"should" or "shouldn't?, huh?
Republican debate 1/10/08
- Thread starter Toshi
- Start date
Pedantic
No, confusing.
I'm not sure if you're advocating the Fed Govt's role in education or not.
ok class, let's review plummit & RR's position on political donations: he will accept any/all donations, no matter who the source, b/c he's "principled".
and in spite of the fact he has demonstrated to be a detached and an irresponsible administrator to something as innocuous as a newsletter (add to that he's either unwilling or unable to reveal who the source of the rancid comments is - memories of scooter libby ring a bell anyone?), he's the best qualified to RUN THE FVCKING COUNTRY.
i now realize where "God save me from your followers" gets its roots
and in spite of the fact he has demonstrated to be a detached and an irresponsible administrator to something as innocuous as a newsletter (add to that he's either unwilling or unable to reveal who the source of the rancid comments is - memories of scooter libby ring a bell anyone?), he's the best qualified to RUN THE FVCKING COUNTRY.
i now realize where "God save me from your followers" gets its roots
Yes, that is correct.
In America, the Land of the Free®, we should want a president that is exactly this... detached. A president that does little to interfere with the day to day business of an autonomous and free people. A president that would allow the people to manage their own affairs according to their own best judgment instead of using an iron fist to micromanage a nation. That smells like freedom to me.
Yes, that is correct.
Sad isn't it? Sad but true.
Your challenges to his principles, particularly his campaign finance, are laughable. Here's a candidate who only accepts contributions from individuals up to the $2300 legal limit. Furthermore, he doesn't accept money from pacs or other bundled sources of cash such as corporations or labor unions.
You've really worked yourself up into a lather over this. He wasn't serving in congress at the time. He was working in the private sector. He admitted his mistake in not paying closer attention about what was going out in the news letter during that time. He's even taken "moral responsibility" for it's being published in his newsletter.
Keep voting for candidates who will continue to borrow this nation into insolvency for wars, nanny state programs we can't afford or whatever and perhaps you'll have to rename yourself "¢tinkle."
Take Christopher Walken's word for it. Funny
Contains bad language:
"Wake the ____ up, America!"
No, it's not really CW.
Take a good long look in the mirror.
Ron Paul's run for president is meaningless in the scheme of things.. aside from separating more than a few fools from their money anyway.
except when he does: http://opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.asp?cid=N00005906&cycle=2006
these are numbers for '05-'06. can't wait to see '07 - present.
go ahead; minimize this, too. something like "it's only $31,000 for just one year". just a few thousand more gets you the 2006 lancet study.
it's called "froth".
i'm a "frother".
ask around.
don't sully this patron saint's good name. he made whoopie cushions funny again.
damn straight that was a hairspray reference.
me & dubya gonna do lines off it first.
I feared plummit was a bit over the top when he used the "only" word. According to what I see on opensecrets, percentage of personal to PAC contributions is merely comparable to other politicians.
What is different about Paul's contributions is the size of the contribution. Hillary and Obama contributions hover around the $2,300 mark whereas most Paul contributors hover much closer to $100.
My bad on the pacs, perhaps I did go too far. Open secrets does have a ton of great data. This is a nice graphic way of looking at who is contributing the most to each candidate. Interesting that RP is so popular with servicemen and women in the military.
What, exactly, does the lancet study have to do w/ RP? Somehow, I doubt that Soros is a big RP supporter. Incidentally, you'll notice that the Lancet study cost 50,000 pounds, not dollars, 3 times, give or take, $31k. While we're wading through numbers of war casualties: is 150,000 acceptable (New England Journal of Medecine) or 50,000, or just in comparison to 650,000 when pursuing the preemptive "strategeri" of "eradimicating" Iraq's stockpile of wmd's and "nukuler" program, oh wait.. err.. liberating the Iraqi people?
But lather has a much nicer ring to it, and don't you mean "freeper?"
LOL. Speaking of being "best qualified to run the f-ing country" or whatever you said.
In answer to Nate's question, of course, RP has about a snowball's chance in hell, but he's the only candidate actually talking about cutting gov't spending in a substantive way to face the nation's debts and obligations. The dems are talking about handing out multi-billion dollar programs like so much free candy, and, even with the Bush tax cuts sunsetting, no real way to pay for said programs w/o more borrowing, raising everyone's taxes, or both.
Hillary talking about raising corporate taxes (on cnbc) a few weeks ago was especially laughable. Raise their taxes, which are currently the 2nd highest in the developed world, and they'll cut US based jobs, out-source more to foreign labor, or re-locate. CEO's ultimate responsibilities lie with profitability, stock value and responsibility to shareholders not with guaranteeing bottom rung jobs. With a global economy and our country facing a recession, providing negative incentives for business to stay stateside while increasing spending sounds like fabulous plan.
McCain's "100 years of war" in Iraq is equally imprudent. We're already borrowing huge piles of treasure to pay for the endeavour. His proposed cuts to earmarks and pork barrel spending, while I wholeheartedly applaud him for the effort, will amount to a tiny drop in the bucket... a tiny dip in the GROWTH of gov't spending, not an actual reduction.
While you do a great job at making snarky comments about RP and focusing on tangential shock value "issues," $tinkle, what issues are important to you, and what, if any, candidates have addressed them?
I think your blindfold is a little too effective.
Why not simply dispense with the post altogether? Judging by the available candidates you'd hardly be worse off.
Sorry, it's Monday morning and I'm a little slow. What is your point here?
You're selling, as a virtue, the fact that your favored candidate did nothing to ensure that a newsletter, that went out in his name, did not contain views contrary to his own. Not marginally different, but blatantly racist.
You are suggesting that such a guy would make a good president because he lets people get on with whatever they are doing without keeping a watchful eye.
You are in fact suggesting that a President should do very little. It simply makes me wonder what you think the post is for, and whether it is worth all the money and hullabaloo electing someone to do it.
Oh, how I despise Tony Blair. Very slippery indeed.
ok, just found an undated (circa 1990) solicitation letter, bearing among other things, references to skull & bones, bohemian grove, "New Money", "chemical alarms on our currency used to trace financial transactions", and other paranoid nonesense made to read like a manifesto of a talk-radio listening freemason. to date, i cannot find ron paul renouncing or revising these ridiculous statements.
oh, it also bears his signature at the end. as far as i can tell, this is sufficiently legally binding. (but IANAL)
to continue to give unqualified support to ron paul is the precise definition of cognitive dissonance.
oh, it also bears his signature at the end. as far as i can tell, this is sufficiently legally binding. (but IANAL)
to continue to give unqualified support to ron paul is the precise definition of cognitive dissonance.
Oh, I get it. By post, you mean position or office and not well er, uh, post (as in a messageboard context).
I do think a President should do very little. I think government should do very little.
And not to belittle the statements, but did you actually read them, or did you read articles where the authors told you what their interpretation of the statements were? Just asking because when I went to the source it didn't seem all that bad. It seemed that all this going on was really much ado about little. Extremely little when compared against further bankrupting America with an illegal undeclared war and occupation.
There is a reason it is called "taking offense." That is because to be offended one must take it upon oneself and choose to be offended. I believe the only reason anyone chooses to be offended by any of it is because it is politically expedient. As a frame of reference, I once went to a gay wedding (or is it a civil union? actually it was completely unrecognized, but alas I digress). Guess what their favorite song was? Dancing Queen.
I've seen that. Are you denying that skull & bones and the bohemian grove exist? Are you denying that there are security devices in US currency?
For what reason should one renounce the truth?
you've seen the document, but it appears as though you've not read it. for if you did, you'd understand RP was doing more than name-dropping, but rather weaving an elaborate tapestry of gov't sponsored mind-control reminiscent of orwell's 1984. instead of inferring the obvious reason for our elaborate currency (to thwart counterfeiters), he envisions an invisible arm of gov't used to track u.s. citizens' every move, which would be an intractable real-time task, even with a 4,000 node beowulf cluster. this is to say nothing of the fact that the vast majority of cash transactions take place without any sort of reading of the bill used.
as far as skull & bones and bohemian grove, these are the boogeymen he named as the powerbrokers of "the federal homosexual AIDS coverup", and labels them as godless, as to first remove their humanity, making it easier to blame them for the coming ills. didn't joseph mccarthy try that? are we sure that hollywood writers are truly on strike, or have they been rounded up for causing dissent, corrupting the tiny minds of the sheeple????
so let me put it to you plain: do you more side with what i've explained above, or what the twat doctor tenuously offered?
Two separate arguments going on here. You and Plummit say a medal is a worthless gesture, I disagree and offer an example of the CMoH. Apparently, you agree that in some cases a medal is a very important and valuable gesture. I don't think Plummit does. Ron Paul is willing to make such ceremonial gestures to honor other causes, so his "NO" vote here is not a result of blanket fiscal responsibility, it's an explicit statement that this cause is less worthy than others.
Which brings us to the second question of whether Rosa Parks is worthy of such a gesture. You and Plummit seem to think that she is not worthy of such a gesture. If that's the way you feel fine, but don't obfuscate that with claims that medals are wastes of money. Be clear that you think recognizing Rosa Parks is a waste of money.
I did read it. And just for fun, I read it again.
This sounds like your interpretation. I will admit that the wording is intended to be threatening.
I work with a guy who worked on the initial AIDS research who describes what the government did with this "Gay Disease" as exactly that. The document does not call anyone godless, but rather pagan, and in the case of S&B, satanic. Get it straight.
Nice straw man you have there.
I'm still gonna have to side with the good doctor.
Furthermore, you have failed to answer our questions.
Please tell us who is better. I would enjoy hearing about them.Plummit said:
three thoughts:
1- You seem to be under the illusion that federal standards are by definition over-reaching while local ones are not. Do you think local governments are immune to abuses of power and omniscient? If you don't believe those things, then you agree there is need for non-local oversight.
2 - There are a finite number of talented, qualified education experts in the country. Certainly not enough to have one for every local government, and even if there were enough, they wouldn't necessarily want to locate themselves in every school disctrict in the country.
3 - In the absence of talented teachers and policy-makers, you would be trusting whoever happens to be there to set educational standards in many many locales. If you want to have a next generation that is smarter than the current one this is a really ****ing stupid approach.
Seriously. I'll lay it out there. I've got firsthand experience with secret societies and if you think they're anything other than glorified fraternities with slightly more coke and slightly better connections, you should add a layer of tinfoil to your hat.
You are part of the Zionist Conspiracy aren't you?
I knew it!
if it weren't for the whole ufo thing discounting kucinich, it would have to be the entire lot.
you could post flattering (if not very old) pictures of carol for the flilf category. must warn, best she could do is third (behind kucinich & thompson).
Fine line between conspiracy and just enjoying a good bagel with lox...
He might have 1st hand knowledge on that score. Could explain how he ended up w/ a much taller and hotter bride.
Begging the question: is he the power hungry alien seducing the earth woman, or she the alien in disguise, misguidedly trying to ride his coat tails into control of our nuclear arsenal?
Far from worthless. I said it cost the taxpayers $30,000. I do, indeed, think she, along w/ countless other Americans, deserve both respect and recognition for their contributions. That respect can take many forms: honors bestowed, speeches, days of recognition, etc. Maybe the Brits are on to something w/ knighthoods and O.B.E.? Wonder what form that would take in a republic?
Personally, I don't have a problem w/ her medal or the CMoH. (BTW, have you read Lone Survivor? It was penned by Markus Luttrel (sp?), the sole survivor or Murphy's S.E.A.L. team.) I was simply arguing that it is not "unprincipled" for RP to argue that it is not necessary to use $30,000 taxpayer dollars as a means of awarding honors to citizens.
That's just confrontational spin on your part, see above. If you believe Rosa Parks should have been given a $30,000 medal as a token of respect, perhaps you'll be irked to know the CMoH recipients are given a medal valued somewhere between $29.98 and $75 dollars.
It boils down to this; certain statements were published under his name - either he supported those statements, or he was happy to lend his name to those who supported them, or was not paying attention. None of those options inspire confidence in the man. Nor does his justification for taking funding from questionable sources.
I have no political axe to grind, I cannot vote in the US.
UNCLE, UNCLE, UNCLE! I concede! You win!
How could I have been so misguided?
Thank you for straightening me out, $tinkle!
after a quick e-vestigation, i found visions that could straighten out the mortal coils of the bard's womb broom.
She was one of 30 people recognized by a Capital viewing. I have no problem with that very distinguished and expensive celebration of her life. Spending an additional $30k for a medal IS a waste of money as it adds nothing to her already well documented and celebrated legacy.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with Ron Paul, RR or Plummits views - all of whom I think are off their rockers.
So what you're saying is you hate black people.
exactly
Hey dan-o can you tell me more about this? Tell me what is so crazy about wanting freedom.
I thought the Mexican Air Force determined that the aliens only wanted enchiladas verde.