevada, Louisiana - every caucus state - has not selected any national delegates. That won't be for awhile, months in some cases. Every state has different rules and some caucus rules are even odder than others. In most states caucus' elected delegates can vote for whomever they please at the county/state level later on. In many cases the actual percentage of delegates who were elected were different based on their voting slate than they were in the straw poll. Ron Paul and Hucklebee have great grassroot support and their delegate lists who were elected are very different than straw polls. What the media reports are estimates. I wouldn't be surprised for changes in the delegates once the caucus go through the full selection process. Unfortunately this isn't for months and by then the nomination is a fix. So winning a straw poll can cause a false media sensation even if they don't 'win' a states delegates. We can't make voting easy now ;)
I was mainly joking about the slew of racist trolls we get here who sometimes have a Ron Paul bent. They're typically Anonymous Cowards as well, like the parent ;)
Not discussing Ron Paul here is deeply sad. I expect the Slashdot crowd to be able to see past the glossing over of issues that the corporate media pushes and be able to see the importance of the battle of philosophies of government that the Paul campaign represents. The other 3 candidates are pretty generic politicians. They'll say whatever they think is most likely to get them elected. There are generic platitudes and dealing with as few issues in the most generic way possible and your typical political BS but no real substance there. In the meantime there are debates raging over philosophies of government, its just not being reported on so you don't hear about it much. For some reason actually covering politics, not politicians and political trivia is distasteful in American media.
In general Ron Paul's most controversial policy seems to be the one opposing the war and unfortunately he's not very charismatic about explaining why he holds his position. He mostly points to the constitution to defend his position expecting people to understand the reasons behind why the constitution says what it does, but that goes over most people's heads these days.
There are huge competing ideologies in our government right now and a Ron Paul candidacy shines an important light on a few debates we need to be having. They are uncomfortable topics for a lot of powerful people and so getting the debate started is difficult but its important enough that we Slashdotters should be behind it 100%.
My biggest issue with the government as it exists now is our foreign policies and how they keep pushing "Making the world safe for democracy" while, in practice, they do the exact opposite. Any action by us, designed to influence the government of a foreign country is an action that subverts and does damage to democracy. This goes for toppling, subsidizing, backing militarily, or any other type of support for any government, good or bad. Any time we do these things we do them either because they are in the best interest of Americans or because Americans think its the right thing to do. The problem is that this inevitably taints whatever outcome, good or bad, with the fact that it was, at least partially, a reflection of the interests of Americans not the interests of the citizens of that country. As democracy is only really democracy if the government is one that solely represents and acts upon the will of it's citizenry. Any government which is serving the interests of the US in any way, isn't really a democracy. All our meddling in other countries, no matter how well intentioned, undermines peace and security there. This is true, not just in theory, but it's visible in practice in almost every country the CIA has tried to advance the "American" agenda. The disasters they have wrought have killed millions and subverted democracy all over the world and very likely even here in the US. Our government shouldn't, and arguably doesn't have the authority to do these things and yet they keep happening.
Just look at the cold war for example: We were so worried about Russia spreading communism to the world that we were willing to commit atrocities to keep it from happening. Look a few years later and not only are they not trying to push communism on other countries, they've abandoned it themselves. Now.. instead of committing atrocities to save a bad thing from happening.. looking back all we really did was commit atrocities. In fact, contrary to the goal of making the world safe for us, these middlings have made the world a very unsafe place for us. This is the thing the war-mongers don't want people to see. They want you to see everything in terms of either we keep fighting until we win or we give up and they win. A battle of ideas isn't like that though. Often, the harder you fight the worse you make everything.
The 3 major Republican candidates are trying to sell me protection from nebulous bad guys who are out to get me. I'm not buying it. They are ending up using that power
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
Does anyone else take this as a deliberate flamebait article so that the only candidate talked about IS Ron Paul?
Nice social engineering CmdrTaco!
Why is it people still confuse political and economic ideologies? One can have a democratic communist state - Venezuela gets closer by the day. One can also have a communist dictatorship - we're very familiar with these. One could have a Socialist Republic. One could also have a mercantile republic (which the states is becoming) or a capitalist republic (which the states were designed for). Conveniently Paul does feel the way you do. The IRS and many other departments could easily be removed and with it their wasteful spending. We as a nation have spent so long neglecting our own nation. It's always easier to fix someone else than fix yourself. Our economy is in the tubes and we are rapidly watching each of our strengths as a nation diminished through our action and inaction when looking at a global world. We need to stop focusing on the problems outside this nation and start fixing the ones here. The people of the United States need to recognize that they control the government. The government represents them. They tell the government what to do rather than the other way around. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government" Of course that would require americans to think for themselves and not just listen to and obey what they are told.
You are much to naive about private property and state. For example, would that private website argument work, if the "owners" were to require, say, that no blacks or Jews are allowed to post here? It's their property, right, they can invite there whoever they wish? Or if the owner of a restaurant wishes to have a smoker's room, or god forbid, smokers only restaurant? He owns it, it's his money, he can open such place, right? Or you wish to develop your "private" land which feds have labeled as "wetlands"?
State already behaves as if it owns everything. It may be that none of the particular examples matter to you at present, but eventually, your ox will be gored, too. Then you will realize what Ron Paul was talking about and what the bumper stickers "Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" mean.
I would prefer that there be no illegal immigration to this country. I would prefer that all immigrants be legal. Unfortunately, that can't happen with our current immigration policies. I think I read that with the current immigration quotas, the queue of people waiting to immigrate from Mexico and Central America is over 100 years.
I suspect that for most of these people, it's not that they want to break the law, they simply have no choice if they want to feed their families.
A Republican will be elected is if nobody else runs, GWB has been such a total mistake that people will need time to forget or find a Democrat that is as much of a failure to swing public opinion the other way!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
How the heck is this "+5 insightful"??
Just as there is no "-1 I disagree", there is no "+1 I agree" moderation option.
This is just a "me too" comment, and it does not offer any insights.
No sig for the moment.
Not being from Arkansas I have no prior experience with what he's done but I have to say that I like the way Mike Huckabee thinks and I like what I've heard about him and from him. He's one of the few Republican candidates to come out and say, hey, maybe Bush did jump in to Iraq a little too quickly. But unlike the democratic candidates or Ron Paul, Huckabee is still clear on the fact that we need to finish what we started.
I also sort of like that he gets attacked by Rush and Hannity for doing exactly what he says he's going to do. For instance, he raised the sales tax by 37%. What the actual numbers are I have no idea but that probably means something like 3.0% to 4.0%. He also lowered income taxes. Overall they're saying he thus "raised taxes" by 800 some million and only lowered them by 300 some million. But I assume they are talking about revenue there and to me it's totally consistent with his position that we need to lower or completely rid ourselves of income/production taxes and raise sales/consumption taxes to get the revenue the government needs to run. Huckabee is a fair-taxer, which I like.
Huckabee is also against the "school vouchers" program and his reasoning is quite interesting. He feels that giving vouchers to parochial schools could be used by an organization like the ACLU to try to claim that parochial schools were now receiving government funding and were thus subject to government rules. Instead, Huckabee would like to reduce the tax burden so that families could simply afford themselves to send their kids to alternative schools.
He's also an evangelical preacher and seems to be a rather moderate one. I myself am not an evangelical (much more traditional.. episcopalian if anything) but I like that Huckabee is a religious man who seems to know that religion has its place and government has its place. They are intertwined in principles and goals but one of our founding principles is that religion is not part of the state. Of course my brother the democrat doesn't like him because he fears a theocracy. I like him for the same reason though. That is to say I too fear a theocracy and also fear the government trying to take over the role of religion (i.e. the religion of atheistic government). I feel that Huckabee is definitely a supporter of separation of church and state and knows that religion has a place in people's lives for those who choose to believe.
The problem is that Huckabee has really screwed up by not going after McCain and instead only going after Romney. Both Huckabee and McCain have had the foresight to take on main-stream media issues like health care, education, and global warming. The difference I've seen is that Huckabee has moderate/conservative answers but McCain's answers seem to be to just bow to whatever the Democrats have proposed. Huckabee would have been a lot better off to leave the contrast between him and Romney implicit because it is obvious enough. And he should have contrasted himself with McCain because the difference there is subtle but I think very important.
So now I'm left in a situation where I'm voting 1 week after tomorrow. If Huckabee drops out, I'm going with Romney. If he gets enough in Super Tuesday to have a chance and he stays in the race despite the media pressure for him to drop out then I'm going with Huckabee, even if I think McCain might wind up winning. I'm not voting for Romney just to vote against McCain, even though I dislike him. It's a long shot but we'll see.
"Because his campaign is growing tramendeously. The polls don't say so..."
So how do you know?
Popular: McCain by 8 pts over Romney, 30 pts over Huck. Paul around 5% and some confused people for Giuliani and Thompson.
Delegates: Winner take all, so landslide by McCain. Romney does well in certain states. Romney drops out. Paul continues the crusade.
"Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE"
I fixed that for you. Nothing else you said matters, because that point is true.
And no, flaming me won't make Paul more electable. Nothing will actually, he can't win.
Depends on which fathers you speak about. Jefferson most definitely was against religion. Thomas Pain and Ben Franklin were also, and Washington may have been to some extent. Some of the others not so much. Others, such as Patrick Henry, were definitely pro-religion. You can pick and choose quotes from any of them to try to prove either argument.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
I would prefer that there be no illegal immigration to this country. I would prefer that all immigrants be legal. Unfortunately, that can't happen with our current immigration policies. I think I read that with the current immigration quotas, the queue of people waiting to immigrate from Mexico and Central America is over 100 years.
I suspect that for most of these people, it's not that they want to break the law, they simply have no choice if they want to feed their families.
It may be harsh, but their need does not mean we need to change our laws. Any society can only accept immigrants at a certain rate without destabilization. We have been fairly liberal with that in the past, but would go well past that today if we let everyone come, especially given that we have no more frontier to absorb them. I speak Spanish poorly; I started learning too late. My daughter will do better, but many people have not gone down that road at all. It takes at least a full generation for both society and the immigrants to adapt.
Part of the sacrifice my family made is that they could not all come at once, and some of them never came at all. They stayed behind when the Communists took over their country and we do not know what ever became of them. But that is not America's fault. The fact that America took any of us in at all, gave us a chance to start over, is a kindness. We were not owed anything. Charity and compassion is a good thing, but the idea of entitlement to that generosity is dangerous and mildly disturbing.
The better approach is to change some of our practices, like destructive trade agreements that wiped out Mexican farmers, change our approach to the drug war which will reduce the corruption and instability in their country, reduce the welfare state here that is part of the attraction. There are lots of ways to approach the problem without opening the flood gates. The same practices that will help them may also prevent us from going down the tubes, so there is much to gain by looking at the real problems. My family fled one country that let itself come apart. I don't intend to flee this one.
I agree that not all morality should be legislated, but the legislation we have should be moral and if a law seems to be immoral or unethical, then it should be changed. I'm not American and don't really know the history of the Constitution in terms of amendments, etc. but hypothetically, if it was originally written that black people couldn't vote and was later amended, that would be an issue of morality to a certain extent.
Morals do, but does morality? I would argue that there are certain moral absolutes.
I'm not sure I follow you're reason there. It looks like you've said that you shouldn't need to update the Constitution because it's possible for you to not change it. That doesn't seem to be a reason why changing it would be wrong. There've already been quite a few amendments haven't there, so clearly there has been a need to change it in the past and could arguably be in the future. Its writers weren't the most enlightened people ever to walk the earth.
Someone with intellectual reasoning ability please mod the parent post up. As for me, do whatever you want: I've got more karma than you've got mod points.
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
That is, of course, total nonsense.
It is the typical dishonest attempt at the "Heads I win, Tails you lose!" all-time classic of religious "argument". If the tenets do not work, thats the fault of "bad apples", atheists, heathens, wiccans, Satanists, [fill-in-your-boogeyman-here], for the tenets are divinely true! And if they do work, that's because they are divinely true!!
Then there are fun facts such as this: If you take statistics of atheists you will find the crime rates much, much lower then those representative of members of any major religion. I am sure that one fits nicely with your argument...
Why? The reason of course being that most atheists lived in totalitarian states where the side-effect of everpresent surveilance/police aparatus was very, very low crime rate amongst the population.
Also speaking of "bad apples". Wasn't that witch hunt/burning business Christians so loved like a whole village enterntainment? Mobs of Good God Fearing Christians, in pretty much every village and town in Europe, roamed about in search of witches, not satisfied until some woman was on the stake. Fun for the whole family!
Oh and then are the religious wars, neighbours against neighbour, trying to see who can stake and disembowel more men, skin their wives and skewer their children. In the name of God!
And then all those "Bad Apple" Germans in 1930-40s, some 40 million of them....
And on and on and on ... "bad apples" one after another ... whole barrels of them .... rivers ... sea of bad apples ....
No I think finding "good apples" amongst Christians and other organized, power-hungry religious lunacies, amongst all that pig-headed, ignorant, bigotted, self-centered, hypocritical assholery is the needle in the haystack type of search indeed.
Exactly. If the law makes something reasonable and rational impossible, the law becomes irrelevant (and is probably obviously wrong.) This — sadly — is true for much of US law today.
The distinction between illegal and legal immigrant cannot rationally be made on whether someone has queued in an impossibly long line, or not. The legitimate concern we have is whether someone is contributing to society, or not. But you can't figure that out pre-immigration anyway. Those who think we can are those same people that are for creating an underclass of permanently guilty people for any particular infraction, and I have no sympathy with those people at all. If someone wants to come here, let them. Then leave them alone unless they step on the liberties of their fellow residents. Give them a chance to participate, contribute, etc. If they fail, ok, fine, send them back where they came from or have them work off any obligations incurred somehow.
But the current system assumes guilt and incompetence in a new situation prior to any such demonstration, and despite being a fairly consistent cynic, I just can't buy that. Innocent until proven guilty, then a fresh start when the price for the infraction is paid. The penalty should be proportional to the infraction. Anything else is barbaric.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
He's a kook because he's an honest man trying to succeed as a politician.
But he's succeeded: 10 terms in congress (so far) - with progressively increasing margins (despite being penalized in the pork brought back to his district for his opposition to earmarks). Broke the all-time presidential candidate contributor rake-in record last quarter (and he did it with individual contributions averaging around $100, not party, corporate, and PAC money.) Beating the media-anointed front-runner in several early primary/caucus states.
He's shown that an honest man CAN be a successful politician. And started a movement that is bringing OTHER honest players into the game. (Watch as the precinct leaders of his campaign start running for office. That is already being planned online. B-) ) Even if he misses the presidential nomination it won't invalidate his success to date.
If being so massively correct and successful makes him a "kook" then we need more kooks like that. (And we're about to get them, big time. B-) )
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
An Anonymous Coward called me a liar! Ah, what a blow! Straight to my heart! I am getting weaker ... lights are fading .... such a burden ... such a collosal, towering, monumental authority has weighted against me! Has life any meaning left after this!? Oh the horror! The terror! Oh will my epithaph say: "Here lies he who was called a liar by a cowardly Anonymous Coward"? Will the future generations bear this?! Will the planet Earth explode?! Will the Universe collapse upon itself because of this?!
Then again maybe not.
Well, that's about the level of rebuttal I'm used to seeing from those who haven't actually familiarized themselves with the history of sound money and fiat money.
We've transitioned from fiat currency to legal money twice, BTW. Once when the continental dollar collapsed (which is the painful experience that got the gold and silver clause into the constitution in the first place), and once when we retired the civil war greenbacks.
Now, you may hold the opinion that it's a good thing to let the government and the banks increase and decrease the currency supply at will, and if so you should propose an amendment to the constitution to permit that. What we're doing now is illegal.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Seemed timely what with this topic, so I thought I'd post my Republican predictions for tomorrow that I blogged earlier today: I've seen a lot of good analysis of the Democratic Super Tuesday race thus far, but haven't really seen anything comprehensive on the Republican side. So, I decided to write one myself. I suppose most people are largely ignoring it, because the Democratic race is far more exciting right now with McCain being all but guaranteed of winning the nomination. But, let's see if that's really the case... The delegate count as of today sits at the following: McCain - 97 Romney - 92 Huckabee - 29 Paul - 6 (note, this includes the Maine caucuses, which Romney won over the weekend) So, there are 21 states that will be competing on Super Tuesday. Let's start with the WTA (Winner Take All) states. These are: Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Utah, and W. Virginia. Arkansas could be winner take all if someone wins greater than 50% of the vote, but I don't see that happening with Huckabee, so we assume it's not WTA. Of these 10 states, 3 of them are caucuses, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Montana (25 delegates) and North Dakota (26 delegates) look to be firmly in Romney's camp. More on West Virginia later. Of the other 7 WTA states, Romney will win Utah (36 delegates), and McCain will win New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52), Arizona (53), and Connecticut (30). This leaves 3 states, Missouri (58), Delaware (18), and W. Virginia (Weird delegate system. They will hand out 18 delegates and then another 12 in a May 13th primary), which are very close. Missouri is going to be a tough one to call. Most of the latest polls show McCain with a slight advantage (3-5%), but both Romney and Huckabee are polling quite high. If enough conservatives move from Huckabee to Romney, Romney could be a surprise here. I'm going to keep this in the Too Close to Call column for now though. Delaware has only a single poll conducted in the last 3 months, and it has McCain with a 6 point lead over Romney with 10% unsure. I feel a little more comfortable giving this one to McCain, since Huckabee is only polling at 7%. Lastly, West Virginia, is a big unknown. I can't find a single poll for the state within the last year. Because it's a Caucus state, and caucus states tend to benefit those with the most money and organization, I'm going to give it to Romney. But, I really don't know about this one. So, after the 10 Winner Take All States, the count for WTA states would be as follows. McCain: 254 (New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware) Romney: 87 (Montana, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia) Huckabee/Paul: 0 Too Close Too Call: Missouri (58 delegates) Now, we get into the "fun" states. Those that give proportional delegates based on percentage of vote. Unfortunately, the process is frustratingly different from state to state. So, I'm going to use a general rule of thumb, as follows, which will hopefully average out. The state winner gets all At-Large Delegates, State Party Delegates, and Bonus Delegates. The District Level Delegates are awarded to each candidate as a percentage of their total votes. So, for example, in California the state winner gets 14 delegates (10+3+1) and the other 159 delegates are split based on percentage. So, if McCain wins 50% of the vote, he'd get an additional 80 delegates. Romney with 25% would get an additional 40 delegates, etc... It's a little more complex than this, but for simplicities sake, I'm going to do it this way. I'll go in alphabetical order... Alabama (48) - 21 delegates are awarded by district and 27 to the winner of the state. McCain has a strong lead and should win this state, provided there isn't a max exodus from the Huckabee camp to Romney. I think there will be some, but not enough. McCain gets 27 for winning + 9 proportionally. Romney gets 6 and Huckabee gets 6. Alaska (29) - Caucus state with 26 going to the winner and 3 being split to winners of districts. Ron Pa
You are the second person I've heard from that understands Christ's teachings regarding mistreatment from others on such a level. The first was a former soldier. I spent the better part of two years trying to argue the point on an online Bible forum. Jesus said that His teachings would be hard to understand. They were hard enough for an oppressed people who wished freedom from their oppressors. It is harder still for a people who believe they are free and self-sufficient. "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich [i.e., self-sufficient] man to enter the kingdom of God."
As to sin as it's described in the Bible, don't let the messengers of Satan deceive you. As the apostles said, the followers of Satan would like nothing better than to convince you that nothing is evil so long as your intent is good. But how many millions of moral mistakes have been made using that logic?
Resistance is futile. Your technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. You will become one with the morgue
From most to least abhorrent, McCain (somebody flash a queen of hearts at him, see what happens), Romney (a true RINO from one of our Eastern Coastal People's Republics) and the Huckster (please, no more Arkansas governors).
I'll be voting for Dr. Paul, thank you.
More like, an enthusiastic support base. Even more like: A LARGE support base.
His meetup membership alone (groups + waiting list) is now 72.8% of the US troop strength in Iraq. And still surging.
With so many ACTIVE, internet-savvy supporters, mentioning his name in any forum indexed by Google creates a slashdotting.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Second posting -- first one, I forgot to use plain text formatting. Sorry about that.
I've seen a lot of good analysis of the Democratic Super Tuesday race thus far, but haven't really seen anything comprehensive on the Republican side. So, I decided to write one myself. I suppose most people are largely ignoring it, because the Democratic race is far more exciting right now with McCain being all but guaranteed of winning the nomination. But, let's see if that's really the case...
The delegate count as of today sits at the following:
McCain - 97
Romney - 92
Huckabee - 29
Paul - 6
(note, this includes the Maine caucuses, which Romney won over the weekend)
So, there are 21 states that will be competing on Super Tuesday. Let's start with the WTA (Winner Take All) states. These are: Missouri, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Utah, and W. Virginia. Arkansas could be winner take all if someone wins greater than 50% of the vote, but I don't see that happening with Huckabee, so we assume it's not WTA.
Of these 10 states, 3 of them are caucuses, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. Montana (25 delegates) and North Dakota (26 delegates) look to be firmly in Romney's camp. More on West Virginia later.
Of the other 7 WTA states, Romney will win Utah (36 delegates), and McCain will win New York (101 delegates), New Jersey (52), Arizona (53), and Connecticut (30).
This leaves 3 states, Missouri (58), Delaware (18), and W. Virginia (Weird delegate system. They will hand out 18 delegates and then another 12 in a May 13th primary), which are very close. Missouri is going to be a tough one to call. Most of the latest polls show McCain with a slight advantage (3-5%), but both Romney and Huckabee are polling quite high. If enough conservatives move from Huckabee to Romney, Romney could be a surprise here. I'm going to keep this in the Too Close to Call column for now though. Delaware has only a single poll conducted in the last 3 months, and it has McCain with a 6 point lead over Romney with 10% unsure. I feel a little more comfortable giving this one to McCain, since Huckabee is only polling at 7%. Lastly, West Virginia, is a big unknown. I can't find a single poll for the state within the last year. Because it's a Caucus state, and caucus states tend to benefit those with the most money and organization, I'm going to give it to Romney. But, I really don't know about this one.
So, after the 10 Winner Take All States, the count for WTA states would be as follows.
McCain: 254 (New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware)
Romney: 87 (Montana, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia)
Huckabee/Paul: 0
Too Close Too Call: Missouri (58 delegates)
Now, we get into the "fun" states. Those that give proportional delegates based on percentage of vote. Unfortunately, the process is frustratingly different from state to state. So, I'm going to use a general rule of thumb, as follows, which will hopefully average out. The state winner gets all At-Large Delegates, State Party Delegates, and Bonus Delegates. The District Level Delegates are awarded to each candidate as a percentage of their total votes. So, for example, in California the state winner gets 14 delegates (10+3+1) and the other 159 delegates are split based on percentage. So, if McCain wins 50% of the vote, he'd get an additional 80 delegates. Romney with 25% would get an additional 40 delegates, etc... It's a little more complex than this, but for simplicities sake, I'm going to do it this way.
I'll go in alphabetical order...
Alabama (48) - 21 delegates are awarded by district and 27 to the winner of the state. McCain has a strong lead and should win this state, provided there isn't a max exodus from the Huckabee camp to Romney. I think there will be some, but not enough. McCain gets 27 for winning + 9 proportionally. Romney gets 6 and Huckabee gets 6.
Alaska (29) - Caucus state with 26 going to th
I see a lot of Ron Paul supporters spouting a bunch of hyperbole about Ron Paul. While he's a good speaker, and makes his points fairly intelligently, most of his economic policies are downright stupid, and any real economist will tell you he doesn't know what he's talking about.
Libertarians are not who you should go to for economic advice. They paint the federal reserve as the source of all of our economic problems, and suggest going back to the gold standard. This is ridiculous. We had enormous monetary problems before the federal reserve came into play and we had a way of regulating the economy. However, if you hear Ron Paul tell it, things were all roses before the federal reserve, and the fed has done nothing but cause inflation. Inflation predates the federal reserve.
Ron Paul suggests the Federal Reserve causes inflation, but *his* plan is to have congress print money whenever they feel like it, as if *that* won't case the exact same problem even more so. At least the Fed is run by trained professionals with a long term interest in maintaining the stability of the banking industry and the economy at large. Congress is not qualified to determine how much money to dump into the economy, since they will just spend like crazy if they have the right to print money.
>1. Why is he running as a Republican?
>
>Because he embodies the true ideals of conservativism that the neo-cons have robbed from modern >Republicans.
Yes, the Republican party used to be the conservative party, and before that it used to be the *liberal* party. The name of the party means nothing, his views are not represented or sponsored by its members. The Libertarian party represents is more representative of his views at this point.
Ron Paul calling himself a Republican is like an ante-bellum southern Democrat calling himself a modern Democrat. Before the war Democrats were the social conservative pro slavery party, now they are not.
In any case, the neo conservative and libertarian economic policies are both equally stupid, so it's not like a return to 19th century economic policies would improve our situation.
>2. Why is he STILL running?
>
>Because he still has a good shot, the only thing holding him back is when news outlets don't >mention him at all. News outlets such as Slashdot.
This is a bunch of bullshit. Ron Paul isn't taken seriously because his views *can't* be taken seriously and because he does not appeal the the vast majority of voters.
The vast majority of voters do *not* want to end social security, do *not* want to end the FDA which is responsible for maintaining the safety of the food supply. Many people want a smaller more efficient federal government, including myself, but most people depend on the federal government for various services and do not want to see it dismantled.
Also, his policy that we get rid of the income tax and just have massive tariffs is stupid. I'm not saying that we should never have tariffs. However, the IRS takes in 2.5 trillion annually. This is not possible with tariffs. Even if we raised tariffs to the level where we could take in 2.5 trillion in one year, the next year we would have to raise tariffs again because trade would *decrease*. Small tariffs to spur internal industry makes some sense, but the kind of tariffs Ron Paul is talking about would *end* international trade and destroy this country. No country can survive with an isolationist policy in the modern world.
I liked how he talked when I've heard him, and I appreciated his opposition to the war and his willingness to buck the party line, but this guy is advocating economic policies that just don't make sense.
You are an asshat for omitting Dr. Paul. You know damn well taht he has a huge following among slashdotters.
He broke double digits this past weekend in the Maine caucus, getting 19% of the vote. He trounced Huckabee, who only got 6%, yet Paul is supposed to be excluded from this discussion for some bizarre reason. More importantly, while he came in just a tad behind McCain in the Main "preference" vote, he beat the pants off him in the count of delegates to the state convention, getting 35% of 'em. (At least so far: A few small precincts haven't had their caucuses yet.) That will probably translate to a similar proportion of Maine's delegates to the national convention, again trouncing McCain in Maine. He's on the ballot here in Ohio, and I'm going to vote for him since I agree with him far more than I agree with any of the other candidates. Ditto with me here on the left coast.
That sort of thing could mean a big surprise tomorrow: California's Republican party changed the rules this year - from "winner take all" to "congressional district winner takes three". Ron Paul's campaign is apparently the only one to figure out that hitting all the districts is useful - and that heavily Democratic districts where political correctness and anti-war sentiment is rampant count as much toward the nomination as conservative districts dripping in Republicans.
Imagine how "Bring the Troops Home Now" Paul vs. "Stay For 100 More Years" McCain might play out in the state that brought you the Summer of Love, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Nancy Pelosi.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I also worked the bunker in trap shoots, over 110F operating the machine. My dad did the same thing picking potatoes for 60 cents a day growing up. I have gutted chickens. I have dug ditches and hauled rocks. I have worked in a butcher shop. Good luck doing any of that now. You can't compete with the illegal immigrants for those jobs that were traditional for high school or college students on break or temp jobs while trying to land better employment.
Bear with me if I'm being naive, but is that currently a problem? The examples I always saw of traditional student jobs were as stockboys/cashiers (as well as doing deliveries if you had a car). Those bottom-rung jobs have paid well above minimum wage for many years, so my guess is that it's not that students "can't compete" for dirty jobs, it's that the hard working ones can get better jobs with little more than English fluency.
So what am I missing? Are my examples of better jobs really worse than digging ditches? (I suppose ditch digging can develop your work ethic and physique, whereas retail sales may just develop your misanthropy) Have I been looking at the unskilled job market in the wrong cities, or not recently enough?
Anyway, regarding Paul and immigration it's a question of principles. Someone who values freedom should have more respect for freedom of movement; even if someone can't vote or collect welfare here, if someone wants to sell or rent them a home here the government shouldn't get in the way. It's also a question of humility: a good politician should also have more respect and fear for unintended consequences. Not every job in America can be done by a non-American, but many of the rest can be outsourced regardless of whether or not you let the non-American inside US borders. The only difference immigration restrictions make in those cases is to ensure that a multinational corporation gets to take a cut as middleman.
Torturing prisoners has done immense harm to Americas reputation, and made it difficult for Uncle Sam to preach human rights top others.
McCain is the only Republican candidate who looks like he wants to end this shameful chapter in Americas history.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
"...please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only."
LOL. You are funny Taco.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I was born in Russia, lived in US, naturalized US citizen, now working in Ontario, Canada. I would like to take you to the last federal election in Canada where liberal party was bashing Steven Harper for going to church. Faith based schools were the main election issue in recent provincial election in Ontario, so stop this BS about "The US bizarre fascination for religion" and listen to something other than socialist biased Canadian media. I personaly like McCain, because he seems to be more straighforward, clear and simple, compared to wishy-washy Romney, leaving-in-the-dreamworld Huckabee and... what is the other guy's name? I cannot seem to remember...
Ron got 35% of those delegates, totally TROUNCING McCain. The state's delegates to the national convention are chosen at the state convention by a process that should preserve that margin.
(Note: Some of the smaller precincts - maybe 10% of voters - haven't had their caucuses yet. So the numbers may change slightly.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Too often we get caught up in the whole winning and losing motif when discussing the candidates. At this stage of the game, I think we would be better served by weighing in on the side of defining the issues, not the personalities. Candidates with no chance of winning will still get my vote if they stand for the things I deem to be important. Social programs come and go, the economy is better some years than others. What we cannot afford to lose, however, is our constitutional rights that have been abridged since Sept. 11. Tell me you respect the constitution and the rights of the people, and I will vote for you whether you can win or not. If enough people do the same, the other candidates will be forced to consider this issue also. It's not about the candidates, really, it's about having a good worthy country that allows its citizens to live their lives as free men in control of their own destinies as much as is possible while still remaining civilized and respectful of the same rights of others.
His record as a governor looks very solid, his proposals such as his "fair tax" are fresh ideas, and he definitely appears to be a Washington (and more importantly a Political Party) outsider. Except for the core religious right issues, his record as governor seems fairly moderate.
To be honest, if he wasn't a pastor, I suspect he would be doing far better in this election. It is the odd thing about religion in this country - Romney's record as governor doesn't match his current position on most issues, but he seems to be getting a free pass. Huckabee's record as governor is solid and matches his current positions, but the media only focuses on his religion.
But let's be honest for a moment, the elites of the Republican party who pushed Bush "because of his faith" are the same elites who are pushing Romney "because of his executive experience". The truth is, the elites push the UPPER CLASS candidates who they know will "take care of their own". As though the wealthiest Americans need any extra taking care of.
eat the baby! eat the baby! can I be president now?
I did a scan of all the comments and "energy" was only mentioned **once**. This is the greatest issue of our time and of this election whether we recognize it or not. And the word was only mentioned ONCE!!!!!!!! No wonder we got "W" for a President... Ghawar, the world's largest oil reservoir is watering out. 70% of the top 100 oil reservoirs in the world are in decline. The world has to find 5 or 6 new Saudi Arabian size fields over the next 2 decades just to stay even. Oil Shale doesn't count because its "wax" (keratine) is embedded in solidified mud which means that its uneconomical to try to produce it. How many candidates are touting it as a energy savior? Do your homework!!!
If I had to list the top 5 issues of this election, they would be:
energy - how are these candidates going to address our energy needs? How are they proposing that we transition to a non fossil fuel economy? If we don't have energy, how are we going to make anything?
economy - There are over $500 Trillion Dollars in non secured derivatives out there. How are these candidates going to address a problem that threatens to take down the world economies and make the subprime mess look like a tempest in a teapot?
voting - Which one of these candidates will put in an Executive Order outlawing any voting method that does not produce a bonified paper trail?
education - It's evident it's lacking here!!!! Especially the thought process about what is really important. Candidates or issues. Until you identify the issues, you won't know who the candidates should be. ? - There isn't going to be any if energy scarcity is going to cause hyperinflation.
It's about time this country got its act together!!!
Maybe he's the candidate *you* have been asking for. He's definitely NOT the one *I* have. I do think he is either lying or dumb :), I do think he is associated with racism, think that taking the US out of Iraq *immediately* is not the right answer, and a 100% non-interventionist policy is wrong. I disagree with his positions in many other items (but don't have time to list all of them here/now).
As someone who doesn't follow politics much at all, I've been fairly exposed to this fellow thanks to Digg and general internet forum posts, he's a bit of an internet phenomenon.
I finally decided to watch some clips and interviews with the man, since some of the claims by the online supporters seemed exaggerated and ridiculous.
When I finally did watch a few interviews and did some reading my jaw basically dropped, he's probably the most logical, sensible politician I've ever heard in my life, I've never seen such honesty and what seems to be loyalty towards his country, the man just wants things to work right, he doesn't want to cock about with semantics and 'play the game' he wants to get things done.
I write this as someone from another country, but sadly too closely tied to US financials, media, politics, the US being a superpower influence all of the world, frankly I wish I could vote for this man and I don't bloody well vote in my country.
He's got my 'virtual' vote even if I can't damn well submit it.
Hopefully in 8/12/16 years, the internet will be much more powerful than it is now and television / media can't influence elections as much as they do now.
I truely believe if you sat down every single American and showed them just 10 minutes of media of this man, he'd win by a landslide but sadly, too few care or too few bother to go out and look for the information.
Well,the candidates in question might as well be Democrats as they have nothing so much different to offer that the same B.S. as any Democrat would.Too bad he didn't want to discuss Ron Paul who has shown a larger amount of support since money talks and B.S.walks.
Bottom line Ron Paul is tha man,but we aren't discussing that.Not P.C.(Clintonian concept)
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
"However, this hasn't translated to him even breaking into the double digits,"
Wow, are we not even bothering to do any research on Slashdot anymore?
While it's true that current prices put gold at around 3.5-4 trillion, if it reaches the inflation-adjusted high of the 80s gold would be closer to $2000 per troy ounce putting total gold value at 7.6 trillion. There is much reason to think it will reach this level: falling gold levels in Western Central Banks after years and years of liquidation and artificially suppressed prices (see GATA), increased demand for physical gold (esp. in the Middle East where they wouldn't know/care what an ETF was if it hit them in the face), inflation concerns, imminent currency and credit collapse, possible dollar hedging with gold by Asian and Russian Central Banks, etc, etc
Now, you may hold the opinion that it's a good thing to let the government and the banks increase and decrease the currency supply at will
It is a good idea because it allows quick action to stabilize the economy.
What we're doing now is illegal.
Explain why.
Government control isn't all that bad, the problem is big government, and non-local government. The more non-local government is, the less it really represents the desires of the people. And with a country as big and diverse as the USA, an all-powerful Federal government simply can't hope to please even a majority of the populace. That's why power needs to be returned to the states, so people can decide issues at that level instead of trying to force a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country.
Small-government people usually don't like to look at Europe for answers, but here Europe actually does it much better than we do, and much in the same way our Founding Fathers wanted. Each country in the EU is like one of our States. But unlike the current USA, the countries in Europe each still hold most of the power and sovereignty. Abortion laws in Italy, for instance, are very different from those in Germany or Sweden, while automobile laws in Germany are very different from those in the UK (Germany refuses to institute national speed limits on the Autobahn). But they've agreed to act as a union on matters like currency and trade. This is the way the US should be.
I'm basically pro-choice, but I'm not opposed to returning that decision to the States. California certainly won't ban it, though Mississippi might. Would that be tragic for some Mississippians? Perhaps, but that's their problem: they need to take responsibility for their government, and for their neighbors who force laws they don't like on them, or else just pack up and move to another state where they get along better. Abortion foes should see it the other way: they finally get their way in states where they're the majority, though they won't get their way in every state.
Many other laws should be the same: it should depend on the State and locality, as what's considered OK in some places is not in other places. Does it suck that we can't just have consistent laws in the whole country? Yes, but that's an impossible dream; people are simply too different, and as long as we're all subject to the same laws and government, we're all going to continue to fight about these issues, instead of living in peace. By going back to a government where more power is concentrated locally, we won't have to fight about things so much; we only have to worry about our own locality and State, and not the entire country. It's a lot easier to get your viewpoint heard at the local level, or even the state level, than it is the Federal level. Besides, if you don't like it in your state, it's not that hard to pack up and move across the country. It's not so easy to move to an entirely different country.
You seem to be missing that with the fair tax you take home your WHOLE PAYCHECK. ...and you end up giving 30% of it back in taxes anyway. So what's the difference?
(Except that rich people would get more of a break than everyone else, of course.)
You want to back that statement up with an example?
Anyone care to explain exactly in what sense the parent comment is insightful? What is the insight it offers?
A candidate's religious views aren't the big issue. The problem is with the people they represent. The US constitution might be secular, but the elected officials that uphold its values tend to favor their voters more than their office. These votes come from people who hold "God's Law" above their country's. When a candidate puts their religious standing on the same pedestal as their voting record/experience in their campaign platform, they're probably going to act accordingly.
As a Yankee implant living in South Carolina, I don't want my president bending to the Will of my Southern Baptist neighbors.
Can someone please explain to me why it is such an awful crime to change one's mind?
Why can't a candidate change their mind if the information they are provided changes?
Most of this country supported the war in Iraq when it began; now, hardly anyone does. They are all flip-floppers, right? Or could it be that they:
-Identified a problem
-hypothesized a solution or explanation
-tested their hypothesis against reality
-repeat
I don't support Romney (just for one example), but I think the criticism about his 'flip-flopping' regarding abortion is outrageous. The man has never been pregnant. He has ostensibly never been party to an abortion (with his wife, for example). Most people, I should hope, also never go through this experience. And then when he is faced with legislation regarding it, he looks within himself and changes his mind about it? Why wouldn't you want someone who is capable of absorbing new information, synthesizing new ideas, and acting on them?
Many of you use 'flip-flopper' as an epithet, yet Hate bush for running the country into this war. He was wrong in the first place. If he changed his mind, would you call him a flip-flopper? Or would you 'stay the course' in the interest of ego and stability? Would you rather be right or consistent?
I would like to know. I've changed my mind on many things over the course of my life. I'd hate to think that I'm less of a person because I can approach issues from new angles and change my way of thinking about them (hopefully for the better).
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
Sure he may be an underdog and long-shot candidate, but I don't think it takes a rocket scientist, much less the webmaster of Slashdot, to realize that McCain and Romney are both douchebags, the likes of which have not been seen since Bush II.
Shame on you for limiting discussion to only Romeny and McCain. Ron Paul certainly deserves to be discussed, even if he is a longshot.
John McCain: Has a reputation of being a maverick. He also has a reputation here in Arizona of ignoring his constituents to chase national media. He did a 180 on illegal immigration for the new presidential run. Look for him to govern like Bush, taking a stand on whatever looks popular at the moment. Look for policy changes weekly. I've voted for him as Senator. I probably won't be voting for him in the Primary tomorrow.
Mitt Romney: Governor of Massachusetts. One of the few who had the guts to stand up to Microsoft. His successor caved. He has changed his stand on abortion to further his political ambitions. The people I know from Mass all seemed to like him. Most of them, of course will be voting for the Democrat. Don't count him out in the General Election. He was after all, a Republican governor in Massachusetts, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 3 to 1. His biggest minus seems to be that Baptists hate his religion. They'd rather have the devil. He suffers from the largest bias left in American politics. Probably won't win. Too bad, he represents the best traditional 'conservative' candidate in this race. he'd like to be another Regan.
Mike Huckabee: The man is a religious bigot. Probably one of the other kind too. Former governor of Arkansas. He's running as the anointed heir of the 'religious right'. Wasn't enough for Falwell, won't be enough for Huckabee. Look for him to give lukewarm support to whoever really wins. Floundering around right now trying to find something that'll appeal to people outside of his narrow group.
Ron Paul: Congressman. Former Libertarian Presidential candidate. Couldn't get more than about 5% for that party. Can't seem to get more than that from the Republicans either. Has a lot of support from the rabid fringes. His supporters though can't seem to talk to others without alienating them. You see that in the posts on Slashdot too.
Paul won't even pull enough to be a spoiler. Huckabee might. If the two could team up, They might be able to be power brokers. That is after all what Falwell wanted to do in 1980. Pat Buchannan did it too in the early '90's.
It doesn't look like either of the two front runners will have a lock by convention time.
Maybe by that time, some of the candidates will have moved beyond sound bites and begun to actually think about principles. Romney and Paul have some, at least. Paul blares his, for better or worse. Romney needs to do more to get them out. McCain needs to find some.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Okay, I guess it is working well, in turning children into fact spewing test takers with little to no capacity to manipulate or assimilate information outside the confines of a multiple choice test.
Wait, you mean to say that's not the aim?
Funny indeed. That is where I am from, and never heard of that incident. Who was that ?
:wq
I strongly disagree with a lot of libertarian economic policies, but I don't think that your post gives their reasoning a fair hearing.
First, libertarians on principle oppose government involvement in monetarist policies, which implies getting rid of the federal reserve and the monetarist policies it administers. This has absolutely nothing to do with government spending, which is fiscal policy handled by Congress. I would imagine Ron Paul's fiscal policy would be some variant of pay as you go, following strong fiscally conservative principles. Getting government out of monetary policy probably isn't a good idea, but having people attempting to muddy the waters by rolling all of the issues together is also a crock of shit.
Second, Ron Paul advocates the repeal of the individual income tax, which accounted for roughly $1.04 billion of the $2.40 billion overall tax collected by the Federal Government in 2006. The balance is composed of corporate income taxes and other taxes, and in a cursory overview, I was able to find no evidence that Ron Paul opposes these forms of taxation. Excise taxes and a reduction of spending to 1995?-levels would account for the deficit. Tariffs are not a significant part of his tax plan, for the simple reason that the volume of international trade is not significant when compared to the size of the American domestic economy.
I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, but my reasons don't have a lot to do with the half-assed hyperbole and half-truths you're spouting, and many of the issues he raises do have relevance to policy discussions today.
"We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
After the eight year disaster that we have just survived, I believe that we just cannot trust ANY Republican right now. Many of the candidates don't believe in evolution, they are nasty, vindictive messes. We need some time away from the hyper-religious far-right wing neo-con Republican nut-cases that have taken so much of our constitution away.
It's one thing to say that stuff went out under your name that you don't agree with. It's another when it happens for a period of ten years, you pick up endorsements from the leader of white power groups, accept cash donations from them, and pose for pictures with them and their kids. I mean, a couple racist comments and you're just an asshole, but sooner or later people start taking it personally, y'know?
You know, if Barack Obama had published a newsletter called "The Obama Report" which said things like "The Americans will come to rue their infidel ways when we launch the intifada from downtown Chicago," I could see how that analogy might make sense. But since that didn't happen, and the thing with Paul did, I'm going to suggest you reconsider your analogy.
I have been away from /. for over three years for this very reasons-too many cointelpros clogging up the echo chamber. I'm sick to death of you all! You know exactly who I'm fingering, and I expect my excellent karma to go to crap. Go to Hell!
On the other hand, the poster is exactly right, but think of what YOU are expecting of a candidate: media support by Rupert Murdoc, one who is entirely in league with control systems. A "Tough" stance on "dem arabs". Dotters, if someone mistrated you as henously as we have their countries, with the hubris we have, THEY would be smashed to bits! Trivia(?): Did you know we went to war with England over a centralized bank note system? Googled:"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to then Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, 1802
You want another depression? Go wiki it. Hyperinflation: caused by central banking systems inflating monetary systems. We have already experienced higher debt rates than the depression, due to the fact our money comes with inflation built in! Precious metals are taking flight against the dollar, and you want to argue who looks best in a friggin' flight suit???
You want continual war(McCain says 100 years) that drives debt up the wall??? War for what??? The Pentagon already "lost" over $4 trillion, an ammount that could set every American for life.
ALL of you are rearranging the deckchairs!! What do you THINK caused all the calamity??? Some guy in a cave? How are we supposed to become more safe by giving up all our liberties?? Oh, I know! "They hate us because of our freedoms[, so if we kill all civil liberties, they wont hate us anymore!]" Someone forgot the chapter on "Those who give up essential liberty for security deserve neither!"-Benjamin Franklin
As if anyone cares, most people cant tell who the Vice Pres is(Dick-"I live in Dubai!"-Cheney).
All I can tell is you want another corporate bought-off candidate! "Electable"
This is the last pearl I dare give the swine
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-Frederick Douglass.
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Huckabee is missing teeth and wants to replace the Constitution with the Bible. McCain is catering to illegals and wants to bomb the whole world into submission. Romney is a fast talking crook. Who's left?
So what am I missing? Are my examples of better jobs really worse than digging ditches? (I suppose ditch digging can develop your work ethic and physique, whereas retail sales may just develop your misanthropy) Have I been looking at the unskilled job market in the wrong cities, or not recently enough?
Yes, there's a lot of competition for many of those retail jobs, especially with employers reluctant to take seasonal help (except Christmas), especially in rural America, where there happen to be more immigrants too. Even "Do you want fries with that?" can be hard to get. Now, young folks that can't get those jobs just get food stamps and TANF which is one of the real horrors of illegal immigration-- ballooning entitlement programs (and not necessarily by the immigrants) and no way off them. (Not that immigration is the sole cause.)
Anyway, regarding Paul and immigration it's a question of principles. Someone who values freedom should have more respect for freedom of movement; even if someone can't vote or collect welfare here, if someone wants to sell or rent them a home here the government shouldn't get in the way. It's also a question of humility: a good politician should also have more respect and fear for unintended consequences. Not every job in America can be done by a non-American, but many of the rest can be outsourced regardless of whether or not you let the non-American inside US borders. The only difference immigration restrictions make in those cases is to ensure that a multinational corporation gets to take a cut as middleman.A Republic protects the community from the excesses of the individual and it also protects the individual from the mob. Freedom vs. private property rights. You have every right to express your opinion and disagree with me in public, but not in my home, like someone who stole my political sign out of my yard last night. My sign, my property, my speech. You don't like my candidate, put a sign on your own property. Same thing with immigration. I have the right to move to another state, but I follow that state's rules, I buy or rent a place to live. I don't party crash. We live here and we have the right to set rules around our home. Sometimes I wonder if the people who support freedom of movement to an extreme would feel the same if I moved into their house.
There are boundaries. We loosen those boundaries every day out of an expectation of courtesy and civility, but if they do not exist, chaos ensues. Many of these folks don't just violate our immigration laws, and it's not just a matter of legalizing them. There are illegal aliens here living a dozen or more to a house, well outside what our health or building codes allow (and they are awfully lax here). That's one of the ways they can work for so little. If I tried that, they'd take my kid. That's not a free market and that's not a civil society, and we can't sustain anything approaching a standard of living here under those conditions.
Now, if we got some breathing room, work on getting our industry back, anything more than service jobs, rebuild the economy, then, when the 'Boomers retire en masse, we'll need more immigrants and be better placed to handle them (legally) and maintain a standard of living. If white trash doesn't want to take a $10 an hour job (2007 dollars!) at that point and is displaced by a legal immigrant, let the shiftless bum rot. In the meantime, we have a lot of things to straighten out on both sides of the border and the refugee flood just makes it all the more complicated.
I agree with everything you've said, which is why I'm responding.
Of all the candidates, I agree with Ron Paul the most. I would have voted for Fred through, but he dropped out. However, there are a number of things that turn me off to Ron Paul.
1.) Politically, he's inept. You're supposed to dance with the elephant, not judo-kick it in the nuts.
2.) He wants to sacrifice the progress we've made so far in Iraq by pulling the troops home...yesterday. Uh Ron, maybe you should make that decision *after* being debriefed by the Pentagon once in office? Already, he doesn't sound like he'd make an effective "commander in chief" to me.
3.) He whines. Regardless of the fact he's philosophically and historically correct about how our government should run, being a whiner isn't exactly an endearing quality most people find likeable.
Life is not for the lazy.
First appearance after announcing run for Presidency? Alex Jones radio show. He's a kook. Deal with it.
Hillary and Obama were in the debating hall that the plane crashed into ... happy now?
There's got to be a better way to choose a leader.
McCain should drop out because his candidacy is entirely media-created. If the media played McCain's "100 years in Iraq" and "bomb, bomb, bomb iran" soundbites like they did Dean's Scream, he'd go away promptly.
The reality is that John McCain is a Psychopath. Most people get a sense of this, and he'll be routed in November should fortune favor the Democrats with his nomination. Even though polls show him ahead, polls also showed that Giuliani was a front runner. The old way of polling is no longer valid because there are so many more voters this time around.
McCain should quit now and quit wasting our time with his blather... Though I guess 'We the People' need him to split the Republican delegates with Romney, leading to a brokered convention and Ron Paul's nomination.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
He got double digits in Iowa(4th, 10%) Nevada(2nd, 14%) and Louisiana as well. For shame, America, that we are convinced by those who do no research.
I agree entirely that the US needs to stop supporting economic and military processes that destroy livelihoods across the world. But that doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon, so for as long as the US is training paramilitaries and militarizes on how to oppress their own people, for as long as neoliberalism is ensuring that borders are open to capital, the borders should be open to people.
There is a pro-immigration slogan that is used, We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us. And if you're familiar with American history, you'd know that Mexico (Spain), Canada (Britain and France), and the British American colonial forces/United States all waged war on the native population of the Americas, and that later the US went to war with Mexico, and that people were displaced and large swaths of land annexed. US policy was to destroy indigenous culture: both military, economic, and social forces were brought to bare to attempt to destroy traditional ways. The reservation is the embodiment of this policy. Policies that aim to destroy a national or ethnic identity are defined by the United Nations as genocide.
I think a lot of people don't want to come to terms with the fact that a large chunk of this country wasn't found empty, rather, it was conquered, and it was cleansed. I bring this up for one reason: Most of the Latinos that I know have very significant indigenous American features. Yes, there are white Hispanics, the descendants of the settlers from Spain and elsewhere, but they are not the majority. The majority of Latinos, who are legally considered 'immigrants,' that I know are indigenous to the continent, including areas (recall that in desert areas, people are often nomadic) that are now annexed by the US. So, I ask you: who is the immigrant? who is the one being generous, and who is the one taking what's not theirs?
Recall that the US military was actively fighting (killing) the indigenous of this country through 1891, with the last notable massacre being at Wounded Knee at the end of 1890. My grandfather was born in 1893. Recall that native languages were generally unwelcome in schools (even on reservations) until 1990, when Bush I signed the Native American Languages Act into law. This isn't ancient history, it's today. It's now, it's our fathers, it's our grandfathers, and it's our great-grandfathers. And make no mistake about it - if wealth can be inherited and preserved for so long (Rockefeller's great grandchildren?) then so can liens, and one day, they will come due.
-bugg
Wehy ignore Ron Paul - he is a full fledged Republican candidate. You suck for trying to omit him.
I don't think he "can't" play politics, I just don't think he has that choice. His platform is pretty definitive.
Progress? Lots of insurgents have been killed but other than that what progress has taken place? I know someone is going to be upset and think I'm as insulting the troops efforts, but I'm truly not. I'm against the policy makers. The troops have done their patriotic duty and served gloriously, but when troops are given crap for orders and missions then their efforts are wasted. It is an unspeakable tragedy that we have spent 4000 troops lives and 1 trillion dollars on this promotion of an American empire. We are in a losing battle, if for no other reason than we can't afford it. I honestly see the only way to get out and save face is to elect Ron Paul. The world will see democracy still rules in America, and we would begin to regain our country's image. As Dr. Paul says, if mid-treatment you discover that you have made the wrong diagnosis then you don't continue with the treatment for the original diagnosis, but apply the treatment for the new one.
That being said I see your point about waiting to be briefed on the current situation.
I'll give you the whining, but not as much a Chucklebee.
Uh? He talks about that in every speech dude. And maybe you can find the answer in his website. ;) (ie. competing currencies)
Also, a couple of videos you may find interesting: fox biz interview / Forbes et al commenting Ron Paul
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
Yep, and a centralized body is also cheaper for lobbyists. So, it saves everyones money really.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
Of course you're either joking or trolling. Anyway, if you hear some Ron Paul speeches, you know he refers to the constitution as "the best contract between the people and government written by men". He occasionally expands on that saying that nothing men writes is perfect, and slavery should had been abolished from the start.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
heh. He does answer like that on the 2-minutes answer debates. ;) I think more than winning, what he really wants is making his point across. Anyway, if you listen to some of his longer interviews on Iraq, he does say it could take some months to pull out of Iraq definitively.
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
The problem with what you're proposing is that the federal government is NEVER EVER effective, when it's shown in the past that it has been effective when it's being ran by people who actually believe in the job that they're doing instead of being run by political stooge boobs.
Compare James Lee Witt with everyone after him who's been in his position. There's been only 1 administration over two terms and there's more than 3 people who have been in the job he had no problem handling for the previous administration.
It's clear though, that the states can't provide healthcare to those who can't afford it, there's no profit in doing so, and that it's a herculean task so large that non profits NGOs just don't have the resources to combat. So, the healthcare crisis is then taken up by the federal government.
It's a case of the Federal Government doing what is, "necessary and proper" as dictated by the constitution.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
If people had brains they would vote for Dr Ron Paul.
Yep, and that certainly relates to a private website destroying free speech by excluding a certain candidate from a discussion! God, I'm so naive to think that it's so closely tied to everything else! Oh, wait, there's no State regulations on how to discuss presidential candidates.
Typical Paulistinian crapola. Throw out a whole rant that has almost nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Haha I was going to say that :-)
Is one thing, but Ron Paul is talking about totally dismantling the federal government. He wants to get rid of:
1. The IRS. If you believe we can run a nation of 300 million people without an income tax, I have some property on the moon I'd like to sell you.
2. The FDA, which we need to keep the food supply safe. He argues that the food supply will self regulate... we notice that a bunch of people start dropping dead from eating food from a particular producer.
3. The EPA. He argues we can just *sue* to recover environmental damages... after the damage is already done. What he doesn't understand about he EPA is that it is *preventative* because once the damage is done, suing won't fix it.
Basically he wants to dismantle the most important institutions in the country, and make the federal government an entirely military affair funded by heavy tariffs. People tend to ignore these brain dead moves because he's a good public speaker, and because he does have *some* good ideas, like more responsible fiscal policy, just none of the ones listed above.
Also, his ideas about the constitution banning many important government institutions just isn't true. Some things like federal income taxation *we're* unconstitutional in the 19th century (wence most of Ron Paul's economic policies hail), but the constitution has been amended since then (see the 16th amendment of 1913). I think that what he often means is that some government agency is against the "spirit" of the original constitution. Unfortunately, many of the practices he opposes (see the above list) are vitally necessary to modern America considering the scale that we operate at now.
>Finally, we get a candidate who has a 20 year voting record on fiscal responsibility
>and supporting thee cconstitution and what is the response from slashdot? Ron Paul is kook.
Ron Paul isn't a kook for all of his *good* ideas. He has many good ideas, and you mentioned several of them.
Ron Paul is a kook because, like all kooks, not because of his good ideas, but because of his bad. And his bad ideas are *really* bad. Specifically he wants to dismantle pretty much the *entire federal government*.
He wants to abolish the IRS, the FDA, and the EPA. I can't take anyone seriously who thinks that we can run a nation of 300 million without those 3 institutions or something equivalent.
>Name one candidate who understands the monetary policy behind a fiat currency and
>WHY the Fed is destroying our currency.
That Ron Paul thinks the fed is destroying our currency is another reason why he is a kook. Ron Paul is trying to fight the fight that William Jennings Brian and others lost 100 years ago against the banking industry. The Fed is set up to preserve the banking industry. The banking industry preserves the economy, and by the transitive property the Fed preserves the economy.
The reason that modern nations use centralized banking (we were one of the later western countries to switch over to that model) is that the gold standard doesn't actually prevent inflation in the way that Ron Paul thinks it does, and that's why it is *Ron Paul* who does not understand "fiat" money as you call it.
First of all, the fed printing more money isn't the only, or even primary, source of inflation *contrary* to what Ron Paul has been spouting off about. If oil prices, food prices, or consumer good prices rise, we get inflation because consumers spend more money for the same goods, and employers become obliged to pay those consumers higher wages, which raises the price of consumer goods, etc, ad infinitum.
Inflation can also happen because of a trade imbalance, which is a big part of what is driving up inflation right now.
Second of all, if the Fed isn't in charge of printing money, do you know who *is*? Congress. The constitution gives congress the power to print money whenever it so pleases, which they handed over to the Fed (who are professional bankers and economists), because frankly congress isn't competent to do such a thing. Think about how much deficit spending we have a year (around 1/2 trillion I believe). If the Fed was eliminated, we would likely be *printing* all of that money without even the obligation to pay it back. Now, *that* would cause inflation.
What the fuck is a "far left liberal"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
It is a good idea because it allows quick action to stabilize the economy.
Look up the Great Depression. The Fed caused it, and the fed made it continue far longer than any previous recession.
Explain why.
Because the constitution prohibits the issuance of bills of credit or making anything but gold or silver legal tender.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I will never vote for Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. Fools.
the Political Inquirer
I was just wondering because you had implied that it was playing games to "settle" for a candidate, but I would argue that the same is true if you are a member of a party that does not mesh with your own ideals.
In your case, Republicans are for small(er) government than the Democrats, but still support an enormous federal government by Libertarian (or Ron Paul) standards. Republicans are for SOME states rights - notice that states rights go right out the window when abortion, gay marriage, or drugs are mentioned. The Democrats are worse, but they are still both waaaaaay off from the Libertarian position.
I don't have any problem being a member of a party that I have to "settle" for, because I am far more pragmatic than idealistic. The same reason I have no problem voting for a candidate that might not be my absolute favorite - you have to work with the system that you are given. I'm actually a registered Democrat right now because I live in New York City, and there aren't really any local Republicans - so the primaries aren't very exciting if you are a Republican. I have an independent streak, though - I'm not really tied to any one party and I frequently vote third-party, especially as a protest vote.
Ron Paul says some very smart things, but then says some pretty dumb ones too. I don't understand his love of the gold standard. Gold has a lot of uses these days besides currency, and it seems like a poor choice to base a currency on a commodity - especially one that can be mined. Imagine basing it on some other rare element that is used in industry - it's just old-fashioned and silly. I understand his objections to the Federal Reserve (though I don't share his concerns and I think most of them are easily refuted), but going back to the gold standard is not a viable solution and shows me that he isn't really very educated on this issue.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
One of the things that surprised me as I drilled down into the numbers, is for all of the candidates, most of the funding was done at the individual level rather than PAC money
That is because they are bundling donations. Basically you get a bunch of different people from the same company to all give money to a political candidate, thus evading the $2300 limit on personal donations.
Don't worry, the standard corruption is still there. McCain's top donator in Q3 was blank rome. They're a lobbyist group that represents companies that want to get military or homeland security contracts. Gee, why would the support the uber-pro-war candidate?
From his website "By legalizing competing currencies, we can end the Federal Reserve's stranglehold on our money supply and begin to restore value to the dollar."
So his own website doesn't address the Gold Standard but instead talks about authorizing competing currencies. I agree with the problems he talks about with inflation and the cause (namely the ability for all banks not just the reserve to print money out of thin air because of a principle threshold called the Reserve Rate). However I sincerely doubt that the US will in the forseeable future authorize everybody to start using Euros for instance. Really, there is no ban against doing so but you have to exchange that money back to pay your taxes. You can do that already and a weak dollar means it makes all the more sense. Why does the government need to get involved?
Uh - Yes.
Everything you state is contradicted by other sources. For instance:
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
Pay attention now - actual *sources* for their assertions are given, whereas your refutation contains none.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
I should have been more clear - your refutation does not contain any authoritative sources - just a Slate article with unknown sources.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
Positives: Libertarian platform generally makes sense
Negatives: Way, way, way wrong on the war in Iraq, and therefore unelectable. Also many other unworkable and/or dangerous ideas"
I'm so curious to know what you think Paul's position was regarding the war in Iraq, and what makes it so wrong.
I'm also curious to know about these nameless other "unworkable and/or dangerous ideas".
You seem to be having trouble articulating the details. Are these your own thoughts, or has someone else put these ideas in your head?
I assume when he talks about competing currencies that he means a commodity-backed one, defined by Congress (he generally adds jokingly "legalize the constitution" ;)). This is how you introduce a new currency, you let them circulate side by side with the old one, using fixed exchange rates; it worked very well in all European countries that introduced the Euro so far. He surely is not talking about adopting every currency in the world as legal tender...
My worst enemy gave me a copy of Windows for Christmas.
Yes, I realize that. And other than the home schooling groups, I am willing to bet that many of those types of private schools expend significantly more per student than the public schools do.
So, for parents of average or above performing students, taking their share of tax funding from the schools and going private could result in a net improvement. For parents of special needs kids, the picture might not be so great.
Regardless, I always wonder where all these great teachers who are willing to work for current public school salaries or less would magically appear from if everybody switched from public to private.
Well that makes sense. But like I've said before (not to you specifically), Ron Paul assumes that American's just get this stuff when really most of them have no idea how our monetary systems works to begin with. Therefore most Americans can't see that anything is wrong with it and that it needs to be changed.
Here's Noam Chomsky's thoughts on Ron Paul. http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html
It warms my heart to hear from an Illinois resident that isn't a complete raving moron. As for the current state of education, you couldn't more accurate when describing them as lazy and corrupt.
That sort of thing; waterboarding, swirlies, etc.; puts a person in fear of something. The notion that swirlies aren't taken more seriously is the reason distraught kids shoot up schools. If you are kept against your will and put in fear of losing your life in order to coerce information, you have been submitted to torture. Ridiculous? the idiots running these places took PICTURES of prisoners being submitted to this sort of thing. It is the same as making someone stand in an iron maiden, or strapping them over a growing bamboo spike. Just because it is "safer" doesn't make it any less evil. Moreover, scaring answers from a prisoner with fear of continued pain or death just makes them likely to tell you whatever they think will get them off the hook, but not necessarily the truth.
Intelligence, not force, is necessary to get reliable information from a prisoner. You must have some knowledge of where they came from and what they were doing. Then give them a perceived method of helping the cause they are fighting for, not themselves. As a prisoner, an enemy combatant has likely given up on himself as a going concern. He will still likely die for his cause. Use what you know of him against him.
Your method of argument, "grow some balls" and "ice-cream and lollipops", tells me you are likely listening to the propaganda spouted by certain pundits and likely have put very little thought into this sort of thing yourself.
As for my lumping Mr. McCain in with the others in his party, I apologize. I think I've seen questions craftily avoided too much. Maybe the "Straight Talk Express" is still on schedule. I think I should go look at his website.
or "Break Like the Wind" by Spinal Tap.
Yeah, and Bernanke already said they know now that they did then was wrong and that they've learned from their mistakes. And if you haven't noticed, the Great Depression started over 70 years ago now.
Because the constitution prohibits the issuance of bills of credit or making anything but gold or silver legal tender.
Bzzt. The Constitution prohibits States from doing that. The Federal government can make chickens legal tender if it wants to.
Article I, section 10:
The Federal government can make chickens legal tender if it wants to.
Nope. The federal government's powers are only those explicitly given to it in the constitution. It's given the power to coin money, not to create a central bank, nor issue bills of credit, nor to do many of the things that it does today.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Correction. The current US Economy is closer to $14 trillion. (NY Times estimate for 2007)
Correcting your correction: others say the U.S. economy is overvalued by $7 trillion.
You can quibble all you want over GDP numbers, but the fact remains that the amount of wealth in the world vastly outstrips the supply of gold.