News Is selling California a viable solution to government funding?

[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".

 

[Al68]

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.

That's true to some extent. Paul is demonized by some on the right for his anti-war and socially libertarian views, and on the left for his economically libertarian views.

And yes, he is respected by many on both sides, even by those who think his positions are "nutty."

 

[CAC1001]

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

It's a point in that it brings up an important thing about the man.

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.

Not according to Paul they don't, as he refers to the "elites" they service in his book and he always wants to audit them.

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 way Paul describes it though is as if it is specifically created to benefit some mysterious group of elites and purposely does so at everyone else's expense. Again, note how he praised the book The Creature from Jekyll Island.

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

He's one brand of libertarian I'd say.

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.

I know that, but Paul thinks they do it out of interest for some secret group of elites, not out of trying to control the money supply as optimally as possible.

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.

I think it depends. The Congress has used the Commerce Clause and the implied powers of the Constitution to justify a lot of things. That said, if un-Constitutional, I'd say the Constitution would need some further amendments then. It is unrealistic to think we could revert back to an 1800s level of government.

The Louisiana Purchase was un-Constutional too if one views the government as just having the powers explicitly given by the Constitution, and Jefferson had to reverse his own view on this in order to do the deal. I do not think we should give Louisiana back to France though. We also stole Texas from Mexico.

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.

Yeah, I worded that bad. My point is the UN would like to do a lot of things, but nothing to get concerned about unless they started getting some kind of real power.

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".

So am I. But Paul's brand of "liberalism" is of an 1800s government for a 21st century country, which is why I call it nutty. Same with his foreign policy. His brand of foreign policy worked well for the United States during the 1800s, sure, because there were no nuclear missiles or tanks or aircraft then and there was the British Empire which kept the sea lanes open and ensured global trade and the like.

 

[Al68]

Not according to Paul they don't, as he refers to the "elites" they service in his book and he always wants to audit them.

There's no point continuing with this, since you still haven't provided any source where Paul claims that inflating the money supply, devaluing the dollar, is a secret, which was what my disagreement was about.

The way Paul describes it though is as if it is specifically created to benefit some mysterious group of elites and purposely does so at everyone else's expense.

There's nothing mysterious about it. The Fed makes a healthy profit, and everyone else pays the effective tax of dollar devaluation. But the primary financial beneficiary is big government, since it gets to pay its debts by printing dollars, and reduce the amount, in real terms, that it owes its creditors after the fact, all at the expense of working people. If you could provide a quote it might help to figure out what you're referring to as "conspiratorial".

It is unrealistic to think we could revert back to an 1800s level of government.

Politically unrealistic, maybe. But making progress in that direction instead of expanding government further is certainly possible. After all, who would have thought that it was realistic to transform government so drastically last century, without even amending the constitution to allow it?

So am I. But Paul's brand of "liberalism" is of an 1800s government for a 21st century country, which is why I call it nutty.

That makes no sense. It's called "classical" liberalism because it's what was referred to as liberalism prior to the 20th century. What is it specifically about the 21st century that makes it incompatible with "Paul's brand" of liberalism? If anything, it's more compatible.

Same with his foreign policy. His brand of foreign policy worked well for the United States during the 1800s, sure, because there were no nuclear missiles or tanks or aircraft then and there was the British Empire which kept the sea lanes open and ensured global trade and the like.

I already said that I, too, disagree with him about foreign policy. Our military capability must be adapted to the threats we face.

 

[Char. Limit]

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

He's me.

 

[amwest]

To your dispute over the secret group receiving benefits from the fed. It's a ligit argument if you read it in detail. RP's view is that by printing money then giving it to chosen people that are kept secret, they are able to spend it before it devalues the rest of the money in the market. This makes them richer and more powerful for awhile before the dollar value restabilizes. it's also favoring a select few groups that are kept secret, since we're not allowed to know who the fed gives money to. So it's not a conspiricy theory type deal it's relivent market manipulation.

and god i wish i could spell better.

 

[amwest]

as to clasic libralism and constitutionalist being an 1800's idea i have a problem with this. The idea of freedom and following the rules arn't out of date. We should be free to do as we wish without harming others, i don't ever see how this is wrong. two the constitution is a set of guidelines for law and making new ones, why can't it be followed to create laws, and to follow laws, other than it being to inconvinient for most politicians?

 

[amwest]

as to our forgien policy, as a Marine Infantry vet, i agree again with Ron PAul. we don't belong in hundreds of countries and we're not wanted there by their people, trust me both the Japanese nor the germans like us off base! And our current air power and Navy and Marine Corps can protect us from any international threat. Currently we have a MEU/MEF Marines traveling around in Navy ships, which launch from the US and they can be anywhere in the world within 24hours. Thats our mission. Our stealth bombers can launch from the US and utterly destroy a target easily from the US as well. The only real purpose for us to be over seas is to see after the special interest of US corperations. I thought i swore an oath to protect america not haliburton or OPEC...

 

[amwest]

and sorry for any clutter in my responces wanted to get them out before i have to get back to work, i actually got a call!

 

[WhoWee]

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

If ALL of the Republicans stay focused on President Obama - he will lose (IMO). He has been making promises and flip-flopping for 3 years and counting thus far with another 17 months to go in the run up to 2012. The best Republican strategy is to piece together side by side sound bites of the President making a promise or a statement (show the date) then run the sound bite (with the date) of whatever is different from what he first said - I'll guess there are more than 100 examples - more than enough to go around for all the candidates to run in ads. The Republicans need to structure and follow a plan to defeat President Obama - not each other.

 

[BobG]

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

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

Just another example of how the internet has changed communication (and, perhaps, the implications of "freedom of speech"). That definition was created on an internet site and the definition was intentionally pushed up the google rankings solely to target one individual. It's no different than the internet trashing of Judge Greer, the judge that oversaw the Terry Schiavo case, and no different than the Phelps' family's internet trashing of the Snyder family. Yes, per the US Supreme Court, those types of things are considered protected speech, but it's certainly not the best aspect of the internet.

The campaign slogan, "Fighting to Make America America Again" used on the http://ricksantorum.com/explore/ . It's still an odd choice for a conversative candidate. Evidently, they didn't actually read past the first verse of the poem.

Maybe he could revise his slogan to "Fighting to Make the Internet the Internet Again", seeing as he's one of the victims of the darker side of the internet.