|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy.
That's entirely reasonable. On the other hand, I KNOW what his policies are, and I also know he's not in the pocket of Big XYZ commerce or corporations. He's an honest man, and unlike other people in the party running for the position, he is smart and principled. TBH I'm not entirely sure how he got to be a politician while being a good guy lol.
|
Anyone voting for bauchman, even in a team liquid poll; better be trolling.
She is a joke.
|
United States7483 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy.
I don't know why you'd support his economics, they're idiotic, and the sign of someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
|
On August 17 2011 04:53 Cubbieblue66 wrote:
For every brilliant thing Ron Paul has ever said, he's said 4 ridiculous things. Though that's not to imply that isn't a better ratio than some candidates (Bachmann)
Such as?
|
On August 17 2011 05:16 jmack wrote:
Anyone voting for bauchman, even in a team liquid poll; better be trolling.
She is a joke.
Foreigners and people who want a Democrat to win.
On August 17 2011 05:16 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy. I don't know why you'd support his economics, they're idiotic, and the sign of someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
Do you think I think everyone is in support of Ron Paul's economic policies? If not, what is the point of responding like that to my post?
|
On August 17 2011 04:27 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 03:41 Kaitlin wrote:On August 17 2011 01:36 Bacon-X wrote:
I just took a political science class. We were taught that the higher you go with education (ex. Phd, or a doctorate) the more liberal you become. This pretty much says republicans are stupid. So, this is what you were "taught", huh ? Did you apply any critical thinking of your own ? How about: Consider some of the greatest minds and success stories throughout history. Were they "highly educated" by the system, or were they self-educated, such as Abraham Lincoln, Bill Gates, Albert Einstein, etc. I'm not convinced that the most intelligent people are the ones with the PhD's, but the ones with the best ideas. PhD's require large amounts of money being invested in not only the education itself, but in the opportunity cost of delaying the commencement of an income-earning career. Conservatives are more ... fiscally conservative and are less likely to take that option. Does that choice make conservatives inherently stupid ? I think not. How many "highly educated" liberals are unable to find work these days ? Do you think they are pissed that they can't get jobs because "stupid" Republicans took their jobs while they were pursuing their "advanced degrees" ? What are the fields of study in which PhD's are commonplace ? The areas where people pursue PhD's are either planning to become teachers (professors) in that area or they are involved in social services, etc. These are not the job creation types. On the other hand, business-related areas of study have little use for PhD to enter the workplace. PhD's in these areas are mainly only needed to become professors. Do you need a PhD in computer science to become successful in that area ? Nope. Spanning across the various areas of study relating to learning a field and getting out there and making a living, a PhD is not only not required, but a waste of time and money. Finally, has anyone who thinks Republicans are stupid ever just stopped to consider why so many people are Republican ? It can't be just the rich because the richest 1% pay more income taxes than 95% of the population, and there are far more Repubs than just 1% that don't want income taxes raised. Is it because Republicans tend to understand that raising corporate tax rates simply makes American companies less competitive than their foreign rivals ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that most of the job creation in this country is through small business and Democratic regulation and desire to raise taxes makes it much more difficult for small businesses to operate and grow in this country ? Is it because Republicans tend to understand that all the restrictions on oil drilling in this country, not only hurts the employment of Americans in that sector of the economy, but forces us to pay other countries to drill in their own land and off-shore instead of retaining that income in the U.S. ? None of these areas require higher education to understand, but an ability to think for yourself instead of what you were "taught" in your one political science class. Bill Gates attended Harvard for a few years, he dropped out to pursue business, but that's not exactly self educated. Einstein also attended university and excelled in school early in life. Lincoln is a good example however.
Kind of makes the point. Gates and Einstein decided at some point that further study wasn't worth it and went their own way with their own ideas. I'm not a Historian, so I don't know if Lincoln's lack of formal education was a matter of choice or not, so I don't include him in the above statement. However, he is one hell of an example for anyone crying about access to higher education. There are libraries and internet access all around this country. Anyone can educate themselves virtually for free.
Many (perhaps most) people are Republicans because they are religious, and because Republicans pander to the religious right. One of the reasons, statistically, that the more educated you become the less likely you are to be Republican is that the more educated you become, the less likely you are to be religious, and the less extreme your religion is if you are religious. Certainly there are exceptions, but generally speaking, the more educated you are, the more you lean in the direction of being of agnostic/atheist
To pursue a PhD, one forgoes actual real world work experience. By the logic above, correlating higher education to liberal / agnostic / atheist views, does that mean that people with more real world work experience tend to be conservative in their views ? Especially at younger ages while the highly educated liberals are in school and have virtually no real world work experience ?
For the people wondering why people support Bachmann, it's not because of her religious views, it's her staunch opposition to the government spending spree. She is the most ardent in opposition to Obama's spending and desire to engage in class warfare, and Bachmann's level of support can be attributed more to how upset people are with Obama than the incorrect conclusion that they are just religious lunatics.
|
to the two who responded... I can't find the source atm (in a hurry), but Obama was actually determined to be the most liberal member of congress before his election. he's now HAD to make deals (like on the debt), but ideologically he is as left as they come (not to mention his association with Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright, etc.). Republicans keep losing because they put out moderates....where did Obama differ from McCain? Abortion and the war(s). Obama has made the dems angry because he is trying to be reelected, instead of doing what he promised them (such as raising taxes.) He's learning the people don't want this far left spend spend spend stuff they keep selling. The unions are angry that he's not working fast enough for them. For his own sake he is trying to get the far left agenda is the least offensive way possible (health was just a "step" to something more). He is being patient, that's all.
|
fucking sad. bachmann shouldn't be allowed to teach elementary school nevermind run for president
|
I'd rather vote for an Honest man then for any bullshit politician that blows smoke up their own ass about things that they did in the past.
|
On August 17 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 03:45 GameTime wrote:
For me, Paul supports:
-Lowering taxes
-Actually cutting spending in entitlement programs
-Ending all our wars
-Dramatically reducing our military presence around the world/Not policing the world
-Putting America back on the gold standard/fighting inflation
-The constitution
He opposes:
-Bailouts
-Quantitative Easing
-The new health care bill
-Big government
He has a proven track record in congress and is the most consistent candidate in this whole race. I don't see how you don't vote for him, no one else even comes close. Because I wont go in to how ron paul is a disaster with economics. Heres some less cheery facts about him. Ron Paul Is For: Abolishing Public Education Allowing states to create fundamentalist governments and imposing mandatory religion Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations Ron Paul is Against: The 14th Amendment The 1st Amendment The 17th Amendment The man is a complete loon, for some one who talks about the constitution so much he has serious issues with it. Hes classified often as a libertarian, but the better classification is that hes a fundamental neo-confederate. He's a complete nut.
He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'.
The man is fiercely pro-life and anti-abortion, yet believes the States have the right to make those decisions. I have absolutely nothing but respect for a person that can sit in the political theatre and admit something like that.
|
On August 17 2011 04:24 rel wrote:
I was in the military. I still have many buddies out there, and what are they getting for their service?
Lower salaries for longer periods of time away from home doing fucking WHAT?
Ron Paul, he said he would bring home the troops and fix our borders.
and he doesn't talk like a robot, he has EMOTION.
I'd have a beer with Ron, couldn't say I would with any of the other candidates.
too bad he's a dumbass.
|
On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote:
Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.
At this point, the only republican candidate that wouldn't cause me to leave the country if elected is Romney, so I guess I'm pulling for him?
I'm pretty sure Obama is going to coast to another term, mainly because its hard to throw out someone who has four years experience on the job, as long as he hasn't completely screwed everything up, which he hasn't.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.
if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
|
On August 17 2011 05:03 abominare wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 04:57 Introvert wrote:
A moderate will not win. McCain sure didn't, and he could barely be called a Republican, much less a conservative. The democrats never field "moderates", and it works fine for them. The only chance is how much Obama has screwed up and ignored the people combined with someone who actually stands for something. Choose someone who has some experience, as well.... You're right, the democrats havent fielded a moderate since jimmy carter, Clinton, Gore, Obama have all been right of center. The problem the republicans have is they keep trying to field far right fringe psychos, or moderates who doing the general election flip flop towards pandering to the far right. According to the republican purity test their party had floating around last year even st ronnie was a damn dirty commie
I'm not sure you understand the political spectrum if you consider Gore and Obama right of center.
|
On August 17 2011 05:16 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy. I don't know why you'd support his economics, they're idiotic, and the sign of someone who has no idea of what he's talking about.
When Ron Paul predicted the Housing Crisis, he had no idea what he was talking about?
When Ron Paul predicted the economic downturn, he had no idea what he was talking about?
When Ron Paul the ineffectiveness of the bailouts to limit unemployment at 7% or so, as Obama and Geithner considered a worst case scenario, he had no idea what he was talking about?
People keep saying that he has no idea on economics. Why is consistently predicting things correctly? WTF is with this disconnect? Is it just a meme that people repeat without thinking?
Anyways, Ron Paul doesn't exist.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/268553/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ron-paul-and-the-top-tier
|
On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy.
What is so great about occupying countries and killing innocent woman and children?
Don't say terrorists, because it has always been the USA putting people in power in the middle east and it was the USA that created the mujahedins. Even if real "terrorists" wanted to kill Americans its because USA is there occupying their land. Just as you would be pissed if the Germans or whoever occupied Canada and bombed you 24/7 for 10 years.
USA is responsible for putting Saddam, Musharik, Gaddafi, etc... in power. The USA with NATO backed allies appointed all the people in power there.
And if you actually go to Afghanistan you would actually see that they are as generous and normal people as anybody. You can even talk English openly and there is 0% of an aggression from anyone.
The ones who may have a wish to kill Americans are people who've lost their whole families, houses, livestock and everything else to one of the plane attacks and have nothing left to live for, so they want revenge on Americans for destroying his whole life.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On August 17 2011 05:19 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 04:47 abominare wrote:On August 17 2011 03:45 GameTime wrote:
For me, Paul supports:
-Lowering taxes
-Actually cutting spending in entitlement programs
-Ending all our wars
-Dramatically reducing our military presence around the world/Not policing the world
-Putting America back on the gold standard/fighting inflation
-The constitution
He opposes:
-Bailouts
-Quantitative Easing
-The new health care bill
-Big government
He has a proven track record in congress and is the most consistent candidate in this whole race. I don't see how you don't vote for him, no one else even comes close. Because I wont go in to how ron paul is a disaster with economics. Heres some less cheery facts about him. Ron Paul Is For: Abolishing Public Education Allowing states to create fundamentalist governments and imposing mandatory religion Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations Ron Paul is Against: The 14th Amendment The 1st Amendment The 17th Amendment The man is a complete loon, for some one who talks about the constitution so much he has serious issues with it. Hes classified often as a libertarian, but the better classification is that hes a fundamental neo-confederate. He's a complete nut. He's against them because there's been many cases where the Federal government has intruded on private lives as a result of them. The man believes in States rights to decide things like freedom of religion, privacy, sexual behaviour and so on and so forth. He has reason for resisting them, not because he's just a 'loon'.
I agree. It's easy to take someone's stances out of context, but Ron Paul is not crazy, even if he's unorthodox; he believes in limited but effective government and personal freedoms. His stances on the drug war and our wars abroad are impeccable. Saying things like " Ron Paul is for Destroying America's ability to trade with foreign nations" is misinformed at best, and disingenuous at worst. if you think his policies will cause that, you can say he's for policies that will inadvertently cause that; but to say that Ron Paul wants to destroy our ability to trade is wrong.
|
On August 17 2011 05:20 thehitman wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy. What is so great about occupying countries and killing innocent woman and children? Don't say terrorists, because it has always been the USA putting people in power in the middle east and it was the USA that created the mujahedins. Even if real "terrorists" wanted to kill Americans its because USA is there occupying their land. Just as you would be pissed if the Germans or whoever occupied Canada and bombed you 24/7 for 10 years. USA is responsible for putting Saddam, Musharik, Gaddafi, etc... in power. The USA with NATO backed allies appointed all the people in power there. And if you actually go to Afghanistan you would actually see that they are as generous and normal people as anybody. You can even talk English openly and there is 0% of an aggression from anyone. The ones who may have a wish to kill Americans are people who've lost their whole families, houses, livestock and everything else to one of the plane attacks and have nothing left to live for, so they want revenge on Americans for destroying his whole life.
Proof please.
|
On August 17 2011 05:20 Spicy Pepper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 05:16 Whitewing wrote:On August 17 2011 05:11 OsoVega wrote:
I'm quite conflicted to be honest. I am a supporter or Ron Paul's economic and social policies but not his foreign policy. I don't know why you'd support his economics, they're idiotic, and the sign of someone who has no idea of what he's talking about. When Ron Paul predicted the Housing Crisis, he had no idea what he was talking about? When Ron Paul predicted the economic downturn, he had no idea what he was talking about? When Ron Paul the ineffectiveness of the bailouts to limit unemployment at 7% or so, as Obama and Geithner considered a worst case scenario, he had no idea what he was talking about? People keep saying that he has no idea on economics. Why is consistently predicting things correctly? WTF is with this disconnect? Is it just a meme that people repeat without thinking? Anyways, Ron Paul doesn't exist. http://www.hulu.com/watch/268553/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-indecision-2012-ron-paul-and-the-top-tier
except the fact that almost any (intelligent) undergrad econ student will tell you that most of his thought processes are stupid.
|
If we don't get Paul into office I've lost faith in humanity.
|
On August 17 2011 05:20 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote:
Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.
At this point, the only republican candidate that wouldn't cause me to leave the country if elected is Romney, so I guess I'm pulling for him?
I'm pretty sure Obama is going to coast to another term, mainly because its hard to throw out someone who has four years experience on the job, as long as he hasn't completely screwed everything up, which he hasn't.
Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan. if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.
LOL, don't even propose Clinton weakened the economy.
The only bad thing that I can remember Clinton doing was sending a lot of manufacturing jobs overseas, and even then, a lot of them were leaving anyway.
Clinton left the economy in phenomenally great shape. Bush started screwing it over, and Obama is simply inheriting his mess. He may not have improved it into positive numbers, but I can tell you he has stopped it from completely going into the toilet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
