Wednesday's GOP Debate a Complete Joke

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Ron Paul’s time has not yet come.

Only in times of desperation can radical ideas be taken seriously. Dr. Paul’s case in analogous to Hitler’s in the 1920’s: Germany was fairly prosperous (albeit based upon American loans) so Hitler was a very minor candidate. It took an economic collapse to bring him to power.

Dr. Paul is an older guy. Let’s hope his successor will carry on his philosophy after our economy collapses.[/quote]

Note to self: If ever I was to campaign for office, and was accused of being a StormFront kook, don’t hire HH for public relations. Heh. Sorry HH, but I don’t think the Hitler analogy really helps the cause.

Yet, I do agree with your last two lines. I’ll share an article from another controversial figure from the right.

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Unfortunately, he’s my only option. He is right about one very important point: as military men, we swore to uphold the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. Our foreign enemies are bad, but the domestic ones are much worse and much more powerful.

mike[/quote]

This is how I feel. I have a few friends in the military. And I have heard them say “I didn’t sign up for military service to be a security guard for oil companies.” In 03 we had a drummer in our band who was 18 at the time. He was gung ho about joining the service to “kill terrorists”, our bass player who was in the 1st Desert Storm told him “You won’t be killing terrorists,you’ll be defending the oil fields.” He still went and I’ve never heard from him since. He was an awesome drummer

[quote]lixy wrote:

I know the way it works. What strikes me the most, is how this is turning into pure demagoguery, and how people end up voting “against” a candidate.[/quote]

Incorrect. It doesn’t generate “pure demagoguery”, the opposite in fact - it generates candidates that ultimately vie for votes in the mainstream by trying to create a center-left or center-right coalition. That is the definitional opposite of demagoguery.

Creating an effect where you often vote “against” a candidate is one of the moderating influences of the system - again, the opposite of demagoguery.

The really is no two-party system - it is a winner-take-all system that naturally produces two parties. Parties may come and go, form and reform - no one is holding them back.

And, your other absurdity, drifting to the center - that is precisely by design. Our system is designed to keep those who aren’t centrist/can’t work with the center out of government. Our system is built on the idea that extremists who promise to “do much good for the country” should be relegated to the sidelines, so sorry Lixy - no “libertarian socialists” are going to get very far.

Thank God.

When it comes to government, the “least damage” theory is a pretty good one - most limited government types think this is a good principle to have in our setup.

This is largely a pointless claim - parties shift with time throughout American history. There is nothing novel in predicting it.

It was to be the year of change, of new ideas, a new politics.

Yet, as of today, it appears the Republican Party will be led into the future by a Beltway favorite of the media and Washington insider who has spent the last quarter of a century on Capitol Hill.

With two-thirds of the nation saying the country is on the wrong course, the two parties are offering candidates both of whom played major roles in setting that course. And neither probable nominee has advanced ideas to deal with the crises America faces, nor even shown any great awareness that the country is in crisis.

The first crisis is fiscal, with the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid costs about to break the bank as the baby boomers reach early retirement. Add the other entitlement programs, defense and interest on the debt, and this consumes perhaps 90 percent of the budget.

No one is proposing cuts in any major component of the budget. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton is promising universal health care and McCain is promising an expansion of the military. Both favor a stimulus package of roughly $150 billion. As our savings rate is about zero, where are we going to borrow the money for all this?

A second crisis is financial. With the economy in danger of seizing up, the Fed has cut interest rates from 4.25 percent to 3 percent in two weeks. This has sent the dollar plunging again. A sinking dollar means surging prices for oil and all those foreign manufactures to which we are now addicted.

As the dollars pour out, nations have started to spend their dollar hoards to buy up this country at the fire-sale prices being offered in the global marketplace.

A third crisis is strategic. With an army of half a million and a Marine Corps a third that size, we are ending our fifth year of war in Iraq and entering the seventh year in Afghanistan. With the Taliban and al-Qaida now re-established and threatening Pakistan, what will it require in blood and treasure to prevent a strategic disaster there?

Mrs. Clinton is committed to a withdrawal from Iraq, but McCain says we will stay 100 years if necessary and warns, “There’s going to be other wars.” But wars against whom? Iran? Pakistan? Russia? North Korea? With the U.S. military stretched to the breaking point, and the quality of army recruits falling, who will fight these wars?

Then there is the immigration crisis. It is estimated that there are 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens in the United States today, with many hundreds of thousands being added each year.

McCain and Hillary both voted for the amnesty bill, neither is committed to sending back the illegals, and both give only grudging support to the idea of a border fence. How do they propose stopping the scores or hundreds of millions from Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East from breaking into the United States in coming decades? Does anyone see in either Clinton or McCain the resolve to deal with what Americans are coming to believe is a crisis of national identity and national survival?

Then there is the crisis of the American middle class.

As economist Robert Reich writes, the real wages of working men have not risen in 30 years. Families maintained their standard of living three ways. Wives went to work. The men began to work longer hours than in almost any other developed nation. The family’s equity in its home was then borrowed to sustain consumption.

Now, with the middle class tapped out, the home equity used up or declining, and mortgage, auto and credit card debt turning rotten, the U.S. government is going abroad to borrow 1 percent of GDP to hand out in checks in May to get consumers buying again to prevent a recession.

What kind of long-term solution is this?

How can a government as deep in debt as this one, going deeper every day, with the Social Security-Medicare crisis looming, continue to borrow to fight wars, finance foreign aid and defend nations that refuse to make the sacrifices to defend themselves?

America today faces both a fiscal crisis and a currency crisis.

Our dependence on foreign loans, foreign oil and foreign manufacturers is unprecedented.

We are being invaded from the south and seemingly lack the moral fiber to defend our home and throw out the intruders.

We have neither the men nor the weapons to honor all the treaty commitments and war guarantees we have given out to nations all over the world – and McCain plans to add several more.

Yet, we are consumed with the issue of whether Bill Clinton, by comparing Barack Obama to Jesse Jackson, was playing “the race card.”

We are an unserious people in a serious time.
http://townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/02/01/tapped_out_nation?page=1

[quote]belligerent wrote:
It was obvious that they were deliberately trying to avoid letting Paul speak, because they let participate just enough that they couldn’t be accused of sensoring him. Of coures, when he finally did get his 30 seconds, he blew everbody away.

Otherwise it was the single most shallow and pointless debate we’ve seen yet.[/quote]

I’m all for limiting paul’s ability to regurgitate the same crap. He’s a whiner and his hubristic, pedantic babble grates on the nerves.

JeffR

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Our system is built on the idea that extremists who promise to “do much good for the country” should be relegated to the sidelines, so sorry Lixy - no “libertarian socialists” are going to get very far.

Thank God.

[/quote]

Agreed, during normal times. However, when the Fed is terrified, the government is trying to stuff people’s pockets with money and saying, “Spend! SPEND!”, banks are losing billions, the dollar is collapsing, and central banks around the world have to open the spigots of money wide open — its NOT normal times ahead.

We’ll either have a military dictatorship or a ‘Ron Paul’ style minimalist government. I choose and hope for the latter.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You have already shown that you don’t understand inflation or money supply. You are beyond help.

Of course you are the same guy that switched from a communist to a libertarian. Fun to chat with but it gets tiresome when you miss by this big a margin.[/quote]

The ball is in your court buddy-boy. You are the guy who makes comments like the one above yet rarely has any value to add to the threads – I’ve read your responses and they all reek of lame “huckabee-esque” one-liners.

I believe I understand inflation, economics, and monetary policy better than anyone who has posted on this thread if I am to go by what people have written and what all the relevant literature has to say about it. This means I have read many economists (and philosophers) and have made my own analysis on what the various ideas are. I seriously doubt you’ve read nor contemplated anything serious on the topic of economics if I am to go by your lack of relevancy to the threads.

You and others can make fun of me for my previous communistic ideas in the past (though they were not communistic since I have always believed in the idea of voluntarism) but it was precisely because I had never contemplated economics before that I expressed the opinions that I did. Is a man always to be judged by his past learning despite the fact that he has displayed his willingness to gain better knowledge? The only thing I had to go by is what I learned in grade school – “communism bad” – without any rigorous analysis. Indoctrination learning is not very convincing to those of us with the capacity for abstraction.

It is because I want to understand civilization and society as a whole that I have sought out an explanation for what makes man what to exchange his ideas and capabilities with others for his own benefit – the realm of economics explains all of this.

You can continue to dismiss what I write but it does not change what is true. I share these ideas because I believe they are correct and important to understand. Continue to close your eyes, plug your ears, and make not a peep. Ignorance is bliss.

It strikes me that people don’t like Paul because he would represent massive change to the country. Radical Ideas. You can debate whether they would work somewhere else as this is not my point. Most people fear and reject change. Deep down they know that the 4 leading candidates are different offshoots of the same dog terd.

But hey, this one fits me best and the change really won’t be that massive and will effect me the least. Ironic when you think of them campaigning on a “change” platform. An article in the paper here today about gas going up this summer to $3.50 a gallon. Comments were not of outrage, but rather of docility. "Well, I have to get to where I have to go… and other such drivel. When did they let neutered kittens drive? Its sickening. When are people gonna stand up and say fucking enough!

I’m not advocating that Paul is any great savior in this regard, but for the love of God we need to demand more from the candidates. It will be another 4 years of the same shit only maybe rasberry instead of strawberry this time around. I think you can start by getting out of debt and saving money. Get rid of the damned credit cards. Debt is slavery. Is Earning .38% on a savings account even worth putting it there in the first place. Its insulting.

Frankly I’ll be glad when the whole debacle is over and I can stop hearing them lie and waffle, avoid and insult any intelligence I may have left.

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?[/quote]

I voted Kerry in 2004 and Nader in 2000. I am voting Paul no matter what in 2008.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?

[/quote]

Oh, I missed this. I voted Bush, twice.

[quote]Damici wrote:
I didn’t say Ron Paul had received an amount of coverage equal to that of Romney, McCain, etc. I said that (1.) he was given just as much speaking time as the others in the earlier debates and (2.) he was given far, far, FAR more media coverage than Rowdy Roddy Piper, who is the most appropriate comparison in his case, as Roddy has as much chance of winning the Republican nomination as Ron Paul does. He is not as relevant as, and therefore does not warrant as much coverage as, McCain, Romney, Clinton and Obama.

I would never presume to tell you, or anyone, to whom they should and should not LISTEN. You can listen to Ron Paul all day every day on C-Span, his website, the regular news channels that show clips of his speeches, the political talk shows like Meet the Press that have him on, etc. Listen away! BUT the debate organizers should not include him in the presidential debates, as he has no more right to be there than . . . Rowdy Roddy Piper. If they include Roddy, THEN, ok, maybe they can include Ron.

But not until then. :slight_smile:

[/quote]

Fair enough, good response and I appreciate you doing it without descending into the usual ad hominem mud slinging that is the usual fare on these forums.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He should not be included at all.

It is past time for him to go away.[/quote]

I agree.

The fight has been lost.

He ought to drop out and watch this country fall apart in the remaining years of his life.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?

Oh, I missed this. I voted Bush, twice.[/quote]

Me too, and I was a Bush voter as well.

mike

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?[/quote]

Of the ones who knew his name more than a year ago, not a single one.

Of those who learned about him within the past 6 months, all too many.

I am a member of the former group, and I don’t hold in high esteem those from the latter.

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
Let’s take a little poll: How many Paul supporters voted for either Kerry or Gore?

Of the ones who knew his name more than a year ago, not a single one.

Of those who learned about him within the past 6 months, all too many.

I am a member of the former group, and I don’t hold in high esteem those from the latter.[/quote]

Wow Nommy, you’re so much cooler than us mere mortals. Btw, I’ve been well aware of Paul since I got into the gun culture about 3 years ago. Frankly I could care less why someone would support the man so long as they vote for him, and considering the fact that I’m pro-Iraq I have to deal with idiot Paulies all the time.

mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
[…]and considering the fact that I’m pro-Iraq I have to deal with idiot Paulies all the time. [/quote]

Cut it out, Mikey!

If this is your idea of being pro-country_X, I sure I hell hope you despise every other country on the planet.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
[…]and considering the fact that I’m pro-Iraq I have to deal with idiot Paulies all the time.

Cut it out, Mikey!

If this is your idea of being pro-country_X, I sure I hell hope you despise every other country on the planet.[/quote]

laugh Well, to tell you the truth, I’m not much of a fan of England.

mike

EDIT: Oh, now I get what you’re saying. I really don’t want to hash this out again.