On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them.
I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like.
Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution.
I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously.
Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right?
Erg..... Americans voted for him the first time because his father was a 2 time president before him. They thought "well he wasn't that bad, and this Clinton guy had sex with a woman that wasn't his wife, so let's not vote Democratic (hence they voted for Bush, who is a complete retard). That's talking about the people who actually voted for him though.... Bush didn't even win the popular election, meaning the majority of voters in the USA voted against Bush. Bush won because the electoral college (the people who's vote actually matters, people the popular vote isn't worth much of anything) voted for Bush, because they had a personal interest in him becoming President.
I'm pretty sure all of that is wrong, although I do agree with everything else you said about Ron Paul. Bush Sr. only had one term, I don't think Gore lost because of Clinton's sexual escapades (of course this is debatable but it didn't seem to play much of a role), and the electoral college didn't vote for Bush because of personal interest (technically it's possible for them to depart from their constituencies' wishes but in practice it doesn't happen as far as I know). The popular vote doesn't always equal the electoral vote but that's because of the way the system is set up to give more weight to less populated states. What really happened in 2000 was the Supreme Court chose the president of the United States, as well as some very unethical behavior by the news media on election night. That's plenty to be mad about right there
On November 19 2011 04:02 relyt wrote: Just saw this pretty good video from fox19 about Ron Paul.
It's true that Paul isn't getting the amount of attention he deserves based on his poll numbers, but this clip is disgraceful. I know this is local news, but a little attention to journalist standards would be nice. This is essentially a campaign commercial for Paul. It's biased and even blatantly distorts some the facts. Paul is isolationist. He is more radical on cutting government than the other candidates (not by much if you only look at rhetoric, but Paul actually means it). etc. etc. etc.
Paul has a lot of really appealing qualities. I agree with him on a lot of issues, and could even see myself voting for him or someone like him under specific circumstances (not the way the world looks today, but I can imagine a situation in which some of Paul's ideas could be productive).
On November 18 2011 02:26 ilovelings wrote: Anyways, if this polarization continues, Obama wins. The fragmentation it produces clearly benefit Obama.
I don't think so. Ron Paul will wipe the floor with Obama and he is the only one that can beat Obama. Ron Paul has been right for 30 years, has predicted the crisis and is not bought and paid for by the bankers and has never lied, unlike Obama.
Obama beats all the GOP right now. Romney is closest and Paul is second in a majority of h2h polls. However, these polls are just as bad as online polls. The telephone polls reach LAN lines only, which leaves out pretty much everyone of youth.
I do think Paul would destroy Obama though. He would receive the youth vote and the middle. Would most likely be a landslide.
The "youth" you speak of don't show up to the polls.
@Romulox There is a few candidates the republican party has right now. We need people like Ron Paul to fix the economy and balance the budget before we destroy ourselves.
@hipsterHobbit - I think you should look at Paul's campaign again. This is the only person advocating for freedom and peace. Also, wouldn't it be nice to get rid of the IRS and pay nothing in the income tax? That in itself would help stimulate the economy by giving us more money to spend as consumers.
@Omnipresent um...How exactly is Paul an isolationist? Neoconservatives like to call anything that doesn't require force and intervention in the dealings of sovereign nations as being "ISOLATIONIST". But this is incorrect.
In reality Paul is preaching a Non-interventionism style foreign policy
Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.
Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade.
Rick Perry, you srs? i really don't understand how anyone would want this guy in an important position. instead of fixing things, he's like "i gonna talk to my imaginary friend, and because he likes me and my people so much, the imaginary friend will do imaginary things to fix this country".. when things go worse and worse, wasting even more time. oh ya and of course,
and he's also legitimising to pray and do nothing about serious problems. millions go to church every sunday, and pray for a solution or to fix things, when instead, they could use this time to actually do something AND FIX IT THEMSELFS. they don't even see it, and yet, they think the direct opposite.
Religion has no buisniss in politics, or i should say, shouldn't, in the past and still today, we can see why. and yet some ppl would prefer a total retard as a president over the best possible suited human (theoretically) just because he has the same imaginary friend as they do.
@dOofus staying true to his name. This is what an Isolationist really is. WE can still be friends with foreign nations and trade with them. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Not only that but, this is what one of the founding fathers said:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
-George Washington
Also funny you point that video out. I'm here to enlighten you guys to what the Federal Reserve system really is:
Reason he asks Ron Paul specifically doofus is because he's the only candidate willing to take on the fed. Something that hasn't been done since JFK.
On November 21 2011 07:44 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @dOofus staying true to his name. This is what an Isolationist really is. WE can still be friends with foreign nations and trade with them. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Not only that but, this is what one of the founding fathers said:
The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
Reason he asks Ron Paul specifically doofus is because he's the only candidate willing to take on the fed. Something that hasn't been done since JFK.
I enjoyed those little videos and found them quite informative, if a little over the top. I have a few questions about the gold standard though. I don't mean these to be hostile or dismissive however. I am genuinely curious as to possible solutions as I have no real background in economics.
I always hear people talking about "end the fed", "end fiat currency", and "go back to the gold standard". I just want to know how practical this actually is in a modern society? Are we expecting individual banks to keep physical gold in their vaults? Do we the people keep physical gold in our houses in a safe? Is there enough gold out there for this to be feasible? Isn't the vast majority of the world's physical gold currently owned by a few random familes/banks?
I can totally support getting rid of the fed. I just don't quite understand what the alternative is, and how it can be practically implemented on a country-wide scale. I'd love some good reading on the matter. Thanks!
@Haemonculus Not really ending the fed but taking away the power they hold over the people. Since it's a private bank maybe move the power back to the people where it belongs. If we truly tried to get rid of the Federal Reserve every around us would crash. Just like what happened to Andrew Jackson when he took down the central bank of his time. The reason why people advocate for gold is because there is no bubble for gold. The price of gold will keep going up as long as we keep printing money out of thin air. If I remember correctly Ron Paul was on three different economic committees in Congress and has a ton of experience in this field. Not only that but he wrote quite a few books on it. Here are some of his stances :
Ron Paul believes in the concept of competing currencies and I quote,
"Simply legalizing the Constitution should be a no-brainer to anyone who took an oath of office. Consequently, private mints should be allowed to mint gold and silver coins. They would be subject to fraud and counterfeit laws, of course, and people would be free to use their coins or stay with Federal Reserve notes, as they see fit. Finally, we should abolish taxes on gold and silver, which puts precious metals at a competitive disadvantage to paper money."From here.
And a vid of him fighting the Fed Chairman himself. Ben Bernanke !
P.S. Bob Schieffer promised Ron 20 minutes on Face the Nation, but cut him off after 10, because he was demolishing that establishment shill. Catch Schieffer's smirk. Also, there was a loud buzzing from Ron's ear piece during the entire interview. Deliberate? Who knows, but the flaw had been pointed out again and again 15 minutes before airtime(Which is why Paul had such a loud voice).
And speaking of media bias, at the Christian right forum yesterday in Iowa, all the candidates were positioned so they looked directly into the camera. Ron, alone, was placed so only his profile showed.
On November 22 2011 05:31 ilovelings wrote: ahahhaahahah.
If gold is not money why do you store it? It's a funny question. When you think about it, gold is just a shiny metal.
Exactly, the worth of gold is mostly psychological. I hate it when people rant about fiat money and then bring up gold as an alternative.
The reason it is brought up as an alternative is because gold can't be created. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the material, but the fact that gold cannot be manipulated in harmful ways.
On November 22 2011 05:31 ilovelings wrote: ahahhaahahah.
If gold is not money why do you store it? It's a funny question. When you think about it, gold is just a shiny metal.
Exactly, the worth of gold is mostly psychological. I hate it when people rant about fiat money and then bring up gold as an alternative.
Gold is a shiny metal that we have been using for thousands of years. Last time I checked the EU is in trouble right now with the Euro. :l
Some countries have trouble with public debt because the inflation in the Euro-zone is too low for them, it's not like gold-induced deflation would save them ...
On November 22 2011 05:31 ilovelings wrote: ahahhaahahah.
If gold is not money why do you store it? It's a funny question. When you think about it, gold is just a shiny metal.
Exactly, the worth of gold is mostly psychological. I hate it when people rant about fiat money and then bring up gold as an alternative.
The reason it is brought up as an alternative is because gold can't be created. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the material, but the fact that gold cannot be manipulated in harmful ways.
As long as I can own every goldmine in the world I am completely fine with that statement!
On November 22 2011 05:31 ilovelings wrote: ahahhaahahah.
If gold is not money why do you store it? It's a funny question. When you think about it, gold is just a shiny metal.
Exactly, the worth of gold is mostly psychological. I hate it when people rant about fiat money and then bring up gold as an alternative.
The reason it is brought up as an alternative is because gold can't be created. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of the material, but the fact that gold cannot be manipulated in harmful ways.
1) My comment was more about statements like "there is no gold bubble" by people fleeing the currency (because it is fiat money) and not about the gold standard.
2) Your statement is not entirely correct. Gold can obviously be mined (and it can even be created).
3) The gold standard has many problems as well, but I don't want to go into details, too time-consuming. Deflation, for one, is very likely in a world where other important variables do grow considerably faster than the gold supply (e.g. world population)
EPT
