Ames Debate

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Oh no, thats where you are wrong! Corn Subsidizes oozing their way into every aspect of the American diet is not only nutritionally sound, but economically sound too. Just like the fuel efficiency and cost benefit of ethanol, totally renewable dude! I mean, who cares if the cost of the inputs are far greater than the benefit of the output.

The amount of bureaucratization in public education is beyond ridiculous, its amazing ANYONE gets educated. Can you say, Tax credits?

[quote]666Rich wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Oh no, thats where you are wrong! Corn Subsidizes oozing their way into every aspect of the American diet is not only nutritionally sound, but economically sound too. Just like the fuel efficiency and cost benefit of ethanol, totally renewable dude! I mean, who cares if the cost of the inputs are far greater than the benefit of the output.

The amount of bureaucratization in public education is beyond ridiculous, its amazing ANYONE gets educated. Can you say, Tax credits?
[/quote]

Corn subsidies do help one get votes in the Midwest though, so I guess there is that…

no doubt, politics is always about spending other peoples money to make yourself well liked. really no different from the mafia, except at least one of those two has some semblance of an honor code…

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:

‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]

Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)

I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]

Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]

Let’s get real. Regardless of Ron Paul. You think that anytime money is there to be made that people won’t try to manipulate things? Really? I highly fucking doubt the War on Drugs is here to save little Timmy from smoking a joint. I hate to go all conspiracy on you, but no fucking way that what we see on the surface is the truth. Too much money plus human greed. How do you trust they aren’t involved? Look at this shit in Mexico just recently, letting gangs buy assult weapons, I don’t give a shit if it was supposed to be a sting or not. You trust these fucks to tell the truth?[/quote]

Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]

I guess man. People like you actually scare me more than a Nancy Pelosi does. Humans are corrupt, Governments are made up of Humans. You should be very careful trusting either. You think Operations Northwood and Project MKULTRA are isolated incidents. You have no reason to believe anything the govt says. That is why smaller govt is needed, not because I hate blacks, poor people, taxes, etc. but because I cannot trust them (the govt) to do the fucking right thing.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:

‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]

Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)

I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]

Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]

Let’s get real. Regardless of Ron Paul. You think that anytime money is there to be made that people won’t try to manipulate things? Really? I highly fucking doubt the War on Drugs is here to save little Timmy from smoking a joint. I hate to go all conspiracy on you, but no fucking way that what we see on the surface is the truth. Too much money plus human greed. How do you trust they aren’t involved? Look at this shit in Mexico just recently, letting gangs buy assult weapons, I don’t give a shit if it was supposed to be a sting or not. You trust these fucks to tell the truth?[/quote]

Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Yes, who needs a ‘food safety and inspection service’? Off the list.

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:

‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]

Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)

I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]

Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]

Let’s get real. Regardless of Ron Paul. You think that anytime money is there to be made that people won’t try to manipulate things? Really? I highly fucking doubt the War on Drugs is here to save little Timmy from smoking a joint. I hate to go all conspiracy on you, but no fucking way that what we see on the surface is the truth. Too much money plus human greed. How do you trust they aren’t involved? Look at this shit in Mexico just recently, letting gangs buy assult weapons, I don’t give a shit if it was supposed to be a sting or not. You trust these fucks to tell the truth?[/quote]

Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]

[/quote]

I don’t need to read a wikipedia entry on the CIA support for the contras in Nicaragua. Perhaps if you read it yourself you’d notice that the CIA weren’t involved in selling drugs, only supporting rebels who were. Also, that has absolutely no relevance today whatsoever.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bonesaw93 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Best of Ron Paul kookiness:

‘Because ah…is a…there’s been a coup! Haven’t you heard? It’s a CIA coup! The CIA runs everything! They run the military…they’re every bit as secretive as the Federal Reserve…they’re in drug businesses and ah…(drowned out by applause)’ - Ron Paul[/quote]

Not sure what you are getting at. Sure Ron Paul comes across as loony, but there is a lot of truth in what he says. I would say the odds are greater that the CIA is involved in drugs than the odds they aren’t. (Not sure if that was the point of your post or not.)

I can’t believe the trust some people have in government to do the right thing. Especially when we see they do not, time after time. (not necessarily directed at you SM)[/quote]

Come on that’s crazy talk! The CIA ‘runs the military’, ‘runs everything’ and is involved in ‘drug businesses’?[/quote]

Let’s get real. Regardless of Ron Paul. You think that anytime money is there to be made that people won’t try to manipulate things? Really? I highly fucking doubt the War on Drugs is here to save little Timmy from smoking a joint. I hate to go all conspiracy on you, but no fucking way that what we see on the surface is the truth. Too much money plus human greed. How do you trust they aren’t involved? Look at this shit in Mexico just recently, letting gangs buy assult weapons, I don’t give a shit if it was supposed to be a sting or not. You trust these fucks to tell the truth?[/quote]

Okay, so the CIA has been involved in some shady stuff but they don’t ‘run everything’ and ‘run the military’. That’s crazy talk. Also, neither you, I nor Ron Paul has any reason whatsoever to believe that the CIA is involved in ‘drug businesses’.[/quote]

[/quote]

I don’t need to read a wikipedia entry on the CIA support for the cotras in Nicaragua. Perhaps if you read it yourself you’d notice that the CIA weren’t involved in selling drugs, only supporting rebels who were. Also, that has absolutely no relevance today whatsoever.[/quote]

So you looked at the first link. Very thorough research.

Ron Paul was quite good.

To stay on topic:

My assessment of the debate last night:

Pawlenty He sounded rehearsed and forced when he went after Bachmann. And he was perhaps the only candidate that could take the place of Ambien for putting voters to sleep. As for appearence all I could think is this guy looks no more Presidential than my neighbor who is an art teacher. He looks and sounds weak. He will never be President. And I wouldn’t want him any where near the ticket. Too bad as the Governor of MN the GOP could use that state.

Santorum I was surprised how smart he sounded. Certainly one of the winners last night. His delivery needs work as he comes off as too angry much of the time. He won’t be getting the nomination, but he’d be a good VP pick. And he could help win PA an important state to win for the GOP.

Bachmann I don’t think she showed us anything that hasn’t already been seen. She did have a great answer on abortion and it somehow meant more coming from a woman. I’d say she finished in the top half of the pack. As a Congresswoman she’s not going to become President. As a female conservative the press will be on her like ugly on a gorilla (see cover of Newsweek). You see it’s okay to be sexist as long as the victim is a female conservative.

Gingrich I don’t personally like Gingrich I think there is a coldness about him (met him once). bBt he was a big winner last night. He was the most relaxed (being near the bottom has that effect-nothing to lose). His answers came from a deep understanding of how government works. He would be an excellent choice for VP as that position lends itself to being the hatchet man. And this allows the Presidential contender to take the high road.

Paul Once again Paul sounded like the crotchety old man that he is. I got a huge belly laugh at his closing remarks. It’s almost like someone threw his words into high gear. It’s like he was cramming a 5:00 summation into 1:00. He’ll never be President but I do think that he’d make a good character on a sitcom. Maybe the funny half witted grandfather? The sooner he and the other fringe candidates drop out the sooner the potential winners can have more face time with the voting public.

Cain Herman Cain is happy that Ron Paul is in the race because Paul is the only candidate who can make Cain look good. Cain as usual is light on details. And if you close your eyes and just listen he sounds like Cleveland from Family Guy. I expected him to say “oh Peter can you help me get elected.” (Maybe Chris Christie could play Peter?) Anyway, Cain has no chance of winning and like Paul should be kept far away from the ticket. No he will not attract black voters as they are married to Obama for more reasons than skin color. African Americans have been voting for democrats since LBJ created the Great Society in 1964.

Romney This guy looks Presidential! You can love him, or hate him, he fits the mold without question. And while he didn’t win last night he did finish near the top. I can clearly see why he’s out front in the race. He was relaxed and answered each question with poise and confidence. He also went after Obama more than any other candidate. This shows that he feels he already has the nomination in the bag. It also set him apart as looking like a leader. If Romney gets the nod and he chooses Gingrich or Santorum (or even Christie) as VP that is a ticket that could possibly beat Obama and the liberal media.

Huntsman Listening to the man I was surprised that he thought he could win the nomination. He is for civil unions for homosexuals. Now tell me how does one win the republican nomination when they are pro civil unions? Who votes in the primaries? The right on the republican side and the left during the democratic primaries. So what is he thinking? Aside from that incredible stumbling block he came off as dour, something that we do not need in these gloomy economic times. I can picture him as an Ambassador however, oh yeah that’s what he was.

I really enjoyed watching the candidates together on one stage. I also watched the end as they broke off and began talking with each other. Did anyone take note of that?

A more interesting topic might just be the effect that Rick Perry will have on this race. He immediately leaps to the top two or three positions. And if I were Mitt Romney I would be very concerned as Perry is to the right of Romney and is capable of pulling Christian voters.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Yes, who needs a ‘food safety and inspection service’? Off the list.[/quote]

75% of the USDA budget goes to food stamps, 5 percent to giving credit risks a mortgage and 10% to subsidizing detrimental factory farms. So would you be comfortable cutting their budget by 90%.

Besides, Their inspections are a joke, most foods only get recalled because of reports after on the market.

While we are at it cut the FDA, FCC, FAA, EPA

I work in a highly regulated industry and regulatory bodies are a joke. Just pay them off or provide something you need and the regulations don’t matter.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Yes, who needs a ‘food safety and inspection service’? Off the list.[/quote]
A free market provides much better quality control than government ever could. You don’t turn to Tim Geithner to tell you what plays you want to see, do you? No, you turn to an independent critic. Exact same issue really.

Thanks Zeb for bringing this back on topic. I unfortunately spiraled off topic with some others. Here is an interesting take on last night by the tenth amendment center:

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

More Ron Paul kookiness:

‘I’d like to get rid of the Department of Education, the Department of Agriculture, just go down the list get rid of it…cut the budget in half. Everything that’s not constitutional, that’s a good place to start…the Department of Education should be cut, it’s unconstitutional!’[/quote]

The Department of Education costs you like a 100 billion $ a year and hinders your schools considerably. The DoA has been making the populace fat for years and years. How exactly is it kooky to want to get rid of them? And how is it kooky to want to abide by the rule of law?

I think it might be you who’s the kooky one.[/quote]

Yes, who needs a ‘food safety and inspection service’? Off the list.[/quote]

75% of the USDA budget goes to food stamps, 5 percent to giving credit risks a mortgage and 10% to subsidizing detrimental factory farms. So would you be comfortable cutting their budget by 90%.

Besides, Their inspections are a joke, most foods only get recalled because of reports after on the market.

While we are at it cut the FDA, FCC, FAA, EPA

I work in a highly regulated industry and regulatory bodies are a joke. Just pay them off or provide something you need and the regulations don’t matter. [/quote]

Making cuts is one thing. Abolishing the entire department and all its subdepartments in one fell swoop is lunacy.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
To stay on topic:

My assessment of the debate last night:

Pawlenty He sounded rehearsed and forced when he went after Bachmann. And he was perhaps the only candidate that could take the place of Ambien for putting voters to sleep. As for appearence all I could think is this guy looks no more Presidential than my neighbor who is an art teacher. He looks and sounds weak. He will never be President. And I wouldn’t want him any where near the ticket. Too bad as the Governor of MN the GOP could use that state.

Santorum I was surprised how smart he sounded. Certainly one of the winners last night. His delivery needs work as he comes off as too angry much of the time. He won’t be getting the nomination, but he’d be a good VP pick. And he could help win PA an important state to win for the GOP.

Bachmann I don’t think she showed us anything that hasn’t already been seen. She did have a great answer on abortion and it somehow meant more coming from a woman. I’d say she finished in the top half of the pack. As a Congresswoman she’s not going to become President. As a female conservative the press will be on her like ugly on a gorilla (see cover of Newsweek). You see it’s okay to be sexist as long as the victim is a female conservative.

Gingrich I don’t personally like Gingrich I think there is a coldness about him (met him once). bBt he was a big winner last night. He was the most relaxed (being near the bottom has that effect-nothing to lose). His answers came from a deep understanding of how government works. He would be an excellent choice for VP as that position lends itself to being the hatchet man. And this allows the Presidential contender to take the high road.

Paul Once again Paul sounded like the crotchety old man that he is. I got a huge belly laugh at his closing remarks. It’s almost like someone threw his words into high gear. It’s like he was cramming a 5:00 summation into 1:00. He’ll never be President but I do think that he’d make a good character on a sitcom. Maybe the funny half witted grandfather? The sooner he and the other fringe candidates drop out the sooner the potential winners can have more face time with the voting public.

Cain Herman Cain is happy that Ron Paul is in the race because Paul is the only candidate who can make Cain look good. Cain as usual is light on details. And if you close your eyes and just listen he sounds like Cleveland from Family Guy. I expected him to say “oh Peter can you help me get elected.” (Maybe Chris Christie could play Peter?) Anyway, Cain has no chance of winning and like Paul should be kept far away from the ticket. No he will not attract black voters as they are married to Obama for more reasons than skin color. African Americans have been voting for democrats since LBJ created the Great Society in 1964.

Romney This guy looks Presidential! You can love him, or hate him, he fits the mold without question. And while he didn’t win last night he did finish near the top. I can clearly see why he’s out front in the race. He was relaxed and answered each question with poise and confidence. He also went after Obama more than any other candidate. This shows that he feels he already has the nomination in the bag. It also set him apart as looking like a leader. If Romney gets the nod and he chooses Gingrich or Santorum (or even Christie) as VP that is a ticket that could possibly beat Obama and the liberal media.

Huntsman Listening to the man I was surprised that he thought he could win the nomination. He is for civil unions for homosexuals. Now tell me how does one win the republican nomination when they are pro civil unions? Who votes in the primaries? The right on the republican side and the left during the democratic primaries. So what is he thinking? Aside from that incredible stumbling block he came off as dour, something that we do not need in these gloomy economic times. I can picture him as an Ambassador however, oh yeah that’s what he was.

I really enjoyed watching the candidates together on one stage. I also watched the end as they broke off and began talking with each other. Did anyone take note of that?

A more interesting topic might just be the effect that Rick Perry will have on this race. He immediately leaps to the top two or three positions. And if I were Mitt Romney I would be very concerned as Perry is to the right of Romney and is capable of pulling Christian voters.

[/quote]

I thought Gingrich did well also.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh John you do keep trying don’t you? In many ways you’re like your hero Ron Paul. Okay back to reality, as I’ve said countless times Ron Paul will win any poll where one person can call in multiple times, such as the FOX News poll. And he’ll also win where people can be bused in from other locations. And why? Because many of Paul’s followers are like John S. They’re over the top and will do just about anything to make Paul look good, (unfortunately Paul cannot make Paul look good). They’re young males who can drop what they’re doing and take a 3 or 4 hour bus ride to vote. Or, call into FOX News multiple times under different names. That poll means nothing and Paul remains a fringe candidate.
[/quote]

Or maybe it’s the fact that the only people paying attention to these debates right now are the ones that take a great deal of interest in American politics and these people tend to be much more knowledgeable on politics that America in general. When it comes down to nothing more than the platform the candidate is running on, Ron Paul absolutely takes the cake. He made Santorum and Bachman look like absolute fools when it came to discussing health care and the 10th ammendment. (In Romney’s defense, he actually made his point very well and I also believe he was 100% right in his assessment of the constitutionality of health care at the state level, I simply disagree with his methods, but that is the state’s prerogative!)

The problem will surface here in 6-9 months or so when more of the general public start to take an interest and fall right in line with the mainstream media that wants to label him a kook. It’s really straight out of the democratic playbook. If you can’t debate the facts, just disparage and vilify your opponent until the facts no longer matter. We saw some of this last night out of Pawlenty and Santorum, and it did not work for them, but as the media starts to back some of this the tide will surely turn and we’ll have another predictable outcome with some combination of Pawlenty, Romney, Bachman, and Perry being our choices. Blech.

On a side note, Newt Gingrich may be the best thing going for Paul right now. The more he can attack the media and continue his straight talk sort of campaigning, the better Paul looks as people direct their attention to the platform.

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

Oh John you do keep trying don’t you? In many ways you’re like your hero Ron Paul. Okay back to reality, as I’ve said countless times Ron Paul will win any poll where one person can call in multiple times, such as the FOX News poll. And he’ll also win where people can be bused in from other locations. And why? Because many of Paul’s followers are like John S. They’re over the top and will do just about anything to make Paul look good, (unfortunately Paul cannot make Paul look good). They’re young males who can drop what they’re doing and take a 3 or 4 hour bus ride to vote. Or, call into FOX News multiple times under different names. That poll means nothing and Paul remains a fringe candidate.
[/quote]

Or maybe it’s the fact that the only people paying attention to these debates right now are the ones that take a great deal of interest in American politics and these people tend to be much more knowledgeable on politics that America in general. When it comes down to nothing more than the platform the candidate is running on, Ron Paul absolutely takes the cake. He made Santorum and Bachman look like absolute fools when it came to discussing health care and the 10th ammendment. (In Romney’s defense, he actually made his point very well and I also believe he was 100% right in his assessment of the constitutionality of health care at the state level, I simply disagree with his methods, but that is the state’s prerogative!)

The problem will surface here in 6-9 months or so when more of the general public start to take an interest and fall right in line with the mainstream media that wants to label him a kook. It’s really straight out of the democratic playbook. If you can’t debate the facts, just disparage and vilify your opponent until the facts no longer matter. We saw some of this last night out of Pawlenty and Santorum, and it did not work for them, but as the media starts to back some of this the tide will surely turn and we’ll have another predictable outcome with some combination of Pawlenty, Romney, Bachman, and Perry being our choices. Blech.

On a side note, Newt Gingrich may be the best thing going for Paul right now. The more he can attack the media and continue his straight talk sort of campaigning, the better Paul looks as people direct their attention to the platform.[/quote]

I’ll address your points one by one:

1- I agree that only those who are very interested in Politics are tuned in right now. As I’ve said on prior occasions history shows us that most do not get interested until after labor day, about two months before the Presidential election. So we are about one year ahead of the crowd. And on top of that most who are discussing this right now, like you and I, know far more right now than the average voter on the day he votes. A campaign is won on who the candidate is, how he projects himself and the topics that he’s able to promote during said campaign. And it all happens in just about 90 days prior to the election!

2- The Paul supporters are very passionate and that’s why, as I’ve already stated, they’ll take a bus to Iowa or just about anywhere else to cast a vote for Paul. They’ll also call in and vote 100 times for Paul. Paul always wins when there are no rules, or very few, for voting. And he always loses when it is an actual primary. Try as they may Paul supporters will NEVER launch their candidate into the top three. And will in fact be lucky to keep him out of last, or next to last place. His supporters are zealous in their efforts. I can’t imagine how badly Obama would be defeated if this type of zealotry would be directed at someone who could actually win.

3-The reason it always comes down to two or three real players is that these are the people who can actually win. I know you like Paul but it is not the media who is painting him as an old crank. HE is doing that job quite well. You like what he has to say so you over look the fact that he comes across in this manner. But those who tune in for the first time wonder why someone’s crazy old grandfather is running for President. Think of it as a movie and you are casting the characters. Would you cast Paul as President? No, of course not. And if you did your movie company wouldn’t last long. People are used to seeing certain types in certain rolls. Obama looks Presidential, I don’t like his policies but he looks the part. Romney and Perry Look Presidential regardless of what you think of them. The media doesn’t have to do anything to make Paul look bad----he just Looks Bad! He is not what people expect to see and he will be rejected out of hand on that note.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ll address your points one by one:

1- I agree that only those who are very interested in Politics are tuned in right now. As I’ve said on prior occasions history shows us that most do not get interested until after labor day, about two months before the Presidential election. So we are about one year ahead of the crowd. And on top of that most who are discussing this right now, like you and I, know far more right now than the average voter on the day he votes. A campaign is won on who the candidate is, how he projects himself and the topics that he’s able to promote during said campaign. And it all happens in just about 90 days prior to the election!

2- The Paul supporters are very passionate and that’s why, as I’ve already stated, they’ll take a bus to Iowa or just about anywhere else to cast a vote for Paul. They’ll also call in and vote 100 times for Paul. Paul always wins when there are no rules, or very few, for voting. And he always loses when it is an actual primary. Try as they may Paul supporters will NEVER launch their candidate into the top three. And will in fact be lucky to keep him out of last, or next to last place. His supporters are zealous in their efforts. I can’t imagine how badly Obama would be defeated if this type of zealotry would be directed at someone who could actually win.

3-The reason it always comes down to two or three real players is that these are the people who can actually win. I know you like Paul but it is not the media who is painting him as an old crank. HE is doing that job quite well. You like what he has to say so you over look the fact that he comes across in this manner. But those who tune in for the first time wonder why someone’s crazy old grandfather is running for President. Think of it as a movie and you are casting the characters. Would you cast Paul as President? No, of course not. And if you did your movie company wouldn’t last long. People are used to seeing certain types in certain rolls. Obama looks Presidential, I don’t like his policies but he looks the part. Romney and Perry Look Presidential regardless of what you think of them. The media doesn’t have to do anything to make Paul look bad----he just Looks Bad! He is not what people expect to see and he will be rejected out of hand on that note.
[/quote]

I don’t disagree, per se, with any of this. I think some of your points have a greater influence than others, but I won’t say you are wrong. I think you are overstating the lengths that most Paul supporters go to during these types of polls. I for instance thought he won the debate by a landslide but I’m not going to waste my time on a worthless on line poll. I also think there are far more older Americans that support Paul than you realize. I can’t prove this and neither can you at this point, but it’s worth contemplating.

The rest of your post is basically spot on. I blame the media more than you do, but I think for different reasons than you suspect. Yes, painting him as a kook is a big force, but not the primary one. Get out the vote and all the other crap you hear about the importance of a presidential election does more to hurt Paul than anything else. If a presidential election had similar turn out to a mid-term election, I do believe Ron Paul would have a significant chance. If it had turn outs similar to local elections he would absolutely win and it all has to do with the facts that you mentioned. The general public places no importance on what a candidate stands for, simply on how presidential they look and what promises they make - throw in a media bias and name recognition and face time also become a large contributing factor.

Personally, my ideal campaign would revolve around nothing more than an online debate like this one. Lay it all out and let the candidates quote and debate each other in print. These 30 second quips and responses do little to let voters know where candidates really stand. Bachmann for instance is typically very good at saying the right thing, but I simply don’t trust her and don’t believe she has much in the way of substance. She screwed up big on the 10th ammendment, but overall she is typically an excellent speaker, and frankly that quality is entirely overrated. Newt Gingrich is proof of that. Like him or not (seems like most don’t), he has been an extremely effective politician and I generally agree with his stance as well. Yet whose face is constantly on fox? Bachmann’s. Didn’t they have her on right after the debate? Was anybody else interviewed afterwards? (These are serious questions, I went to bed shortly after it ended.)

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

Making cuts is one thing. Abolishing the entire department and all its subdepartments in one fell swoop is lunacy.[/quote]

but I think that is the point we really don’t need them, we have laws to handle this sort of thing.

You knowingly kill people you go to jail. I wish they would do that in my industry. screw these corporate observations and citations they mean nothing. start arresting or if serious enough executing the criminals.

WE have 10 departments that all have the same exact job function in many instances.

my take on the debates, the only people electable are really big government progressives trying to appeal to a socially conservative base. We will continue on this debt spiral and lose much more freedom along the way.