The revolution continues...

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Things are pretty fucking good here. People bitch, but they don't think about how bad it is in other places. It's akin to the old proverb that goes something like this...

"when one climbs a mountain to the summit they lose the ability to see the mountain itself"

In many ways the two are tied together. Look at Cuba. East Germany. China. Venezuela.

Sure, you may point out those are communist countries or dictatorships and that it couldn't happen in America. However, all clung to the ideology that slowed down their progress. You might also point out that China is progressing quickly, but per capita, they aren't.

The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

Things are not good here. You can make it seem that way by comparing us to other countries, but I am not interested in comparing us to others. I am interested in us doing well because we are hitting our full potential. Might one son not go to medical school because his brother didn't finish high school?

Gas prices are killing people, others being taken out of their homes. We are in the middle of a hell hole in Iraq, and on top of a never-ending "war on terror." Our deficit is skyrocketing. Future entitlements via Medicare and SS will make that number even worse. Our rights are being trampled upon.

Things are NOT ok, Legendkiller.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Things are pretty fucking good here. People bitch, but they don't think about how bad it is in other places. It's akin to the old proverb that goes something like this...

"when one climbs a mountain to the summit they lose the ability to see the mountain itself"

In many ways the two are tied together. Look at Cuba. East Germany. China. Venezuela.

Sure, you may point out those are communist countries or dictatorships and that it couldn't happen in America. However, all clung to the ideology that slowed down their progress. You might also point out that China is progressing quickly, but per capita, they aren't.

The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

You fail to realize that our government is moving closer to those nations you listed rather than the other direction.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Thank gawd zealots are only a slice in the outer bounds of a normal distrubtion of the population. As such, your influence is marginal, thankfully.

Considering that "the normal distribution of the population" think highly of people like Bush, McCain, and the Clintons, is it really a surprise?

I would much rather deal with those people than ones who think that putting us back to the 1800s is the best way to run a country.

I would much rather deal with your idea of fringe than those who hyperbole the protection of our god given rights as "putting us back to the 1800s".

Which "god given rights" are you speaking of? The problems I have against RP have nothing to do with those rights being taken away.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Things are pretty fucking good here. People bitch, but they don't think about how bad it is in other places. It's akin to the old proverb that goes something like this...

"when one climbs a mountain to the summit they lose the ability to see the mountain itself"

In many ways the two are tied together. Look at Cuba. East Germany. China. Venezuela.

Sure, you may point out those are communist countries or dictatorships and that it couldn't happen in America. However, all clung to the ideology that slowed down their progress. You might also point out that China is progressing quickly, but per capita, they aren't.

The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

Things are not good here. You can make it seem that way by comparing us to other countries, but I am not interested in comparing us to others. I am interested in us doing well because we are hitting our full potential. Might one son not go to medical school because his brother didn't finish high school?

Gas prices are killing people, others being taken out of their homes. We are in the middle of a hell hole in Iraq, and on top of a never-ending "war on terror." Our deficit is skyrocketing. Future entitlements via Medicare and SS will make that number even worse. Our rights are being trampled upon.

Things are NOT ok, Legendkiller.

ROFL.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Things are pretty fucking good here. People bitch, but they don't think about how bad it is in other places. It's akin to the old proverb that goes something like this...

"when one climbs a mountain to the summit they lose the ability to see the mountain itself"

In many ways the two are tied together. Look at Cuba. East Germany. China. Venezuela.

Sure, you may point out those are communist countries or dictatorships and that it couldn't happen in America. However, all clung to the ideology that slowed down their progress. You might also point out that China is progressing quickly, but per capita, they aren't.

The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

You fail to realize that our government is moving closer to those nations you listed rather than the other direction.

Talk about hyperbole.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

Talk about hyperbole.

Indeed.

There are many policies that would.

There are many policies by the status quo crowd that set us back already, what's your point?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Things are pretty fucking good here. People bitch, but they don't think about how bad it is in other places. It's akin to the old proverb that goes something like this...

"when one climbs a mountain to the summit they lose the ability to see the mountain itself"

In many ways the two are tied together. Look at Cuba. East Germany. China. Venezuela.

Sure, you may point out those are communist countries or dictatorships and that it couldn't happen in America. However, all clung to the ideology that slowed down their progress. You might also point out that China is progressing quickly, but per capita, they aren't.

The standard of living that would come out of RP's policies would set us back tremendously.

Things are not good here. You can make it seem that way by comparing us to other countries, but I am not interested in comparing us to others. I am interested in us doing well because we are hitting our full potential. Might one son not go to medical school because his brother didn't finish high school?

Gas prices are killing people, others being taken out of their homes. We are in the middle of a hell hole in Iraq, and on top of a never-ending "war on terror." Our deficit is skyrocketing. Future entitlements via Medicare and SS will make that number even worse. Our rights are being trampled upon.

Things are NOT ok, Legendkiller.

ROFL.

That's all ya got huh?

"Everything is fine, move along. Nothing to see here."

:roll:
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Ron Paul campaign dominates convention
Meeting reveals a party, in this state at least, far from united

By J. Patrick Coolican

Sun, Apr 27, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Reno ? Call 2008 the year of the great tumult, the year of the outsiders, the young, the tech-savvy who are changing American politics.

Although most of the attention, money and passion lie with the long saga of the Democratic presidential contest, Nevada?s state Republican convention here offered evidence of the ground shifting across the spectrum, with an actual earthquake Friday night serving as an apt symbol.

Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican with a libertarian?s heart, followed his second-place finish in Nevada?s January presidential caucus by out-organizing the state?s Republican establishment. In the process, the Paulites embarrassed the campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

They seemed to make up more than half of the 1,300 or so state delegates to the convention. They won a key procedural vote on the rules, and their boisterous presence created significant delays, causing the convention chairman, Bob Beers, a state senator from Las Vegas, to recess the convention without selecting delegates to the national convention. The state convention is to resume at a later date.

Paul supporters occasionally shouted down the chairman, then rocked the convention with noise when Paul, their diminutive doctor icon, appeared to rally them.

The passion of the libertarians showed the sense of unrest of some grass roots Republicans following the party?s 2006 defeat and worrisome signs of another this year.

A surge in Democratic registrations has dealt Nevada Republicans a 50,000 voter deficit, while nationally, the GOP faces the biggest party identification gap to Democrats ever recorded by the Gallup polling organization.

Although it is largely papered over by the GOP establishment?s unifying behind McCain, party regulars are debating the future of the party, and especially whether to return to the small-government principles of the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate.

Republican conventions are usually well-organized, rather staid affairs for bashing Democrats and rallying around the presidential nominee, in this case, McCain.

Not so this time, as many of the more than 1,300 delegates were Paul supporters who viewed themselves as insurgents taking on the establishment.

As Kelly Edinger, a delegate from Washoe County, put it: ?On one side you?ve got a candidate with principles, on the other, Tammany Hall,? referring to the corrupt New York City political machine of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a wildly exaggerated accusation, but a reflection of insurgent attitudes.

The convention was filled with first-timers, including Shawn Moshos, a member of the carpenters union and a 34-year-old lifelong Republican energized for the first time this year. The southwest Las Vegas resident is head of marches, activism and special projects for a Ron Paul Meetup group, which is an online tool for organizing offline.

?It?s a little like going to church,? he said of Paul?s Las Vegas supporters. They meet socially and enjoy talking about shared libertarian principles.

Jon Martin is a young management consultant who lives in Las Vegas also at his first political convention. ?Paul has ignited a fire,? he said.

Although McCain is the presumed nominee, Paul continues to rack up big vote totals in primaries, including 126,000 votes, or nearly 16 percent, in Pennsylvania.

In his speech, Paul called for an end to the IRS and the protection of constitutional liberties. He never mentioned McCain.

Martin is the type of libertarian voter who should concern Republicans. He said McCain is a ?warmonger.?

Martin, who is hoarding precious metals for a predicted economic calamity, also showed the sometimes confusing ideological space these people occupy. He said he would vote for the radical leftist Ralph Nader if Paul isn?t a general election candidate.

Jeff Greenspan, Paul?s southwest director, said the Paul convention plan had been in the works for months. They dominated county conventions. And, in Reno on Saturday, they communicated strategy on the convention floor by mass cell phone text messaging, which no doubt kept them a step ahead of party leadership.

Robert Uithoven, a party strategist and adviser to McCain, acknowledged ?there are divisions in the Republican Party. It?s April. I hope they?ll come over, and I believe they will.?

Uithoven said Paul supporters were able to gain a strong foothold at the convention because McCain?s lean campaign team had racked up victories by relying on free media rather than paid staff or volunteers. The campaign is adding staff and getting organized, Uithoven said.

As he noted, the division among Republicans is nothing compared to the battle going on between the Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Indeed, the minor skirmish among Republicans wasn?t the most telling incident of the day. That came from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Dean Heller, who both sketched out the attacks Republicans will launch on Democrats from now until November.

Romney said Clinton and Obama are ?more concerned with what the ACLU lawyers think than protecting the American people.?

?I know Americans are going to chose a great patriot, a man who?s been tested and proven,? he concluded, which was a thinly veiled way of saying Obama is untested, unproven and has suspect associations.

Heller, a one-time moderate who has become a rock-ribbed conservative since joining Congress in 2007, threw the crowd some red meat. ?If you cannot score above a 40 when you?re bowling, you probably are not physically fit to be president,? he quipped, referring to Obama?s failed attempt in rural Pennsylvania.

Playing off Clinton?s ad about being ready to answer the call at 3 a.m. in the White House and her fibbing about landing amidst sniper fire in Bosnia during the ?90s, Heller said, ?If you cannot remember if you?ve been under sniper fire, you shouldn?t be answering the phone at 3 o?clock in the morning.?

Then he returned to Obama: ?If you think our closets are full of guns, and if you think we go to church every Sunday because we?re bitter, well, I?ll let you answer that.?

Paul notwithstanding, that?s the campaign to come.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Originally posted by: Perry404
Ron Paul campaign dominates convention
Meeting reveals a party, in this state at least, far from united

By J. Patrick Coolican

Sun, Apr 27, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Reno ? Call 2008 the year of the great tumult, the year of the outsiders, the young, the tech-savvy who are changing American politics.

Although most of the attention, money and passion lie with the long saga of the Democratic presidential contest, Nevada?s state Republican convention here offered evidence of the ground shifting across the spectrum, with an actual earthquake Friday night serving as an apt symbol.

Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican with a libertarian?s heart, followed his second-place finish in Nevada?s January presidential caucus by out-organizing the state?s Republican establishment. In the process, the Paulites embarrassed the campaign of Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

They seemed to make up more than half of the 1,300 or so state delegates to the convention. They won a key procedural vote on the rules, and their boisterous presence created significant delays, causing the convention chairman, Bob Beers, a state senator from Las Vegas, to recess the convention without selecting delegates to the national convention. The state convention is to resume at a later date.

Paul supporters occasionally shouted down the chairman, then rocked the convention with noise when Paul, their diminutive doctor icon, appeared to rally them.

The passion of the libertarians showed the sense of unrest of some grass roots Republicans following the party?s 2006 defeat and worrisome signs of another this year.

A surge in Democratic registrations has dealt Nevada Republicans a 50,000 voter deficit, while nationally, the GOP faces the biggest party identification gap to Democrats ever recorded by the Gallup polling organization.

Although it is largely papered over by the GOP establishment?s unifying behind McCain, party regulars are debating the future of the party, and especially whether to return to the small-government principles of the late Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican presidential candidate.

Republican conventions are usually well-organized, rather staid affairs for bashing Democrats and rallying around the presidential nominee, in this case, McCain.

Not so this time, as many of the more than 1,300 delegates were Paul supporters who viewed themselves as insurgents taking on the establishment.

As Kelly Edinger, a delegate from Washoe County, put it: ?On one side you?ve got a candidate with principles, on the other, Tammany Hall,? referring to the corrupt New York City political machine of the 19th and 20th centuries. It was a wildly exaggerated accusation, but a reflection of insurgent attitudes.

The convention was filled with first-timers, including Shawn Moshos, a member of the carpenters union and a 34-year-old lifelong Republican energized for the first time this year. The southwest Las Vegas resident is head of marches, activism and special projects for a Ron Paul Meetup group, which is an online tool for organizing offline.

?It?s a little like going to church,? he said of Paul?s Las Vegas supporters. They meet socially and enjoy talking about shared libertarian principles.

Jon Martin is a young management consultant who lives in Las Vegas also at his first political convention. ?Paul has ignited a fire,? he said.

Although McCain is the presumed nominee, Paul continues to rack up big vote totals in primaries, including 126,000 votes, or nearly 16 percent, in Pennsylvania.

In his speech, Paul called for an end to the IRS and the protection of constitutional liberties. He never mentioned McCain.

Martin is the type of libertarian voter who should concern Republicans. He said McCain is a ?warmonger.?

Martin, who is hoarding precious metals for a predicted economic calamity, also showed the sometimes confusing ideological space these people occupy. He said he would vote for the radical leftist Ralph Nader if Paul isn?t a general election candidate.

Jeff Greenspan, Paul?s southwest director, said the Paul convention plan had been in the works for months. They dominated county conventions. And, in Reno on Saturday, they communicated strategy on the convention floor by mass cell phone text messaging, which no doubt kept them a step ahead of party leadership.

Robert Uithoven, a party strategist and adviser to McCain, acknowledged ?there are divisions in the Republican Party. It?s April. I hope they?ll come over, and I believe they will.?

Uithoven said Paul supporters were able to gain a strong foothold at the convention because McCain?s lean campaign team had racked up victories by relying on free media rather than paid staff or volunteers. The campaign is adding staff and getting organized, Uithoven said.

As he noted, the division among Republicans is nothing compared to the battle going on between the Democrats, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.

Indeed, the minor skirmish among Republicans wasn?t the most telling incident of the day. That came from former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Rep. Dean Heller, who both sketched out the attacks Republicans will launch on Democrats from now until November.

Romney said Clinton and Obama are ?more concerned with what the ACLU lawyers think than protecting the American people.?

?I know Americans are going to chose a great patriot, a man who?s been tested and proven,? he concluded, which was a thinly veiled way of saying Obama is untested, unproven and has suspect associations.

Heller, a one-time moderate who has become a rock-ribbed conservative since joining Congress in 2007, threw the crowd some red meat. ?If you cannot score above a 40 when you?re bowling, you probably are not physically fit to be president,? he quipped, referring to Obama?s failed attempt in rural Pennsylvania.

Playing off Clinton?s ad about being ready to answer the call at 3 a.m. in the White House and her fibbing about landing amidst sniper fire in Bosnia during the ?90s, Heller said, ?If you cannot remember if you?ve been under sniper fire, you shouldn?t be answering the phone at 3 o?clock in the morning.?

Then he returned to Obama: ?If you think our closets are full of guns, and if you think we go to church every Sunday because we?re bitter, well, I?ll let you answer that.?

Paul notwithstanding, that?s the campaign to come.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source


Clearly Ron Paul is going to be the Republican nominee.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Good.

I hope Paul supporters play a significant role in McCain's loss in the GE. Let the party know they can't continue this way.

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Clearly Ron Paul is going to be the Republican nominee.

Everyone knows that isn't going to happen. Don't be a fool.

That isn't what this is about. It's about fixing our party.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction indicates the lack of severity of the crisis he (and his followers) think the US is facing. I know, I know, all other Americans are stupid and only Ron Paul supporters understand what the real issues are facing the country. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Ron Paul supporters are, on average, any brighter than the average American. They've just fallen hook, line, and sinker for his message: the country is in the worst crisis ever and only his dramatic reforms can save us from certain doom. That just isn't the case and the only way we're going to make progress is through concrete reform - not these head-in-the-clouds reactionary solutions that will do nothing but more damage to the country.

Look, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but talking down to me isn't going to make you right.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That just isn't the case and the only way we're going to make progress is through concrete reform - not these head-in-the-clouds reactionary solutions that will do nothing but more damage to the country.

And just how do you propose these "concrete reforms" get acted upon? By voting for the same candidates out of the machine?

You can sit by and wait for the Hillarys or the McCains or even the Obamas to change the country for the better. We won't. The country can't afford to wait that long.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction...

SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Perry404
SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?
How many fans does Howard Stern have while being an overpaid past-his-prime windbag with crazy ideas and a detachment from reality? Oh ya, that's right, "millions"...

Coincidence? I think not!
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Perry404
SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?
How many fans does Howard Stern have while being an overpaid past-his-prime windbag with crazy ideas and a detachment from reality? Oh ya, that's right, "millions"...

Coincidence? I think not!

And what does Howard Stern have to do with my statement?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction indicates the lack of severity of the crisis he (and his followers) think the US is facing. I know, I know, all other Americans are stupid and only Ron Paul supporters understand what the real issues are facing the country. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Ron Paul supporters are, on average, any brighter than the average American. They've just fallen hook, line, and sinker for his message: the country is in the worst crisis ever and only his dramatic reforms can save us from certain doom. That just isn't the case and the only way we're going to make progress is through concrete reform - not these head-in-the-clouds reactionary solutions that will do nothing but more damage to the country.

Look, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but talking down to me isn't going to make you right.

I talk down to you because you clearly aren't interested in intelligent conversation. You're listening to sound bites from extremists and drawing conclusions from them.

Ron Paul isn't saying we're in the worst crisis ever. It's the continual small crises, most of which are invented by the feds themselves, which allow for the gradual encroachment of federal law into every area of our lives that Ron Paul stands against.

The war on drugs? A problem invented by the feds so they can give themselves the power to "fight" it. War on terror? A largely imaginary threat invented by the feds so they can increase their power to "fight" it.

The reactionary reform you speak of isn't the proposals by Ron Paul. It's the massive power grabs by the federal government which are reactionary and dangerous. Based on 9/11 alone this country is beginning to look like a police state. It's hilarious to see you criticize Paul supporters as reactionary. The mainstream is about reactionary as it comes.

OMG!!!!!! Terrorists are everywhere!!!!!! Wiretap everybody's phone and make them take off their shoes at the airport!!!!!

OMG!!!!!! Child porn is everywhere!!!!!! We need to filter every packet that crosses the interweb!!!!!!

OMG!!!!! Somebody smoked a joint!!!!! Throw him in prison for life!!!!!!!

OMG!!!! Gas prices!!!!! We need laws to limit the price of gas!!!!!

But you're right. It's the Paul supporters who are reactionary. :roll:
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction indicates the lack of severity of the crisis he (and his followers) think the US is facing. I know, I know, all other Americans are stupid and only Ron Paul supporters understand what the real issues are facing the country. Unfortunately, I don't believe that Ron Paul supporters are, on average, any brighter than the average American. They've just fallen hook, line, and sinker for his message: the country is in the worst crisis ever and only his dramatic reforms can save us from certain doom. That just isn't the case and the only way we're going to make progress is through concrete reform - not these head-in-the-clouds reactionary solutions that will do nothing but more damage to the country.

Look, we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this issue, but talking down to me isn't going to make you right.

I talk down to you because you clearly aren't interested in intelligent conversation. You're listening to sound bites from extremists and drawing conclusions from them.

Ron Paul isn't saying we're in the worst crisis ever. It's the continual small crises, most of which are invented by the feds themselves, which allow for the gradual encroachment of federal law into every area of our lives that Ron Paul stands against.

The war on drugs? A problem invented by the feds so they can give themselves the power to "fight" it. War on terror? A largely imaginary threat invented by the feds so they can increase their power to "fight" it.

The reactionary reform you speak of isn't the proposals by Ron Paul. It's the massive power grabs by the federal government which are reactionary and dangerous. Based on 9/11 alone this country is beginning to look like a police state. It's hilarious to see you criticize Paul supporters as reactionary. The mainstream is about reactionary as it comes.

OMG!!!!!! Terrorists are everywhere!!!!!! Wiretap everybody's phone and make them take off their shoes at the airport!!!!!

OMG!!!!!! Child porn is everywhere!!!!!! We need to filter every packet that crosses the interweb!!!!!!

OMG!!!!! Somebody smoked a joint!!!!! Throw him in prison for life!!!!!!!

OMG!!!! Gas prices!!!!! We need laws to limit the price of gas!!!!!

But you're right. It's the Paul supporters who are reactionary. :roll:

I'm listening to sound bites? What would even begin to imply that? You're talking down to me because I disagree with you.

I criticize Paul's supporters because they support policies that are short-term and reactionary. People are afraid of the weakening dollar and, rather than recognizing that there are a number of systemic factors hurting the value of our money, Ron Paul has convinced his followers that we need to abandon our money and return to the gold standard. The answer to our money crisis is to pay down our debt and reduce the trade deficit - not throw away the system that has overseen the longest period of increased standards of living in the United States. The Federal Reserve isn't (and never will be) perfect. They, like any other organization, will make mistakes and some of those mistakes will hurt our country. Despite those errors, we've remained an incredibly strong and vigorous economy for the past sixty years.

If his economic policy isn't reactionary, then explain to me why he was such a non-factor in every previous election until now? All of a sudden, his 'abolish the fed to fix all of our problems' idea has gained traction and, coincidentally, the dollar is in a huge rut.

Look, I don't think the war on drugs is a good idea. I don't think the war in Iraq is a good idea. I don't think we should "limit the price of gas." I don't think we should be handing out multi-billion dollar bailouts to companies like Bear Sterns only to see them acquired by another bank for pennies on the dollar. There are plenty of things that Ron Paul says that are fairly reasonable. In fact, the intention behind a lot of his ideas is good (reduce spending, cutting government size, getting out of Iraq), but it's carried to such an extreme that I could never find myself supporting him. Then, he adds in abolishing the Fed, et al and it's just icing on the cake as to why I would never vote for him.

(In case you missed that paragraph, I'm saying most of his ideas are based on good principles. That's right I'm *gasp* agreeing with you.)

You clearly aren't interested in discussing anything, but I still stand by the fact that I'm not using sound bites to make my decision and I've laid out a fairly good argument as to why I don't support him. Again, I still think he's rather reactionary and, while you may be right that he's a reactionary to reactionary policies I don't think that principle (countering reaction with even more reaction) is a good idea.

Cheers
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction...

SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?

What percentage of voters actually voted for Ron Paul when the Republican race was actually still a contest? Very few. He garnered less support than he hoped. He didn't win NH as so many of his supporters were saying he would - he failed to gain traction with the vast majority of Americans.

So what exactly am I "not recognizing?" He didn't come close to winning the Republican nomination and he's won 21 delegates so far. That is the definition of failing to gain traction.

edit: and please, please, please can we not turn this conversation into a conspiracy against Ron Paul discussion? I'm talking about results and the result was he captured less than 1% of the available delegates.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction...

SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?

What percentage of voters actually voted for Ron Paul when the Republican race was actually still a contest? Very few. He garnered less support than he hoped. He didn't win NH as so many of his supporters were saying he would - he failed to gain traction with the vast majority of Americans.

So what exactly am I "not recognizing?" He didn't come close to winning the Republican nomination and he's won 21 delegates so far. That is the definition of failing to gain traction.

edit: and please, please, please can we not turn this conversation into a conspiracy against Ron Paul discussion? I'm talking about results and the result was he captured less than 1% of the available delegates.

Interesting how you shape everything the way you see fit. Now we're using the delegates to judge his national popularity at 1%?
I think your motives are transparent enough I need not even bother counter.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
His ideals are, for the most part, so anti-federalist that you wonder why he bothers to participate in government at all.

Are you saying he should ignore the problems of the federal government micro-managing every aspect of our society? Choosing not to participate in government is surefire way to allow authoritarians to run roughshod over you.

And his anti-federalism is why a lot of us support him.

Clearly you haven't thought this through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :roll:

Any meaningful changes that occur will happen slowly. I don't want my elected leader blabbing about destroying the federal reserve, removing all US military personnel from around the world, dismissing 75% of the federal government, and eliminating all government regulation because that won't help anything. Regardless of how stupid I think most of his ideas are (and how much damage they would do to this country), we need someone who's willing to work within the system to reform it and make the small changes that tantamount to the big changes that most people desire. Electing Ron Paul is like bringing down the hammer on metal with no anvil beneath it.

Small reforms, that's a great idea. If you were on the Titanic, would you have tried bailing the water out with a teaspoon?

The US federal government is out of control and growing far more rapidly than it ever has and the effects of these federal power grabs have been detrimental to this country. The war in Iraq, the war on drugs, a broken social security system that sucks up money with no intention of being able to fulfill it's obligations, a department of education which does the same.

What exactly will small reform get us with the yearly tidal wave of new, increasingly intrusive and expensive legislation? Small reform is using a teaspoon on the Titanic. Scoop water as fast as you want, you're still going to sink.

We aren't on the Titanic.

The fact that Ron Paul has failed so dramatically to gain traction...

SCREEEEEEEECH

I'll just turn you off right there.
The man has gone from total obscurity to gaining an incredibly powerful base of a couple million supporters with virtually no mainstream media support in one year and many of these supporters have the type of loyalty and dedication that the other candidates can only dream about. If you fail to recognise this one simple point then do you actually expect anyone to take your opinion seriously?

What percentage of voters actually voted for Ron Paul when the Republican race was actually still a contest? Very few. He garnered less support than he hoped. He didn't win NH as so many of his supporters were saying he would - he failed to gain traction with the vast majority of Americans.

So what exactly am I "not recognizing?" He didn't come close to winning the Republican nomination and he's won 21 delegates so far. That is the definition of failing to gain traction.

edit: and please, please, please can we not turn this conversation into a conspiracy against Ron Paul discussion? I'm talking about results and the result was he captured less than 1% of the available delegates.

Interesting how you shape everything the way you see fit. Now we're using the delegates to judge his national popularity at 1%?
I think your motives are transparent enough I need not even bother counter.

What? I don't have motives in this situation at all.

I never said anything about his national popularity being 1%! I, in fact, just stated that he has, thus far, captured less than 1% of the available delegates. Considering he is a candidate for President of the United States of America and, to become the President, you must win delegates, he has failed to gain traction with voters in a way that translates to success in the election.

It's pretty cut and dry, but you can twist my words all day.
 

HeXploiT

Diamond Member
Jun 11, 2004
4,359
1
76
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

What? I don't have motives in this situation at all.

I never said anything about his national popularity being 1%! I, in fact, just stated that he has, thus far, captured less than 1% of the available delegates. Considering he is a candidate for President of the United States of America and, to become the President, you must win delegates, he has failed to gain traction with voters in a way that translates to success in the election.

It's pretty cut and dry, but you can twist my words all day.

Sure thing. Ron Paul has no support. Gotcha. ;)

 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Perry404
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

What? I don't have motives in this situation at all.

I never said anything about his national popularity being 1%! I, in fact, just stated that he has, thus far, captured less than 1% of the available delegates. Considering he is a candidate for President of the United States of America and, to become the President, you must win delegates, he has failed to gain traction with voters in a way that translates to success in the election.

It's pretty cut and dry, but you can twist my words all day.

Sure thing. Ron Paul has no support. Gotcha. ;)

Fact: Ron Paul has captured less than 1% of the Republican delegates.
Fact: That under-represents Ron Paul's public support.
Fact: Ron Paul's public support wavers from 5% - 8% (last I checked, maybe it's a bit higher now ... 10% ?)
Fact: 5% - 8% does not constitute enough people to win the Presidential election.

Hence, Ron Paul has failed to gain the widespread support he needs to win.
 

Taejin

Moderator<br>Love & Relationships
Aug 29, 2004
3,270
0
0
YAYAYAYA WOO RON PAUL GO!!! *masturbate furiously* *circle jerk*