Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.[/quote]
Please explain how the government is on your back. Not your neighbors back, but your specific back. Keep in mind I am not claiming government should not be smaller, it should, but I’d like to hear your personal story, since you made such a declaration.
[/quote]
First thing, they have exploded the cost of college which is going to cause me to go deep into debt, the taxes they are taking out of my paycheck even tho they may seem small to some do restrict a lot of what I can do. When I look to the future I see all the taxes that will be taken out of my future earnings, when I start up my business later on in life I will have to deal with many regulations and taxes.
Its just not about present oppression but future oppression.[/quote]
The cost of college should come down under Obama. The part time job (or full time summer job) that you have has not been taxed any more under Obama (yet) than under Bush.
So, the government is not on your back after all. What you are doing is projecting disaster and are afraid of things that might happen.
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
[/quote]
Why can’t Ron Paul? Democrats like him, independents like him, and Republican’s like him. you keep saying he can’t win and his supporters are idiots, yet you never explain why.[/quote]
I have explained why, read my post regarding how a republican can get elected. Paul has none of those things. Everyone seems to understand this except the Paulies. Why? I think it has something to do with falling in love with his message. I think much of what he has to say resonates with you and others like you. But make no mistake about it, he does not resonate with nearly enough people to come even close to getting the nomination, much less capture the white house.
[/quote]
Poll after Poll shows Ron would do very well if he decides to run. Be it Rassmussen, or straw polls. The only people who seem to have a problem with his messege are the ones that want to always be at war.[/quote]
If I recall you (and your kind) said the same thing in 2008. Paul ran and got destroyed, as I predicted that he would. If he runs again, he will get destroyed again. If he is healthy enough to run in 2016 he would get destroyed then as well.
The man is not presidential timber and never will be. 10,000 maniacs screaming otherwise does not make it so. I’ve explained why numerous times.
I know you are young and naive, we’ve all been there, but at least try to live and learn.
Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.[/quote]
Please explain how the government is on your back. Not your neighbors back, but your specific back. Keep in mind I am not claiming government should not be smaller, it should, but I’d like to hear your personal story, since you made such a declaration.
[/quote]
First thing, they have exploded the cost of college which is going to cause me to go deep into debt, the taxes they are taking out of my paycheck even tho they may seem small to some do restrict a lot of what I can do. When I look to the future I see all the taxes that will be taken out of my future earnings, when I start up my business later on in life I will have to deal with many regulations and taxes.
Its just not about present oppression but future oppression.[/quote]
The cost of college should come down under Obama. The part time job (or full time summer job) that you have has not been taxed any more under Obama (yet) than under Bush.
So, the government is not on your back after all. What you are doing is projecting disaster and are afraid of things that might happen.
[/quote]
John said the government was on his back, not Obama’s government. Just because things are the same as they were under Bush does not mean the government is not hindering John.
Come on, man, you’re just looking to discredit John S.
FTR, I agree with you guys about Paul being unelectable. He has absolutely no ability to dodge questions, which, unfortunately, is a prerequisite for becoming president. I love the majority of his ideas and policies but we have to find someone who shares those beliefs but appeals more to the general public.
Not much I can do against a government with their hands in everything. To do what I need to do I first have to have someone get the government off my back.[/quote]
Please explain how the government is on your back. Not your neighbors back, but your specific back. Keep in mind I am not claiming government should not be smaller, it should, but I’d like to hear your personal story, since you made such a declaration.
[/quote]
First thing, they have exploded the cost of college which is going to cause me to go deep into debt, the taxes they are taking out of my paycheck even tho they may seem small to some do restrict a lot of what I can do. When I look to the future I see all the taxes that will be taken out of my future earnings, when I start up my business later on in life I will have to deal with many regulations and taxes.
Its just not about present oppression but future oppression.[/quote]
The cost of college should come down under Obama. The part time job (or full time summer job) that you have has not been taxed any more under Obama (yet) than under Bush.
So, the government is not on your back after all. What you are doing is projecting disaster and are afraid of things that might happen.
[/quote]
John said the government was on his back, not Obama’s government. Just because things are the same as they were under Bush does not mean the government is not hindering John.[/quote]
I am aware of what John originally said, however he was clearly unable to articulate precisely how the government was on his back. Whether it be Bush’s government, or the current Presidents government. One would think that if someone is so upset that he’d be able to point out a litany of reasons why he felt the government was on his back, but, he failed to do so.
I am not looking to discredit anyone. In fact, I think John S. continues to discredit himself and his cause virtually every time he posts. His many errors have been repeatedly pointed out. We could actually begin and end with his main premise which is false on its face; that is Ron Paul could get elected President. There are no serious observers of the political game who think such thoughts. I have recently become aware that he is a college student and I think that explains his naivete. However, there are many college students who don’t fall into that category.
Glad to see that you have a firm grasp of political reality.
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated?
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
Ideas - they are extreme, unrealistic, naive, illogical and ahistorical.
History - he has a disgusting past of associating and playing footsie with racist elements. He has waded in some atrocious swamps of political activity (helped, of course, by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard).
Personality - this guy? The CEO of the world’s most powerful country? Give me a break.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
He has waded in some atrocious swamps of political activity (helped, of course, by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard).
[/quote]
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
His ideas are good, for the most part, but it is incredibly naive and unrealistic to think that somehow, someway in the middle of one of the most progressive presidencies in history, you can suddenly erect a nightwatchmen state. Shit, we can’t even come close to getting a limited government, let alone the minimalist one that Paul calls for. He will never be elected, and if he was, it would be a tragedy for the limited government movement. Think about it, when programs start getting cut and reality sets in, people are not going to blame the state for putting those programs out there in the first place and making them dependent. No, no they are going to blame Capitalism. And then when things really get bad, we would see a huge shift to the left.
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
His ideas are good, for the most part, but it is incredibly naive and unrealistic to think that somehow, someway in the middle of one of the most progressive presidencies in history, you can suddenly erect a nightwatchmen state. Shit, we can’t even come close to getting a limited government, let alone the minimalist one that Paul calls for. He will never be elected, and if he was, it would be a tragedy for the limited government movement. Think about it, when programs start getting cut and reality sets in, people are not going to blame the state for putting those programs out there in the first place and making them dependent. No, no they are going to blame Capitalism. And then when things really get bad, we would see a huge shift to the left. [/quote]
So what do you suggest? Leaving our oversized government as is? Simply not allowing it to grow any larger?
Although, I tend to agree that Paul’s goals are so overly ambitious that even 2 terms would not be enough to get everything done. However, any steps he could take would be steps in the right direction.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So what do you suggest? Leaving our oversized government as is? Simply not allowing it to grow any larger?
Although, I tend to agree that Paul’s goals are so overly ambitious that even 2 terms would not be enough to get everything done. However, any steps he could take would be steps in the right direction.[/quote]
But his “extreme” steps would just hurt the limited government movement. It would cause too much of a backlash. Of course, in the end, his policies are good, but implementing all of these things so soon would be disastrous. I’m not sure that the government can be stopped from growing. It’s been growing pretty much since its creation (as all governments tend to), so I see no reason why it should stop growing in the future. There are systemic problems with trying to institute a limited government, especially this late in the game. If you really want to know what I think in more detail, I could PM you, but I’d rather not derail this thread anymore.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
So what do you suggest? Leaving our oversized government as is? Simply not allowing it to grow any larger?
Although, I tend to agree that Paul’s goals are so overly ambitious that even 2 terms would not be enough to get everything done. However, any steps he could take would be steps in the right direction.[/quote]
But his “extreme” steps would just hurt the limited government movement. It would cause too much of a backlash. Of course, in the end, his policies are good, but implementing all of these things so soon would be disastrous. I’m not sure that the government can be stopped from growing. It’s been growing pretty much since its creation (as all governments tend to), so I see no reason why it should stop growing in the future. There are systemic problems with trying to institute a limited government, especially this late in the game. If you really want to know what I think I could PM you, but I’d rather not derail this thread anymore.[/quote]
PM me.
Not that I think it would ever happen, but slowly phasing out all of these government institutions is the best way to go, IMO.
I know you added the “smiley face”, but I have to ask - do you really think that is a good reason to support Paul? His previous “Ron Paul Report” written by these toads endorsed some very sketchy views.
You on board with that? If not, why does it not matter now (being as the comments were made in the 90s, no so long ago)?
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
There is a big difference between concepts and actual policy positions. Generally I am a very big advocate of smaller government. Getting rid of several government agencies would be a very good beginning. However, generally Paul acts as if this is the year 1800. His simplistic view of the world would no doubt get us in very deep trouble.
To answer your question more directly, the answer to our problems is not through libertarian policies, which seem only to work on paper. The answer is to elect a very good conservative republican who can speak to these issues in a more rational, pragmatic manner. I wouldn’t vote for Paul, or anyone else espousing his political positions.
A libertarian Presidential candidate came to my high school; and even then I was disappointed, because while theoretically the intellectual posture was very attractive to me, there was something odd about the whole thing.
The man was ill-kempt, rather dirty and smelly (LOL), and had very poor manners, was somewhat self-absorbed and socially unaware, and while obviously intelligent, could barely hold an audience for more than a minute or so. He was frankly a terrible speaker with no notion that just pure intellectual power wasn’t going to cut it; that it had to be welded to an engaging style of speaking.
But I really didn’t learn my lesson.
Because then, out of College I interned at the CATO Institute - and was appalled at the snickering attitude towards the less fortunate, as well as the endless discussions about minutia: for example, the alleged benefits of privatizing sidewalks. That kind of stuff.
Finally, I walked out and never really looked back. I liked some of the ideas but found and find the whole libertarian thing a little creepy.
I know you added the “smiley face”, but I have to ask - do you really think that is a good reason to support Paul? His previous “Ron Paul Report” written by these toads endorsed some very sketchy views.
You on board with that? If not, why does it not matter now (being as the comments were made in the 90s, no so long ago)?[/quote]
Maybe smiley faces offer a kind of secular absolution??
Just curious regarding the anti-Paulers here - is it Paul’s ideas? Or his manner/looks/age? If he were a 50 year-old handsome dude, hugely media-savvy/skilled, would you want him nominated? [/quote]
There is a big difference between concepts and actual policy positions. Generally I am a very big advocate of smaller government. Getting rid of several government agencies would be a very good beginning. However, generally Paul acts as if this is the year 1800. His simplistic view of the world would no doubt get us in very deep trouble.
To answer your question more directly, the answer to our problems is not through libertarian policies, which seem only to work on paper. The answer is to elect a very good conservative republican who can speak to these issues in a more rational, pragmatic manner. I wouldn’t vote for Paul, or anyone else espousing his political positions.[/quote]
What conservative Republicans ? They think they are Conservative if they vote to take away social programs , They do not realize it means to vote to save money . War and War on Drugs would balance the budget even in a bad economy . Any one that likes the way our military dominates the world is NOT A CONSEVATIVE
[quote]PAINTRAINDave wrote:
This thread is making Obama 2012 look more and more viable: Divide et impera.[/quote]
Anyone that’s written off Obama in 2012 is a fool.
Certainly, if he continues to do what he’s done for two more years, then he’s toast. The GOP could nominate a monkey and Obama would still be on the next plane out of DC in '12.
But Obama’s not stupid. He knows that he has two full years to put his radical agenda on the back burner, give some nice speeches, and let the voters forget all the things he’s done to piss them off. And that’s exactly what he’s going to do.
By the time 2012 rolls around, his poll numbers will have recovered, and his carefully crafted image as a consensus-building moderate will be largely rebuilt. Barring strong opposition from Hillary in the primaries, Obama will be a formidable force in '12.
Who has the credibility to carry the banner of limited government?[/quote]
We learn as we go, it is a process of elimination of who can’t, including, but not limited to, Ron Paul and his legions of idiots and the John Birch Society.
As for who? Good question. It will take someone who can convince people who are otherwise not terribly committed to the idea to give it a second look and commit to it. For the GOP, maybe Paul Ryan. For the Dems, Walt Minnick and other serious Blue Dogs. As for independents, too early to tell.
[/quote]
It will take someone who is not married to strong social conservative ideals and micro-management of our private lives that alienates half the country. I can’t pull the trigger on the Palin’s of the world no matter how much I also disapprove of the policies and objectives of the Obama’s of the world.