- #1
drankin
I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.
Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).
Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).
None of them.drankin said:I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.
Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).
WhoWee said:Santorum
Al68 said:They all have advantages and disadvantages, but the hard part is that Republicans must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (like Cain) or has been thoroughly demonized by the left (like Paul). There are no, and never will be, any reasonably worthy candidates that are neither.
NeoDevin said:I still giggle every time I hear/read that name...
OmCheeto said:Oh. My. God.
Do not google that name.
Yes, but to a far lesser extent. Mainstream Republicans don't stoop so low on a daily basis as to spew hatred such as accuse Dems of trying to take food out of the mouths of children, put old people out on the streets, etc.Char. Limit said:Isn't that also true in the opposite direction? Democrats must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (no examples) or has been thoroughly demonized by the right (like Obama).
Demonization goes both ways.
Al68 said:Yes, but to a far lesser extent. Mainstream Republicans don't stoop so low on a daily basis as to spew hatred such as accuse Dems of trying to take food out of the mouths of children, put old people out on the streets, etc.
The lowest level of incivility seen on the right, by a small minority, pales in comparison to the incivility and putridness spewed by virtually all Democrats on a daily basis. The fact that Democrats seem to be oblivious to their own incivility, despite its blatant obviousness and incessant repetition, only makes it worse.
The fact that a Democrat can claim that Republicans want to help rich people at the expense of hurting old people, and starving little children, then refer to someone as uncivil because they used to word "socialist" to refer to Obama and his agenda is just mind numbing.
There is no comparison. You can't just say "they all do it" to equate them. That's like saying "we all sin" to equate Bin Ladin to Mother Theresa.
That's a perfect example of my point. The worst example of occasional incivility on the right you can think of is comparable to, or less uncivil than, the general bread and butter message of the Democratic Party: that Republicans don't care about poor people, old people, want them to starve, eat dog food, go homeless, etc.NeoDevin said:How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?
Al68 said:Disgusting more than interesting. But as a libertarian, I think Santorum had the first part of his comments right: nobody should be imprisoned for homosexual acts, bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery, assuming it's between consenting adults.
Of course he was grouping those sexual acts together for a different purpose, but they are all similar in the sense that none of them are any of the federal government's business.
Oops, I deleted that post after thinking that it might sidetrack this thread too much, but before I saw your response.Char. Limit said:For some reason I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here.Al68 said:Disgusting more than interesting. But as a libertarian, I think Santorum had the first part of his comments right: nobody should be imprisoned for homosexual acts, bigamy, polygamy, incest, or adultery, assuming it's between consenting adults.
Of course he was grouping those sexual acts together for a different purpose, but they are all similar in the sense that none of them are any of the federal government's business.
Al68 said:Oops, I deleted that post after realizing it might sidetrack and derail this thread, but before I saw your response.
As far as you not often agreeing with me, you could always work on that. I'm right on every issue according to me.
Originally Posted by NeoDevin View Post
How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?
posted by AL6
That's a perfect example of my point. The worst example of occasional incivility on the right you can think of is comparable to, or less uncivil than, the general bread and butter message of the Democratic Party: that Republicans don't care about poor people, old people, want them to starve, eat dog food, go homeless, etc.
I'm not sure what your point is with any of that. Perry and Winfrey are obviously not typical of anything. They both have had an extraordinary combination of opportunity, talent, and hard work.Amp1 said:If your uneducated and in poverty, isn't that what it means when your told to lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Examples, like Tyler Perry, Oprah, and other rags to riches {maybe not Oprah} true stories are not common place. The start of a more equitable and civil society starts with a sound well rounded education. Tyler could read and write. Many children are barely able and quite a few adults.
You seem pretty sure of that after admitting complete ignorance of it, other than the "criticisms" you've heard. That's the problem with the whole country: people vote based on fraudulent propaganda by power hungry politicians instead of informing themselves of the facts.Ron Paul's plan though I haven't read it from the criticisms I hear - isn't beneficial to senor citizens.
Sounds like something a power hungry politician would want people to believe. Hmmmm.Also, the same criticisms or critics say it doesn't do much to lower the deficit even though it would possibly enlarge the segment of the pop. that is impoverished and shelter challenged. JMO.
Al68 said:Seriously, I didn't see the debate, but anyone who sees Ron Paul in action realizes one thing immediately: He is not the same person most of the media make him out to be. He's a good, decent person, and the greatest friend of economic liberty and the constitution in DC since Goldwater.
NeoDevin said:How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?
CAC1001 said:And his fans are like a cult. He seems to attract all of the looney-toons of the far Right, the kind who hate the Federal Reserve, hate the Federal government, think 9/11 was an inside job, the birthers, etc...In many ways, Paul is like the right-wing version of Barack Obama IMO, just lacking the suave, debonaire manner that Obama has. I wouldn't compare them as total opposites however (Obama is not a conspiracy theorist). Obama during '07 and '08, he attracted a lot of people and his hardcore fans (nicknamed Obots by the Hillary supporters) were near cult-like. He also attracted all of the loony toons of the far-Left. And of course he had the benefit of a completely compliant media. But then if you really began to look into his background, you began to see some serious red flags, raising questions of just, "Who the hell is this guy!?"
Ron Paul I see as very similar. He can seem like an honest guy (and overall I think he is), but he is waaay out there on the nutty right I think and there are some major questions he'd have to answer. Perhaps he could fully explain why his campaign took a contribution from Stormfront, or why he signed an autograph for Derek Black (perhaps he didn't know who the guy was), or why he holds the conspiratorial beliefs he does, we would have to see.
Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.CAC1001 said:Ron Paul likes to present himself as a plain-spoken, no-nonsense Texan who's just tired of the nonsense from both parties, but he is far more radical than that. His campaign took a contribution from Stormfront back in '08 (white power website), there is also a picture of him signing an autograph for Derek Black, the son of Don Black, who is the founder of Stormfront.
Nonsense. The Federal Reserve openly controls the money supply, inflating the dollar at the expense of the American people. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what they do openly. The fact that most Americans are ignorant of the facts doesn't make such facts a secret or a conspiracy. Either you are misrepresenting Paul on purpose, or you have been mislead, or you grossly miscomprehend his position.He also is one of those who believes that the Federal Reserve is an evil cabal that secretly controls the money supply to benefit a special group of elites at the expense of the American people
Which I do disagree with, but he has that in common with the far left. I don't agree with Paul on every issue.and thinks that we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and close all military bases worldwide.
He wants to eliminate those government agencies that are redundant, unnecessary, and/or unconstitutional. Which is most of them. And if "conspiratorial type" means pointing out what the federal reserve (and other agencies) do openly, that's just plain nonsense.He also wants to shut down virtually every government agency in existence, and he has a history of being a conspiratorial type.
The UN is openly anti-gun, and you are putting words in his mouth for the rest. Speaking out against domething isn't the same as claiming they are an "evil secret group".He believes that the United Nations wants to take away America's guns and impose a global tax and that they want to take control of the U.S. military to police the world. He also believes the Council on Foreign Relations is another evil secret group.
More complete nonsense. Being pro-constitutional limited government is not "hating" the federal government. To the contrary, advocating an outlaw government, ie one that operates outside its delegated powers of the constitution, is hatred by the left of legitimate constitutional government. And the relationship to the birther, and 9/11 inside job crowd is complete fabrication. Why make such absurd claims with no substantiation offered at all?And his fans are like a cult. He seems to attract all of the looney-toons of the far Right, the kind who hate the Federal Reserve, hate the Federal government, think 9/11 was an inside job, the birthers, etc..
Calling someone nutty isn't very constructive. Paul is obviously farther right economically, and more libertarian, than anyone in congress since Goldwater. That's what I said to begin with, I never said he was a moderate. Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Point is that there is no shame in having "extreme" positions, if they are on the side of liberty. And I have no desire to go back and forth with nonsensical claims, and misrepresentations of Paul with no substantiation offered whatsoever.He can seem like an honest guy (and overall I think he is), but he is waaay out there on the nutty right I think and there are some major questions he'd have to answer.
Al68 said:Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.
Nonsense. The Federal Reserve openly controls the money supply, inflating the dollar at the expense of the American people. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's what they do openly. The fact that most Americans are ignorant of the facts doesn't make such facts a secret or a conspiracy. Either you are misrepresenting Paul on purpose, or you have been mislead, or you grossly miscomprehend his position.
Which I do disagree with, but he has that in common with the far left. I don't agree with Paul on every issue.
He wants to eliminate those government agencies that are redundant, unnecessary, and/or unconstitutional. Which is most of them. And if "conspiratorial type" means pointing out what the federal reserve (and other agencies) do openly, that's just plain nonsense.
The UN is openly anti-gun, and you are putting words in his mouth for the rest. Speaking out against domething isn't the same as claiming they are an "evil secret group".
More complete nonsense. Being pro-constitutional limited government is not "hating" the federal government. To the contrary, advocating an outlaw government, ie one that operates outside its delegated powers of the constitution, is hatred by the left of legitimate constitutional government. And the relationship to the birther, and 9/11 inside job crowd is complete fabrication. Why make such absurd claims with no substantiation offered at all?
Calling someone nutty isn't very constructive. Paul is obviously farther right economically, and more libertarian, than anyone in congress since Goldwater. That's what I said to begin with, I never said he was a moderate.
Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." Point is that there is no shame in having "extreme" positions, if they are on the side of liberty.
And I have no desire to go back and forth with nonsensical claims, and misrepresentations of Paul with no substantiation offered whatsoever.
If you have a beef with Paul, at least represent his position accurately and with substantiation, and explain clearly why you disagree instead of just calling him nutty or conspiratorial, or paraphrasing something he said in a way that grossly misrepresents his positions. That's just basic honest debate.
Al68 said:Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."
Paul demonized by the Left?Al68 said:They all have advantages and disadvantages, but the hard part is that Republicans must choose between someone who is relatively unknown (like Cain) or has been thoroughly demonized by the left (like Paul).
Char. Limit said:That quote also lost him the 1964 Presidential Election, with Lyndon Johnson's skillful "finger on the button" ad helping.
OmCheeto said:Is that why he lost? Damn. I was 5 at the time. I really admired Goldwater. He made sense.
Who are you voting for in 2012 Char? I'm getting to that; "I can't even see the ballot with my glasses on" age.
I've heard that old people now give their ballots to others who are going to live past the next election cycle. Vote by mail is so cool.
GW:2 said:.
If this is the best the GOP has to offer...
it will fall on its sword in 2012 just like
it did in 2008 with losers, McCain/Palin.
.
WhoWee said:There are a few differences. First, President will need to run against himself this time - not George Bush - lot's of sound bites. The Republican will need solid experience combined with the ability to debate.
Originally Posted by WhoWee:
There are a few differences. First, President will need to run against himself this time - not George Bush - lot's of sound bites. The Republican will need solid experience combined with the ability to debate.
Char. Limit said:It is a foolish man indeed who would run against himself. I assume you mean "run on his own merits".
Amp1 said:If your uneducated and in poverty, isn't that what it means when your told to lift yourself up by your bootstraps. Examples, like Tyler Perry, Oprah, and other rags to riches {maybe not Oprah} true stories are not common place. The start of a more equitable and civil society starts with a sound well rounded education. Tyler could read and write. Many children are barely able and quite a few adults. Ron Paul's plan though I haven't read it from the criticisms I hear - isn't beneficial to senor citizens. Also, the same criticisms or critics say it doesn't do much to lower the deficit even though it would possibly enlarge the segment of the pop. that is impoverished and shelter challenged. JMO.