On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
Well said, you put it much better than I did. I don't agree or support all his ideas, but at least he has ideas that are consistent with his principles and beliefs.
Guys like Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Mitt Romney literally can't remember what their principles they're pretending to have. If we can't have honest politicians, can't we at least sharp/quick-witted ones?
intellectual honesty is one item on a very long list of completely reasonable --and generally desirable-- traits that make you unelectable as the president of the US
apparently we would rather our candidates pretend to be semi-infallible polymaths who suspiciously (but not really) fall into a pair of depressingly rigid molds without fail
Yeah. This may boil down to Romney/Gingrich. Both are comparable. Both are flawed.
... and that's only going to get worse for Cain with the videos going around of his Libya gaffe. The harshest criticism I'm hearing is coming from a few friends who are involved with the GOP and were backing him (now Gingrich, although that was kinda coming already).
What a trainwreck. The networks must be loving it though.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the stats weere in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine. And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions. This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
"I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it?"
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Ok, any point you don't feel I've adequately addressed, let me know.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
I'm not disagreeing with his position ... but it's a radical one that the Republican party will never get behind. I'm just talking about his electability, not whether he is right or wrong. It's a same really. He's the only worthy candidate as far as I'm concerned (other than maybe Huntsman, but that's a stretch).
He's been winning straw polls, he's been between first and third on google trends for the last several months. He's only been surpassed by other candidates lately as the amount of airtime media has allowed him has been cut to virtually nothing. For the sake of appearance, they'd like to give him more airtime, but they can't really push their agenda (it's too easily debated against) with him given any time to speak. And apparently, it's war.
Americans don't want to go to war again. It's pretty obvious. However, they won't really have a choice in the end. I'm sure you've heard this, but Ron Paul has gotten more monetary support from veterans than all the other republican candidates combined. The people that have actually been in the military overwhelmingly realize that we shouldn't be engaging in policing the world, but for corporations that want to be free to offshore jobs and then turn around and sell in America benefit more us having bases all over the world. Notice also how the debates talked more and more about conflict with Iran. Iran doesn't want war, Americans don't want war, then who does? Who benefits if America mires itself in yet another conflict?
I apologize for jumping all over the place, but I just got up.
the guy doesn't seem to be able to think for himself. I may not agree with Ron Paul on many issues, but seems to have the best ability for independent, critical thinking amongst the choices. He'll never get the nomination though, the establishment will make sure of that.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the stats weere in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine. And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions. This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
"I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it?"
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Ok, any point you don't feel I've adequately addressed, let me know.
Right, this may be a little off topic but you brought it up. Besides regulation by the FDA is somewhat related. Let's take a close look at what you wrote.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine.
You seem to be suggesting that these services are adequate to determine the safety of medication. Here is a question for you, what determines whether a medication is safe? How do you find this information? I would say a safe medication is one where the side effects are determined to be of lesser importance than the clinical effect produced by the drug. An example of this balance would be chemotherapy, which has drastic side effects but obvious benefits.
How do you find this information? This is much harder. Most clinical trials which test these drugs are only published if the information is positive. In most cases this is in journals which require subscriptions. Further more if you expect the average consumer to be aware of all the different options available to them, as well as being able to balance the inherent risks in taking any medication, you are naive. The consumer would essentially be a doctor.
Further more this kind of system is open to massive abuse. Pharma companies would have a huge incentive to post crap on these sites to discredit the opposition and support themselves. How to stop that? Face it, this idea is ridiculous. Your average Joe is in no position to evaluate the risks and benefits of treatments. This is why we have the medical profession and all its associated training.
And in the case of Bayer.... why does Bayer still exist? Isn't that what we have courts for? Oh wait, corporations are people only in ways that benefit them, and not people anytime they need to avoid the results of their actions.
I am not sure what you are driving at but it is hardly an indictment of the FDA? They are not responsible for ensuring corporate accountability.
This isn't the FDA's problem, it's the courts. The laws exist to hold people (and ideally corporations) accountable for their actions. However, since corporations can do no wrong, there is little incentive to give a shit about the consumer's safety.
Too right and this has what to do with the FDA?
Sure, HIV is bad, but how about diabetes? Obesity? Heart Disease? Did you not read the part where more people die every year in the US from prescription drugs than car accidents? That is over 40,000 a year.
Nice stat, can you provide a source? In particular can you provide a source that shows it is the drug specifically that is responsible for the deaths of the patients and not the underlying disease. One that clearly states that the drugs were administered appropriately and that the patients were compliant? I am sure that most of these are explained by the disease they are treating or by substance abuse.
The FDA is actually setup to regulate exactly this. Have a look here for all the treatments that have been withdrawn from the market due to safety reasons etc. In a system without regulation these withdrawals would be voluntary and far less numerous. The fact is that drugs have to prove they are beneficial before they are allowed to be marketed. Obviously as the drugs are tested in a wider population more rare side effects become known, but that is why the FDA constantly monitors the use and safety of the medication. That is their job, who would do it without the FDA?
Conveniently, if you forget the youtube link, you can just google: "Sugar poison" and find it.
I can't youtube here but I did search sugar poison. What the hell is this shit? What does it have to do with the FDA?
This is actually pretty funny as I don't assume that what the FDA allows in food (either under it's own name, or hidden under a different one) to be safe. I read every label and google what it does to my body. Look up flouride. There is your mommy FDA for you. Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. And you probably didn't need your pinneal gland in the first place. Being able to sleep at night is over-rated. You assume that the FDA exists to protect your health. That's cute.
Flouride is a well known anti-tooth decay molecule. Here is the wiki entry "Fluoride-containing compounds are used in topical and systemic fluoride therapy for preventing tooth decay. They are used for water fluoridation and in many products associated with oral hygiene.[16] Originally, sodium fluoride was used to fluoridate water; however, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used additives, especially in the United States. The fluoridation of water is known to prevent tooth decay[17][18] and is considered by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as "one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century".[19][20] In some countries where large, centralized water systems are uncommon, fluoride is delivered to the populace by fluoridating table salt. Fluoridation of water is not without critics, however (see Water fluoridation controversy).[21]"
The controversy is
"The water fluoridation controversy arises from moral, ethical, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation.[1] Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues,[2] may cause serious health problems,[3] is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled.[4][5][6]
The weight of the scientific evidence have found that at the dosage recommended for water fluoridation, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development. This effect is mildly cosmetic and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health.[7] Despite opponents' concerns, water fluoridation has been effective at reducing cavities in both children and adults.[8]
Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.[9]"
If I was your all knowing consumer I would belive that flouride is really beneficial. What is the problem? You say . Don't worry, you're safe, but you'll probably break a bone every time you fall down when you're older than 60. Yes, this happens, not because of some crazy flouride theory but because people get old. The number one killer of people is age.
However, here is my biggest problem with the FDA. They restrict choice. And often the remaining options they give you sacrifice nutrition to grease the pockets of the markets they regulate.
Of course they restrict choice, that is their purpose. Like I explained consumer cannot be expected to fully evaluate the risks and benefits of treatment in a reliable manner. For example, your doctor tells you that you need immediate heart surgery or you can take a combination of a beta-blocker, diaretic and ace inhibitor to try and control the damage. If you are going to get the surgery it needs to happen immediately? What do you do? Is this a safe combination? You trust your doctor, right? Well he has to be aware that these medications are safe in the doses and indications that he intends to use them. Where does that information come from, the FDA.
I am sorry mate but instead of spouting nosnense do a little reading. There are reasons that the FDA was established, sure it is not perfect but it improves with time. You want to know what happens with minimal oversight, check out thalidomide.
Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
Nothing new. The televised debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the MSM and the two major political parties. They are paid well by corporate sponsors to ensure that the establishment candidates get the spotlight. A dog and pony show at best.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
Here is the thing you need to understand: Anything the FEDERAL government is involved in suffers from horrible horrible inflation/mismanagement
FDA: Drugs are the solution to healthcare, get the people more corn syrup for their food, and less vegatables. Restrict access and over-regulate farms so that it is extremely difficult for anyone but large companies to navigate the sand-castle of regulations. Suppress studies that show anything that could hurt Monsanto/Conagra. Misrepresent every natural drug and demonize them because drug companies don't make money off of things that cannot be patented. (despite the fact that prescription drugs kill more people than car accidents per year) Hire all upper management from the companies that are supposedly regulated by the FDA. Whine about not being able to make enough food without strip mining the top soil across our country, despite the fact that enough food is produced in america for every man woman and child to consume 4000 calories EVERY DAY.
Education: We need to create standards that will be applied to all students regardless of socioeconomic situation or raw intelligence, and reward/punish school systems soley based on those standards. Provide loans to ANYONE that wants a college education creating a massive amount of money for colleges allowing them to raise their tuition at a rate that is roughly 5 times the rate of inflation, yet still have no problem filling their seats.
Military: Need more wars, need to have more private companies wage/support our wars. Need more excuses for wars. Need to preemptively enter wars where we assess that in the 'future' the target country could be a threat to one of our hundreds of military bases around the world. Need to maintain bases in places like germany and japan that are so well staffed that they don't need to spend ANYTHING on their own military.
Ask yourself, COULD THE STATES DO A WORSE JOB THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
Anyway, I could go on. If there is anything you want me to elaborate on, let me know. I happen to agree with everything Ron Paul is for.
Asking if the states "could" do worse as though it's some sort of hypothetical is disingenuous. For everything wrong with the FDA for example, it's still better than not having it at all and letting people sell poisonous food and medicine, which was the actual reality people faced when the stats weere in charge. Not all 50 states have adequate resources to ensure such safety. I'm sure you'd be fine in New York or California, but how about Alabama or North Dakota? I mean, when is the last time you checked that your food was safe to eat before eating it? How would you even go about such a thing? I certainly have no idea.
How about a real example? Bayer sold hemophilia blood products, some of which contained HIV. After realizing the problem and developing a method to sterilize the products, they continued to sell the old, unsterilized product in other countries, knowingly infecting people with HIV. If they could get away with it in countries in Asia and Latin America, can you really say with 100% certainty that they wouldn't get away with it in any one of the 50 states if each state had its own mini-FDA? Hell, this doesn't even need to serve as an example of a larger trend, this case alone would justify the federal government running the FDA if it didn't already exist.
Surely, there aren't tools that people could use to rate and review providers of food? I'm sure nobody has created that or something similar.... Oh wait. Newegg, Amazon. Google. With NO regulation, anyone with access to a public library would be fine.
This is a really short-sighted and idealistic view of consumer reality. You assume that without any regulation, every consumer would have access to 100% of relevant information, when that's a completely ridiculous assertion. For example, if a product includes dangerous and harmful ingredients whose effects are slow-working/long-term, how is the consumer, upon recognizing these effects, supposed to know which product is the culprit? With a large enough sample size, the field could be narrowed down until an answer is reached, but that mean scores of people suffering these effects. Alternatively, potential culprits could be tested in a lab, which would be no different from what the FDA does except it would be somewhat cheaper (because fewer products would be tested) at the cost of the health of the population, certainly not a trade I'd want to make.
On November 14 2011 17:53 Defacer wrote: I really respect Ron Paul, and his consistency. But he might be the only candidate who is hurt by his own consistency ... if he could make even marginal compromises, or even suggest a rough outline of how he would minimize government over time without blowing the entire thing up, he might have a chance of being perceived as something other than a fringe candidate.
yea you have to respect intellectual honesty in a political atmosphere that is not only completely devoid of the concept but one where it's typically straight up detrimental to your chances of election (seeing as you'll be the only one bothering).
I can only imagine how much damage he does to himself when he gets up in front of a bunch of republicans and explains how we're being bankrupted by our wars, that weed ought to be legal, or that the patriot act is a bad thing. I think he's a loon personally, particularly because he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general (except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing); your average modern "conservative's" commitment to reducing federal influence, however, will be dropped the instant that new program or increase in influence aims to do something they like, constitutional or not. I am actually somewhat thankful for their abandonment of that principle (even if they don't admit it), as Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me. Anyway, even though I don't like him I still feel Ron Paul is one of those guys who seems entirely too honest to make it way up the political food chain.
I'm just going to preface this by saying that the ignorance in this post is infuriating, but I'll attempt to explain myself in a civil manner:
"he's a pretty true libertarian in his commitment to slashing government programs and influence in general" You have to understand, he's simply attempting to adhere to the Constitution. We have so many government agencies and programs that are not even condoned within the confines of the restraints so wisely put in place by our founders. The Constitution was created to limit the power of the federal government, and was comprised of three branches just to make sure it was kept in check. His position is the Constitutional position. If the Constitution doesn't allow it, then it is a State issue, and not within the powers given to our Federal Government.
"except where his religious zealotry gets in the way, abortion is apparently an exception to the whole don't tread on me thing" The founders created our government with the intent that it would protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we allow a mother to kill a child (though unborn), then we create a moral atmosphere that places relevant value on life. Ron Paul personally opposes abortion, and his understanding of the Constitution (accurate, I might add) is such that the Federal Government has no role to play in this issue. This is to be regarded as a violent crime, murder, and therefore is left up to the States to regulate. He would not create any Federal legislation to stop abortions from occurring, he simply would allow each State to decide how best to approach it. This is the Constitutional approach.
"Paul's determination to remove and/or privatize oversight and regulatory agencies when the economy of the whole planet is suffering horribly largely as a result of too little oversight to begin with scares the shit out of me." If this is your opinion, then it's obvious you haven't given much consideration to Ron Paul's views. The Federal Reserve is what is creating these bubbles, and our current economic crisis. It's using fiat money, not backed by any material value, to manipulate and "control" economies. This is the root of the problem, and until people start looking seriously into Ron Paul's End the Fed position, and the current battle between Keynesian economics and Austrian economics, we will not stop the looming financial crisis, no matter how many more government enforced regulations are created.
I apologize if at any point I came across as condescending. I am simply frustrated by the large amount of individuals who will call this man a "loon" without even attempting to understand why he holds the positions he does.
Watching Cain being questioned about Libya has proved my point.
He stops and thinks of a map and then tries to figure out which country the journalist is talking about and then what the national media said about it. I used to do this during debate questions all the time during middle school.
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
That's the time for the last debate from the same source.
Here is the major problem with this.
Paul polls ahead of everyone except Romney, Cain, and Gingrich in most polls. Paul has raised the 3rd most money so far. Paul receives more military donations than all other candidates combined and receives more than Obama. (Debate on foreign policy and the guy who receives the most support from the military gets shafted.) He is the only candidate that is Anti-War and offers something different from the rest (outside Huntsman because I have no clue about him. I'm actually going to do some research this week on him. His little speaking time in the past few debates have interested me.) Paul is 2nd when put head to head against Obama following only Romney.
How can the media call Ron Paul unelectable and say the rest are? Romney can't even out poll undecided and has been stuck at 23% for how long? Perry, Cain, Gingrich will have no chance against Obama period.
Hah, just found this article by Fox. Pretty much sums up what I feel about the top 3 GOP candidates right now. Funny that it's from fox.
Its not true that Ron Paul is third. He is first place, he is the frontrunner and he has placed first on almost all straw-polls and online polls.
The only polls where he doesn't place first are phone polls done by the same media that is manipulating the debates and choosing the candidates fro you and that no one has access to the phone data to check if it real or not.
Here are the online polls:
Here are the straw-polls: 2nd - New Hampshire GOP 2012 Straw Poll - (1/22/11) 1st - DC CPAC Straw Poll - (2/10-12/11) 1st - Online Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll - (2/27/11) 1st - Combined Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll - (2/27/11) 3rd - Onsite Phoenix Arizona Tea Party Straw Poll - (2/27/11) 1st - Republican Liberty Caucus of California Presidential Straw Poll - (3/20/11) 1st - New Orleans Republican Leadership Conference Straw Poll - (6/16-18/11) 1st - Clay County Iowa Republican Party Straw Poll - (6/19/11) 2nd - Ames Iowa Straw Poll - (8/13/11) 1st - New Hampshire Young Republicans Straw Poll - (8/20/11) 2nd - Georgia State GOP Straw Poll - (8/27/11) 3rd - Maryland GOP Straw Poll - (9/9/11) 1st - Pre-Debate Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll - (9/12/11) 1st - Post-Debate Cincinnati Tea Party Straw Poll - (9/12/11) 1st - California GOP Straw Poll - (9/17/11) 1st - DC Values Voter Straw Poll - (10/7/11-10/9/11) 1st - LA County RPLAC Straw Poll - (10/13/11) 1st - Charleston County Republican Party - (10/18/11) 1st - Ohio GOP Swing State Straw Poll - (10/22/11) 1st - Des Moines Iowa Voters NFRA Presidential Straw Poll - (10/29/11) 1st -Des Moines Non-Iowa Voters NFRA Presidential Straw Poll - (10/29/11) 2nd - West Alabama Straw Poll - (10/29/11) 1st - Illinois GOP Straw Poll - (11/5/11)
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
Nothing new. The televised debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the MSM and the two major political parties. They are paid well by corporate sponsors to ensure that the establishment candidates get the spotlight. A dog and pony show at best.
While this explains why you won't be having any third party presidential candidates any time soon, has it always been this way with primary debates? I had an idea about 3rd parties in the US, but has the media always had as say on the internal selection processes within the party? I don't know as until last primaries I didn't pay attention to American politics beyond the actual presidential nominee debates.
Even thinking about the psychology of it. Simply by putting two people on the centre podiums and giving them the mike often makes them seem top tier. Imagine if they put Romney, Paul in the centre because they ran last time. Or if you put Huntsman in the centre and gave him the mike often. Would that change people's perspectives? It did with Perry, until he opened his mouth. One would almost have to swap who stand centre during the first few debates until we figure out who's reasonable and who's nutty. But to decide before its begun?
@TheBomb. I don't know if Ron Paul is #1 necessarily; however the survey polls touted by the media is flawed as more and more people our age don't have landlines at all. They really haven'tsufficiently developed the methodology for cell phone surveys. In particular, the rejection rates are far higher on cell phones
I don't know about you all but, I'm sick and tired of these senseless wars going around the world. I also want the Economy balanced and fixed already. I'm going to be voting for Ron Paul in 2012 because I believe a politician that isn't bought by special interest groups can actually be beneficial for us all.
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
Nothing new. The televised debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the MSM and the two major political parties. They are paid well by corporate sponsors to ensure that the establishment candidates get the spotlight. A dog and pony show at best.
While this explains why you won't be having any third party presidential candidates any time soon, has it always been this way with primary debates? I had an idea about 3rd parties in the US, but has the media always had as say on the internal selection processes within the party? I don't know as until last primaries I didn't pay attention to American politics beyond the actual presidential nominee debates.
Even thinking about the psychology of it. Simply by putting two people on the centre podiums and giving them the mike often makes them seem top tier. Imagine if they put Romney, Paul in the centre because they ran last time. Or if you put Huntsman in the centre and gave him the mike often. Would that change people's perspectives? It did with Perry, until he opened his mouth. One would almost have to swap who stand centre during the first few debates until we figure out who's reasonable and who's nutty. But to decide before its begun?
@TheBomb. I don't know if Ron Paul is #1 necessarily; however the survey polls touted by the media is flawed as more and more people our age don't have landlines at all. They really haven'tsufficiently developed the methodology for cell phone surveys. In particular, the rejection rates are far higher on cell phones
But it's ok if they aren't polling people "our age," since we don't show up at the polls as strongly as older demographics. Those DO have landlines, and are the primary target for polling. Not only that, but they're polling people who identify themselves as Republicans, which Ron Paul doesn't poll as well in.
We saw similar popularity 4 years ago with Paul, and all he ended up with in the primary was 1-2% of delegates. Even then, most of those votes came in AFTER McCain had enough delegates and everybody else dropped out. He didn't take a single state, compared to Huckabee and Romney, who took 8 and 11 respectively despite dropping out much earlier than Paul in the primary. Paul has strong numbers online, but those don't translate in the primary.
On November 15 2011 10:50 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Guys here's more proof about the media's biased towards trying to shape up the GOP candidates. This is the average time from all the debates including the recent one:
Nothing new. The televised debates are organized by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is controlled by the MSM and the two major political parties. They are paid well by corporate sponsors to ensure that the establishment candidates get the spotlight. A dog and pony show at best.
While this explains why you won't be having any third party presidential candidates any time soon, has it always been this way with primary debates? I had an idea about 3rd parties in the US, but has the media always had as say on the internal selection processes within the party? I don't know as until last primaries I didn't pay attention to American politics beyond the actual presidential nominee debates.
Even thinking about the psychology of it. Simply by putting two people on the centre podiums and giving them the mike often makes them seem top tier. Imagine if they put Romney, Paul in the centre because they ran last time. Or if you put Huntsman in the centre and gave him the mike often. Would that change people's perspectives? It did with Perry, until he opened his mouth. One would almost have to swap who stand centre during the first few debates until we figure out who's reasonable and who's nutty. But to decide before its begun?
@TheBomb. I don't know if Ron Paul is #1 necessarily; however the survey polls touted by the media is flawed as more and more people our age don't have landlines at all. They really haven'tsufficiently developed the methodology for cell phone surveys. In particular, the rejection rates are far higher on cell phones
But it's ok if they aren't polling people "our age," since we don't show up at the polls as strongly as older demographics. Those DO have landlines, and are the primary target for polling. Not only that, but they're polling people who identify themselves as Republicans, which Ron Paul doesn't poll as well in.
We saw similar popularity 4 years ago with Paul, and all he ended up with in the primary was 1-2% of delegates. Even then, most of those votes came in AFTER McCain had enough delegates and everybody else dropped out. He didn't take a single state, compared to Huckabee and Romney, who took 8 and 11 respectively despite dropping out much earlier than Paul in the primary. Paul has strong numbers online, but those don't translate in the primary.
If Paul doesn't poll so well then, why is he doing good in this recent Polling(not online) in Iowa?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/04Qqo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/MgrlV.jpg)
