Ron Paul Vs. Barack Obama - 51-49

[Fern]

Perry is Fox New's man, Romney is the RNC's guy and Palin is the TeaParty guy.
-snip-

I don't think so.

After Perry's stance/support of in-state tuition to illegal immigrants I can't believe he would be the FNC guy. Not at all, and they've said as much.

I would've thought Perry would have been the TEA Party's choice, but again, not after the in-state tuition thing.

How do you get that the RNC leans toward Romney? I never heard that before. I suppose it could be true, where else they gonna go? (Not Palin/Bachman/Paul/Cain etc)

Fern

 

[momeNt]

No, you're wrong. It's isolationist, pure and simple.

I'd love to see Paul nominated by the GOP. Or Bachmann, Cain or any of the other certified loons.

No, you're wrong. It's non-interventionist.

If government was a grocery store and you had to walk down the aisles and buy things - social security, FEMA disaster, war in iraq in order for government to fund the project. How high up your list would foreign wars and Israel support on your grocery list be bucko?

 

[First]

He's not electable because he's a contrarian ideologue that isn't interested in time-tested solutions, but rather principled ideology. Which, of course, is almost never good for the country.

 

[momeNt]

He's not electable because he's a contrarian ideologue that isn't interested in time-tested solutions, but rather principled ideology. Which, of course, is almost never good for the country.

What have these time-tested solutions solved?

 

[First]

What have these time-tested solutions solved?

They've addressed every social and economic issue better than Paul's stances on social services, gold-backed currency, healthcare, et al.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

He's not electable because he's a contrarian ideologue that isn't interested in time-tested solutions, but rather principled ideology. Which, of course, is almost never good for the country.

aka he is status quo establishment? Thats why he is electable. people are sick of the cookie cutter perrys and romneys etc

 

[momeNt]

They've addressed every social and economic issue better than Paul's stances on social services, gold-backed currency, healthcare, et al.

Well you can't test an ideologue because they are loons. So you can only know the outcomes of what is tested, so I guess we'll never know.

 

[brencat]

...he's a contrarian ideologue that isn't interested in time-tested solutions, but rather principled ideology. Which, of course, is almost never good for the country.

Kind of like Obama... :whiste:

 

[Fern]

He's not electable because he's a contrarian ideologue that isn't interested in time-tested solutions, but rather principled ideology. Which, of course, is almost never good for the country.

Uh oh, wait til Craig reads this....



Fern

 

[First]

Well you can't test an ideologue because they are loons. So you can only know the outcomes of what is tested, so I guess we'll never know.

Well yeah, that's kind of why he isn't taken seriously. Nothing he says can really be proven or has been proven in any sense of the word. Meanwhile, we have verifiable statistics that show what happened to senior homelessness and senior illnesses after the passage of SS and Medicare. They went way, way down. Paul's answer to the question of how to take care of the sick and elderly was "Well, the churches used to take everyone in", simply doesn't fly with thinking people.

 

[woolfe9999]

What have these time-tested solutions solved?

Contrary to the popular perception of our increasingly cry baby culture, we have actually done pretty damn well over these past 100 years without any extreme ideology holding total sway. Obviously, being the most powerful country in the world economically and militarily, and having among the highest living standard, suggests that we've been doing something right.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, you're wrong. It's non-interventionist.

You're wasting your breath, he can't comprehend the difference between the two, or is being purposefully ignorant, either way it's a waste of time.

 

[Doppel]

Sigh......................Ron Paul has zero chance to defeat Obama in a general election. Total pipe dream

Basically this.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Paul seems to be against invading Iran. So, he is totally not being considered for the White House.

We need someone to send every American citizen, armed to the teeth, into Iran on Jan 2nd, 2012 - dontcha know now?

and that is why you'll vote for Obama along with every other hypocrite liberal chanting "Hope and Change" while knowing in the back of your collective minds that Obama still clings to and embraces the same old shit (politics) you guys whine about at every step and turn.

 

[momeNt]

Well yeah, that's kind of why he isn't taken seriously. Nothing he says can really be proven or has been proven in any sense of the word. Meanwhile, we have verifiable statistics that show what happened to senior homelessness and senior illnesses after the passage of SS and Medicare. They went way, way down. Paul's answer to the question of how to take care of the sick and elderly was "Well, the churches used to take everyone in", simply doesn't fly with thinking people.

Okay whew, I thought for a second you actually knew what you were talking about with Dr. Paul.

His issues with those programs is that he doesn't believe they should be federal level programs. States would be free to provide for the elderly and healthcare all they want, he doesn't like the direction the federal government has gone homogenizing all of our 50 states.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I don't think so.

After Perry's stance/support of in-state tuition to illegal immigrants I can't believe he would be the FNC guy. Not at all, and they've said as much.

I would've thought Perry would have been the TEA Party's choice, but again, not after the in-state tuition thing.

How do you get that the RNC leans toward Romney? I never heard that before. I suppose it could be true, where else they gonna go? (Not Palin/Bachman/Paul/Cain etc)

Fern

In State Tuition for Mexicans is a problem for him... and I haven't done the research myself; so there might not be as much of a difference between RNC and FNC candidates as I thought. Perry's just the guy for FNC based on listening to an old man that yaps to me daily about what he 'learned' on FNC today.

That said Romney's the only non-loon* out there; and I'm not voting for him. So it looks like Obama wins again.

*

 

[sportage]

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would beat Obama in the general election, I think a lot of the republicans would be able to beat him. He's pretty weak now IMO.

Reminds me of that song "Dream On".
And Ron Paul? He couldnt beat my 90 year old grand mother.
My latest poll shows he might win dog catcher, however...

 

[Ausm]

Kind of like Obama... :whiste:

Maybe if you mean Republican ideology.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Sigh......................Ron Paul has zero chance to defeat Obama in a general election. Total pipe dream

This. I like some of his views, but the whole "If the constitution doesn't allow it, it should not be done" is a little silly. The abuse of the interstate commerce clause is rampant, and should be fixed...but that's not to say the federal gov't should shrink to nothing.

Kind of like Obama... :whiste:

Yes, because Obama's way is to...wait, what is his way? Copy Bush? Force shit through congress? Obama may as well have walked into the national archives, taken the constitution and used it to wipe his rear end.

Ron Paul at least knows history, knows the constitution and has a record of being consistent. Romney and Perry do not have that either.

The real person I'd like to see do better is Newt Gingrich...

 

[First]

Okay whew, I thought for a second you actually knew what you were talking about with Dr. Paul.

His issues with those programs is that he doesn't believe they should be federal level programs. States would be free to provide for the elderly and healthcare all they want, he doesn't like the direction the federal government has gone homogenizing all of our 50 states.

No, I know quite a bit more about Paul than you do, in fact. And fact is that you are making my point entirely when you unwittingly concede that Paul would allow for states to go years, decades or even never, if they so choose, provide medical care and retirement plans to their seniors. Except this was already tried for 160 years, and it failed. Since SS and Medicare, senior homelessness and health have vastly improved. These are statistically verifiable facts. Deal with it, Paul believes in ideas that have failed or are unproven.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

States would be free to provide for the elderly and healthcare all they want

How asinine.

If the right thing to do is to not allow old/poor people to starve/die of readily curable disease because they are poor: then why would making doing the right thing a states-rights issue be a better idea?*

It's a cover to destroy social protections; not an honest attempt to improve them. If he wants more old people to starve and the poor to die of diabetes (unless taken care of by a private entity) then he should be intellectually honest and just say so.

And so should you.


*The "constitution" is a ruse as well; as if this was truly a constitutional issue then Dr. Paul would be arguing for an amendment to allow for redistribution among the states so that the old/sick/poor and disabled would be taken care of.

 

[Fayd]

my concern about ron paul stems from his belief that america is in the wrong for occupying other countries and we "deserved" to be targets of terrorism. that line of thinking is out of line with mine.

i agree with him on other things tho. i do believe in significantly reducing the size of federal governments, significantly cutting entitlement spending, etc. too bad even if he were elected, it wouldn't happen.


here's my ideas to fix the US.

end the pension system. immediately fire and rehire all federal employees, so they no longer accrue under the pension system. (well, i wouldn't rehire all...)
close all tax loopholes i can. bring all explicit forms of income up/down to the same progressive tax rate.
keep funding for universities and research grants at where it is.
eliminate tax breaks/incentives for corporations in specific fields. eliminate subsidies on all production... subject to whether or not the industry is necessary for national security from a realist perspective.
significantly cut federal staff, severely roll back on lifetime benefits to military officers.

thousands of other changes.

 

[frostedflakes]

This. I like some of his views, but the whole "If the constitution doesn't allow it, it should not be done" is a little silly. The abuse of the interstate commerce clause is rampant, and should be fixed...but that's not to say the federal gov't should shrink to nothing.




Yes, because Obama's way is to...wait, what is his way? Copy Bush? Force shit through congress? Obama may as well have walked into the national archives, taken the constitution and used it to wipe his rear end.

Ron Paul at least knows history, knows the constitution and has a record of being consistent. Romney and Perry do not have that either.

The real person I'd like to see do better is Newt Gingrich...

Ron Paul's big thing is respect for the rule of law. I've never heard him or anyone else claim that the Constitution is perfect and that it should never be changed. The founding fathers recognized that it would have to change with the times, that's why they included provisions to amend it. This false dichotomy that the courts either liberally interpret the Constitution or we stay stuck in the 18th century is just ludicrous, it ignores that we can amend and change the Constitution any time we want. The 3/5 compromise, for example, was terrible (although probably a necessary evil to establish the union), and it's good that it was eventually reversed through the proper methods, a Constitutional amendment.

But you can't just ignore the parts of the Constitution you don't like, it is (or is supposed to be, at least) the ultimate law of the land. So if you want the federal government to provide a social insurance program, for example, you need to get the 2/3 votes necessary to amend the Constitution and grant them that authority. But Congress would rather just ignore the Constitution and pass laws with a simple majority, because it's hard to get 2/3 of the country to agree on many things. And that's the way it should be, such far-reaching issues that are going to have a large impact on 300+ million Americans should be thoroughly debated and should require overwhelming support and not just be rammed through Congress. If you can't get at least 2/3 support, pass it at the state level instead of forcing it on many states that obviously don't want the legislation. It also doesn't make sense to pass Constitutional amendments for every stupid thing people want the government to do, so even if there is widespread support, a lot of other stuff would make more sense to pass at the state level instead of amending the Constitution to grant the federal government authority.

edit: Here's him talking about the rule of law, the Constitution, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg&feature=player_detailpage#t=117s

 

[Dr. Zaus]

respect for the rule of law.

The rule of law is that the USSC gets to interpret the Constitution; if the USSC finds that the elastic clause allows for what it has found that it allows for, then we can see clearly that the rule of law has not been violated.

I understand that 'following the constitution' and respecting the 'rule of law' are emotively connected to what 'the founding fathers did'. But by bringing with them English common law they gave us the ability to re-interpret our democracy however we see fit. So, you see, if we follow what the USSC says is constitutional we can't help but be following the rule of law.

This argument, like that of 'states rights' is "a cover to destroy social protections; not an honest attempt to improve them. If he wants more old people to starve and the poor to die of diabetes (unless taken care of by a private entity) then he should be intellectually honest and just say so."

Please try to move past your emotional connection to this ephemeral 'proper' way to 'make America great again'. It's like looking toward re-establishing the dominance of the printing press in-order to improve the education of society today. Yeoman-farmer Jacksonian democracy worked for its time, but it doesn't even come close to a coherently reasonable system of governance today.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ron Paul would be the quickest way out of the middle east. Can you imagine the collective heads exploding in congress when he orders troops home?

It would certainly make me happy... and I cannot say any other candidate would do it. I just wish this man were younger.