News Is selling California a viable solution to government funding?

[drankin]

I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.

Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).

 

[Al68]

I like Cain but Ron Paul owned that debate IMO.

Who did you like? (None of them is not an answer).

None of them.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

Herman Cain presented well. Santorum looked like a strong VP candidate - someone who can wrestle votes on the Hill.

 

[skippy1729]

It is easy to forget that we are selecting a chief EXECUTIVE, not a lawmaker or a policy wonk; send them to Congress. That being said I think Herman Cain the best choice. I am not about to discount his prospects. At this stage in the last cycle I don't think anyone gave Obama much of a chance.

Mr. Cain presents himself as confident but not an elitist, a strong leader without being dictatorial, opinionated but not an ideologue. Although this is superficial, he has a physical presence that many of the others lack.

Skippy

 

[Al68]

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]

Santorum

I still giggle every time I hear/read that name...

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

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.

 

[OmCheeto]

I still giggle every time I hear/read that name...

Oh. My. God.

Do not google that name.

 

[lisab]

Oh. My. God.

Do not google that name.

 

[lisab]

Note to self: when Om says don't google something, don't google it.

 

[drankin]

We learn something new each day. *shudder*

 

[Al68]

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.

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.

 

[NeoDevin]

It's even more interesting when you realize that the definition of "santorum" was created specifically to memorialize Rick Santorum.

 

[NeoDevin]

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.

How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?

 

[Al68]

How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?

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.

When you have to cite one side's worst examples to compare to the other sides daily coordinated routine, you make my point better than I can. Thanks.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

For some reason I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here.

 

[Al68]

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.

For some reason I don't often agree with you, but I agree with you here.

Oops, I deleted that post after thinking that it might sidetrack this thread too much, 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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

And I'm right on every issue according to me!

So I guess if we agree with each other, we MUST be right.

 

[Amp1]

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.

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.

 

[Al68]

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.

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.

Ron Paul's plan though I haven't read it from the criticisms I hear - isn't beneficial to senor citizens.

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.

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.

Sounds like something a power hungry politician would want people to believe. Hmmmm.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

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.

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 and thinks that we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and close all military bases worldwide. He also wants to shut down virtually every government agency in existence, and he has a history of being a conspiratorial type. I remember during one of the '08 debates when they asked the candidates if they believed in the push for a North American Union, and Ron Paul stated that the Trilateral Commission exists and that the national sovereignty of the U.S. is being threatened.

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.

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.

 

[WhoWee]

How are those "death panels" we heard so much about the democrats setting up?

Are you suggesting that healthcare benefits will not be restricted (by committee process) to save costs in the future?

 

[WhoWee]

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.

Care to make a T Chart comparison - could be fun?

 

[Al68]

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.

Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.

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

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.

and thinks that we should withdraw all troops from everywhere and close all military bases worldwide.

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 also wants to shut down virtually every government agency in existence, and he has a history of being a conspiratorial type.

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 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.

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".

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..

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?

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.

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.

 

[CAC1001]

Unless you have a point or an accusation to make, such innuendo is irrelevant.

My point is why would his campaign take the money in the first place? If they had tried that with Obama's or Hillary's or Mitt Romney's (etc...) campaign, I am sure they'd have been told to get lost.

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.

I'm not saying it is, I'm talking about Paul's position on it. Ron Paul is one of the most anti-Federal Reserve people in the government and has been so for many years now. He consistently is seeking to "audit" the Fed (which would really politicize it). In his book End the Fed he talks about how it is some institution that controls the money supply to the benefit of some group of wealthy elites. He also gave high praise to the very conspiratorial book about the Fed, The Creature from Jekyll Island.

Which I do disagree with, but he has that in common with the far left. I don't agree with Paul on every issue.

The thing is though is that that is a view held by the far-Right and the far-Left, the fringes on each side of the political spectrum.

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.

According to Paul, the Federal Reserve does not do those things openly, that is why he wants to "audit" them (i.e. let Congress see what they are doing with regards to monetary policy, which would politicize the Fed; the Fed is independent of Congress for precisely this reason, because you don't want the entity that controls spending to also control the money supply).

As for government agencies, I agree there are a lot we would probably be better off with if we got rid of them. But Paul wants to shrink the government to the point where no income taxes would be needed (which would only be doable if we want to go back to the 1800s level of government) I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I know that Libertarians such as Paul seem to have a view of the Constitution that suits their own views on various things (for example, they'll claim the Federal Reserve is un-Constitutional, the Patriot Act is un-Constitutional, etc...)).

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".

The UN may be openly anti-gun, but that doesn't mean they want to "take away America's guns." I mean I am sure they would like to, but that's nothing to be concerned about. You only get concerned about that if the UN was to start controlling America somehow.

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?

You need to go find some Ron Paul fans. Yes, he does appeal to all of the conspiracy-minded types. Here is one link: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

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.

Many of his views are out there on the nutty Right.

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.

That's an easy quote to misconstrue as well IMO.

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.

Read his book End the Fed. His campaign taking the donation from Stormfront is easy to Google. And I watched Paul in that debate in which he mentioned the Trilateral Commission in response to the question about a North American union. Nothing taken out of context there.

 

[Char. Limit]

Speaking of Goldwater, here's one of my favorite quotes of his: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice."

That quote also lost him the 1964 Presidential Election, with Lyndon Johnson's skillful "finger on the button" ad helping.

 

[Gokul43201]

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).

Paul demonized by the Left?

As far as I've seen, Ron Paul is fairly well-respected by left-wing media. I've seen Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart gushing over Paul. On the other hand, Paul is constantly demonized by Fox News, Krauthammer, Rove, Cheney, etc.

Skip to 6:20 in the clip below - this is essentially common knowledge.

 

[OmCheeto]

That quote also lost him the 1964 Presidential Election, with Lyndon Johnson's skillful "finger on the button" ad helping.

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.

 

[Char. Limit]

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.

Oh, I don't know yet. I suppose it will depend on who wins the Republican primary. If the winner turns out to be someone who I would prefer over Obama (who, despite all his detractors, isn't all that bad a president), then I'll vote for him/her. If not, I'll vote for Obama.

So put up a candidate I can get behind, GOP!

 

[GW:2]

.


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]

.


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.


.

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]

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.

It is a foolish man indeed who would run against himself. I assume you mean "run on his own merits".

 

[GW:2]

.


I have always voted Republican...
but if they trot out more of the same...
I'm sitting this one out.



.

 

[GW:2]

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.

It is a foolish man indeed who would run against himself. I assume you mean "run on his own merits".

Some people see Obama's foreign policy as Dubya's third term.
In that respect when Obama ran against Dubya, he ran against himself.




.

 

[amwest]

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.

I would then sugest you start by reading Ron Paul's plan for yourself and or listening to him talk about it in depth not 30sec sound bites. It can be taken as outragious, but generaly his platform is to elimiate the federal government running programs and let the states run them, if they choose to. I, and a lot of RP supporters see this as better and more cost effective because the state governments/local governments are much closer to the problems. also if you cut out the federal departments/department head (who are paid closer to CEO pay than average pay) then you save money and deal with the problems better/more effiently.

btw- i know my spelling sucks.

 

[amwest]

That quote also lost him the 1964 Presidential Election, with Lyndon Johnson's skillful "finger on the button" ad helping.

yeah and how did LBJ work out for us americans? I've got a father-in-law and and uncle who both still have nightmares about their time in vietnam. But sure the mainstream views are the greatest and anyone that's exteam CAN NOT be listened to or taken seriously...

 

[amwest]

To the original topic i do like Ron Paul but i also like Gov. Johnson. I think politicians/media need to stop playing name calling games and start looking at issues and disscussing them like adults, and with more than 1min soundbites.

To the people who are against removing our bases around the world think about these questions.
1) Can we not strike anywhere in the world with our current bomber fleet stationed inside the US?
2) Can we not deploy our Navy and Marine Corps anywhere in the world with in 24hrs from our home ports via MEU/MEF (Marine Expiditionary Unit/Force)?
3) Are we liked outside the bases we have in other countries? and does this cause us more good or harm?
4) What is the cost benifit analysis of having our troops stationed in other countries vs stationing them in US states/territories?

 

[Char. Limit]

yeah and how did LBJ work out for us americans? I've got a father-in-law and and uncle who both still have nightmares about their time in vietnam. But sure the mainstream views are the greatest and anyone that's exteam CAN NOT be listened to or taken seriously...

I made no judgments on the "goodness" or "badness" of either Goldwater or Johnson. Rather, I said that Goldwater's extremism quote cost him the election. This is debatable, but it's certainly not a judgement on whether Goldwater is a good person or not. There are plenty of good people who have lost elections because of things they said. One example I could name would be the presidential election of 1880. General Winfield Hancock was expected to stand a good chance and maybe even win against Republican James Garfield, but he ruined his chances of voting* when he said "the tariff is a local issue". This isn't a bad thing to say, nor does it make him a bad person. But it cost him the election.

*At least, this is generally accepted to be the case. Reference "Safire's Political Dictionary", 2008 edition.

 

[amwest]

I made no judgments on the "goodness" or "badness" of either Goldwater or Johnson. Rather, I said that Goldwater's extremism quote cost him the election. This is debatable, but it's certainly not a judgement on whether Goldwater is a good person or not. There are plenty of good people who have lost elections because of things they said. One example I could name would be the presidential election of 1880. General Winfield Hancock was expected to stand a good chance and maybe even win against Republican James Garfield, but he ruined his chances of voting* when he said "the tariff is a local issue". This isn't a bad thing to say, nor does it make him a bad person. But it cost him the election.

*At least, this is generally accepted to be the case. Reference "Safire's Political Dictionary", 2008 edition.

My pointing this out was about pointing out the mide set of "we can't listen to people with extream views" not calling you out. And thanks for continuing my point with your follow up!

 

[amwest]

I should also add for clairity, that you may not like a view or idea but for the sake of learning and having an open mind try exploring it to it's ends. You may find even the craziest ideas/people have more merit than you first give them credit for. And even if you still don't agree you can still find pieces of worth in said ideas, or common ground.

 

[Char. Limit]

Here's a quote that I tend to believe:

"There is no such thing as perfect, and there is no such thing as worthless." - Zachary Fitting

Basically, nothing is flawless, but everything has its merits as well.

 

[amwest]

Here's a quote that I tend to believe:

"There is no such thing as perfect, and there is no such thing as worthless." - Zachary Fitting

Basically, nothing is flawless, but everything has its merits as well.

Good quote!

 

[OmCheeto]

Here's a quote that I tend to believe:

"There is no such thing as perfect, and there is no such thing as worthless." - Zachary Fitting

Basically, nothing is flawless, but everything has its merits as well.

Bah!

You sound like a nutcase. But I like this Fitting guy you quote. He sounds like someone I always like to quote:

"Never say never, and never say always" - Gerhard Mahler

A whole lot easier to remember than that Fitting dude.

3 nevers and an always.

 

[amwest]

Bah!

You sound like a nutcase. But I like this Fitting guy you quote. He sounds like someone I always like to quote:

"Never say never, and never say always" - Gerhard Mahler

A whole lot easier to remember than that Fitting dude.

3 nevers and an always.

We're on a Physics forum, we're all nutcases!
BTW- nice quote!

 

[OmCheeto]

We're on a Physics forum, we're all nutcases!
BTW- nice quote!

Oh. Thank you.

So who are you voting for in 2012?

 

[Char. Limit]

Bah!

You sound like a nutcase. But I like this Fitting guy you quote. He sounds like someone I always like to quote:

"Never say never, and never say always" - Gerhard Mahler

A whole lot easier to remember than that Fitting dude.

3 nevers and an always.

Just to check, you know who "this Fitting guy" is, right?

 

[CAC1001]

Oh, I don't know yet. I suppose it will depend on who wins the Republican primary. If the winner turns out to be someone who I would prefer over Obama (who, despite all his detractors, isn't all that bad a president)

I think that's in the eye of the beholder.

 

[CAC1001]

Just to check, you know who "this Fitting guy" is, right?

Google's not bringing up anything, who is he?

 

[amwest]

I'm still unsure who i'll be voting for, i still have to switch my party affiliation to republican if i want to vote in the primaries. I do like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I have to much trouble trusting/believing any of the others even ones claiming to be libratarians.

 

[Al68]

My point is why would his campaign take the money in the first place?

Oh, that's a question, not a point. I don't know the answer.

I'm not saying it is, I'm talking about Paul's position on it.

You said Paul claimed that the Fed "secretly controlled the money supply". Do you have a source for that claim, since it makes no sense whatsoever, considering they do it openly.

Ron Paul is one of the most anti-Federal Reserve people in the government and has been so for many years now.

That's certainly true, but very different from your earlier claim.

In his book End the Fed he talks about how it is some institution that controls the money supply to the benefit of some group of wealthy elites.

Not sure what your point is. They do control the fiat money supply, and it does benefit "wealthy elites", as well as power hungry politicians. Fiat dollar inflation is effectively a tax on poor and working people. But there's nothing secret about it. Again, the fact that most people are unaware of what the Fed does does not mean that it's secret.

The thing is though is that that is a view held by the far-Right and the far-Left, the fringes on each side of the political spectrum.

Which is why some on the left have a soft spot for Paul. He's more libertarian than conservative.

According to Paul, the Federal Reserve does not do those things openly, that is why he wants to "audit" them.

I think you're confused here. Some of the internal operations of the Fed are secret, but the fact that they control the money supply is not.

As for government agencies, I agree there are a lot we would probably be better off with if we got rid of them. But Paul wants to shrink the government to the point where no income taxes would be needed (which would only be doable if we want to go back to the 1800s level of government) I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I know that Libertarians such as Paul seem to have a view of the Constitution that suits their own views on various things (for example, they'll claim the Federal Reserve is un-Constitutional, the Patriot Act is un-Constitutional, etc...)).

I think you're missing the crux of that relationship. The reason the constitution "suits the views" of libertarians is because the constitution was written and approved by libertarians. The 1800s level of government was the level and type of government authorized by the constitution. There have been amendments since then, but none that are relevant here.

The UN may be openly anti-gun, but that doesn't mean they want to "take away America's guns." I mean I am sure they would like to, but that's nothing to be concerned about.

So they don't want to, but they do want to, but just don't worry about it? I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it sounds.

Many of his views are out there on the nutty Right.

Again, such a claim just has no value in a legitimate discussion. Paul is a strong believer in classical liberalism, as were the US founders, and as am I. The fact that it's an uncommon view today doesn't make it "nutty".