On August 25 2011 10:34 Doppelganger wrote: Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
Except that at least one of them wants to end the FED. How is this not relevant? The FED is the most important institution when it comes to monetary policy and some candidates want to end its existence. I would say that it is very much on topic.
So let me guess: It is Ron Paul?
It may be that it is a relevant point but I think the discussion has gone way beyond that.
The last couple of posts were in no way connected to ANY candidate but debated about the FED.
Anyway: on Topic: I just looked around about Huntsmen:
1. He served as governor of Utah from 2005 - 2009 2. He served as ambassador to China from 2009 -2011 3. He actually has a bachelor degree in international-politics 4. He accepts climate change and evolution 5. He is a believer about that:
Although still Mormon, Huntsman has said that he and his wife draw from an array of sources for inspiration, stating: "I was raised a Mormon, Mary Kaye was raised Episcopalian, our kids have gone to Catholic school, I went to a Lutheran school growing up in Los Angeles. I have an adopted daughter from India who has a very distinct Hindu tradition, one that we would celebrate during Diwali. So you kind of bind all this together."[72]
- wikipedia
6. He is a fiscal conservative 7. He is at least pro civil unions
Huntsman is a Republican, with conservative fiscal credentials and a mixture of positions on social issues. He has been described as "a conservative technocrat-optimist with moderate positions who was willing to work substantively with President Barack Obama."[49]
- wikipedia
he seems a good choice for a republican candidate
perhaps the only person that is not ridiculously right in his/her positions so that they spook the majority of americans.
Fair nuff... There have been far worse derailments (religion wtf?)
Anyway, as for Huntsman I think he has more chance in 2016. He is positioning himself as the reasonable republican which means he will not get this nomination. The support is coming fom the far right, not from the centre. However, if the republicans choose someone too far right they will get pummelled and then Huntsman can rightly say "Well we tried that and failed, look at me I offer something different." Of course his support for the crazy budget won't help that.
I just don't see the republican party moving anywhere near centre given their success last year. If Huntsman is smart, play the long game.
On August 25 2011 10:34 Doppelganger wrote: Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
Except that at least one of them wants to end the FED. How is this not relevant? The FED is the most important institution when it comes to monetary policy and some candidates want to end its existence. I would say that it is very much on topic.
Hey now.... We are supposed to be discussing here who does and who does not believe in the theory of evolution. That's the issue that really matters!
On August 16 2011 22:59 meadbert wrote: I never saw Pawlenty with a lead in the polls or even on Intrade. He was second behind Romney for a while, but he and Romney were competing for the centrist wing.
Also Romney does believe in evolution and does not believe intelligent design should be taught in science classes.
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party.
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party.
Wow. The republican party is deeply concerning to me if this is true. How can they make good leadership decisions if they can't accept the scientific process. What are they, brain dead?
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
Are you serious? he wasnt a scientist rofl. He worked in obstetrics. As for the church and state thing, sure you may have a point but then again you cant really agree with someone on everything.
Yea that's the point he is not a scientist, he called himself a scientist not me. Someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and denys evolution cannot call themselves a scientist in any respect.
On August 19 2011 23:20 Kiwifruit wrote: Huntsman has gained my respect:
JonHuntsman Jon Huntsman To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote: I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents.
On August 20 2011 07:16 KSMB wrote: In a shocking turn of events, the GOP hopefuls are trying to out do each other in the fine arts of being complete idiots and pandering to other complete idiots. I am sure you will all fall off your chairs in amazement that they, in fact, do not accept the very well established theory of evolution.
On August 20 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote: "I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry said today. "That's a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it."
Perry then told the boy: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
Yep, that's how schools work. You tell kids some things that are true and some things that are made up and you trust that the children will be "smart enough" to figure it out. "America's first three presidents were George Washington, John Adams and the Green Lantern. Good luck on your AP History test."
On Thursday, in New Hampshire, Perry told a woman and her son that he regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it.”
When a woman in South Carolina congratulated him for his remarks Friday, Perry replied “Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."
Gee Rick, are you sure that Creationism is the theory with some gaps in it?
Perry supports and encourages the teaching of creationism in schools, and Texas is doing it (which is illegal, and unconstitutional, and was ruled on by the Supreme Court I might add). Note how he walks away and won't answer the question when there is a question about why he doesn't believe in science coming.
On August 21 2011 23:50 Fleebenworth wrote: The endgame in the evolution debate is a system where only creationism is taught, right now they are just trying to make inroads so that they can establish a sense of normalcy around religious indoctrination in schools.
It really should come as no surprise that conservatives have a disdain for reality or results-oriented approaches to problems. After all they routinely deny global warming, believe that social security is bankrupt, and that Obama is some sort of foreign black liberation islamosocialist. The entire christian worldview is based on accepting a rigid dogmatic worldview without question or independent thought.
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that.
He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him?
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that.
He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him?
That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution.
Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable!
For me the point is that if someone consider his own opinions on a scientific topic to hold more weight than 100 years of scientific development he is presumably a lot more likely not to listen to expert advice or opinions conflicting to his own on any other topic either.
On August 23 2011 03:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Sadly this pretty much seals his fate of not getting the nomination, not that he had a chance to start with:
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people.
Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok?
Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics).
On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)...
Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true?
Basically, yes. Even here in Ireland, religious people believe in an Evolution facilitated by god. There are an incredibly small number of people who are creationists in the man was created 4-6 thousand years ago sense. And those are all ridiculed in mainstream culture.
On August 22 2011 20:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people.
Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok?
Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics).
On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)...
Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true?
Basically, yes. Even here in Ireland, religious people believe in an Evolution facilitated by god. There are an incredibly small number of people who are creationists in the man was created 4-6 thousand years ago sense. And those are all ridiculed in mainstream culture.
"And then... There are fossils. Whenever anybody tries to tell me that it took place in seven days, I reach for a fossil, and go "Fossil!"And if they keep talking, I throw it just over their head".
And more generally:
"I would like to have the faith that everything was created in seven days but I have thoughts and that fucks up the faith thing."
Anyway. Creationism is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be worth mentioning. Some people need to seriously leave middle age. The fact that serious candidate for the White House can think and publicly admit they think that earth was created in seven days six thousand years ago shows that something is terribly terribly terribly wrong with both the Republican party and the US as a whole.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
So who is this Huntsman?
Seems he is the only person who takes evolution serious in the republican camp.
There were more, but I got tired of clicking "copy, paste"
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
We should ALL have our qualities of life improving as time and technology advances. What kind of environment do you want the poor to live in? Dark Ages serfdom? Screw vaccines, let's give them all malaria and smallpox!
The richest, most well-maintained person back in the early 1900s lived until they were about 50, TOPS. I would hope to god that the poorest people in our society would reap similar benefits of an improving economy over the years.
Just because someone owns a TV, a microwave and a refrigerator in this day and age, does not make them particularly well-off. It's still an environment of extreme stress when you're unemployed/work hard for a pittance relative to those around you and can't see a way to get your kids the education they need to get themselves out of the hole you're also in. Sitting back watching everyone else in the world enjoy themselves, all thanks to better opportunities than you had, is not fun.
The Atlantic had some nice, balanced articles on this very phenomenon. Basically, shit's getting cheap - TVs, computers, refrigerators, etc - which is great for consumers. But it also is a factor that tends to lower real wages, so any good/service that isn't subject to the same increases in productivity becomes relatively more expensive. That's why poor people own refrigerators and televisions but can't afford college or health insurance. It's probably also related to why they find it easier to get their calories from junk food rather than vegetables and high quality meats. (although what foods we subsidize, esp corn, is a factor here too)
On August 25 2011 10:34 Doppelganger wrote: Is this a thread about the federal reserve?!? Please make your own thread because this has no longer anything to do with the candidates from the republican party.
Except that at least one of them wants to end the FED. How is this not relevant? The FED is the most important institution when it comes to monetary policy and some candidates want to end its existence. I would say that it is very much on topic.
Hey now.... We are supposed to be discussing here who does and who does not believe in the theory of evolution. That's the issue that really matters!
On August 16 2011 22:59 meadbert wrote: I never saw Pawlenty with a lead in the polls or even on Intrade. He was second behind Romney for a while, but he and Romney were competing for the centrist wing.
Also Romney does believe in evolution and does not believe intelligent design should be taught in science classes.
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party.
On August 16 2011 23:41 arbitrageur wrote: Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
Romney has said things to the effect, if I recall correctly now, that he believes in some parts of global warming and evolution. This does put him at odds with, at the very least, the most vocal parts of the Republican party.
Wow. The republican party is deeply concerning to me if this is true. How can they make good leadership decisions if they can't accept the scientific process. What are they, brain dead?
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
On August 18 2011 08:24 jdseemoreglass wrote: It's really popular to make fun of Ron Paul. It's popular to call him a kook, and dismiss him or his ideas. Usually, people who do this point to some obscure or largely irrelevant statement, some fringe issue that usually the president doesn't even control.
Where does Ron Paul stand on the most important issues of all?
1) End our interventionist policies in the middle-east, and bring our troops home. This will save our reputation abroad, save billions of dollars in spending, and most importantly, save lives.
2) End the failed war on drugs that has incarcerated thousands, cost billions of dollars, and led to worse results and greater violence than the medical approach taken in many European nations.
3) Secure our borders to prevent illegal immigration, but don't force businesses to investigate their employees, and don't support any draconian measures to round people up and deport them from their home.
4) Reduce the power and influence of the federal reserve to put an end to the cycle of devaluation of currency and excessive artificial credit, which has lead to bubbles and economic instability.
5) Oppose the idea of a federal amendment denying gays the ability to marry. Leave the concept of marriage up to individuals, and allow the individual states to determine their laws regarding this and other issues.
6) Reducing spending to finally begin to dig us out of the deep hole we are in, reducing our deficit and eventually our enormous debt.
To me, these positions do not seem crazy. In fact, they sound to me like common sense and the best possible direction our nation could go in. You won't hear a platform like this from any politician on any side of the spectrum. Republicans will give lip service to issues like closing the borders, and Democrats will give lip service to ending the wars... In the end it is just more of the same, with presidents from both sides simply continuing the failed policies of the previous.
I've never voted, and I've never registered to vote. I refuse to vote for anyone who supports policies which I think are fundamentally immoral, for that would be a sanction of them. Ron Paul is the only candidate I have ever heard who actually inspires me to register and vote and engage in politics. The fact that he did so well in the last debate gives me hope that our nation isn't completely lost.
1) Calls himself a scientist - Doesn't believe in evolution 2) Calls himself a libertarian - Doesn't agree with keeping state and church seperate
He is just a washed up radical conservative christian, sure he has good ideas that are mostly not even practical you can't just reduce spending and bring the boys home. There is a reason no one takes Ron Paul seriously anymore and yes it is because he is fucking stupid.
Are you serious? he wasnt a scientist rofl. He worked in obstetrics. As for the church and state thing, sure you may have a point but then again you cant really agree with someone on everything.
Yea that's the point he is not a scientist, he called himself a scientist not me. Someone who thinks the earth is 6000 years old and denys evolution cannot call themselves a scientist in any respect.
On August 19 2011 23:20 Kiwifruit wrote: Huntsman has gained my respect:
JonHuntsman Jon Huntsman To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
On August 19 2011 18:15 Netolip wrote: I disagree with him on some things like creationism but that's his religion talking and it's not big enough to discount the rest of his ideas that I agree with. I still think it's insane that it's political suicide within an entire party to say you believe in evolution, but that's the iron grasp that Christianity has on politics. At least he doesn't use his religion shamelessly and ignorantly for political gain like his opponents.
On August 20 2011 07:16 KSMB wrote: In a shocking turn of events, the GOP hopefuls are trying to out do each other in the fine arts of being complete idiots and pandering to other complete idiots. I am sure you will all fall off your chairs in amazement that they, in fact, do not accept the very well established theory of evolution.
On August 20 2011 07:19 Bibdy wrote: "I hear your mom was asking about evolution," Perry said today. "That's a theory that is out there -- and it's got some gaps in it."
Perry then told the boy: "In Texas, we teach both creationism and evolution. I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."
Yep, that's how schools work. You tell kids some things that are true and some things that are made up and you trust that the children will be "smart enough" to figure it out. "America's first three presidents were George Washington, John Adams and the Green Lantern. Good luck on your AP History test."
On Thursday, in New Hampshire, Perry told a woman and her son that he regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it.”
When a woman in South Carolina congratulated him for his remarks Friday, Perry replied “Well, God is how we got here. God may have done it in the blink of the eye or he may have done it over this long period of time, I don't know. But I know how it got started."
Gee Rick, are you sure that Creationism is the theory with some gaps in it?
Perry supports and encourages the teaching of creationism in schools, and Texas is doing it (which is illegal, and unconstitutional, and was ruled on by the Supreme Court I might add). Note how he walks away and won't answer the question when there is a question about why he doesn't believe in science coming.
On August 21 2011 23:50 Fleebenworth wrote: The endgame in the evolution debate is a system where only creationism is taught, right now they are just trying to make inroads so that they can establish a sense of normalcy around religious indoctrination in schools.
It really should come as no surprise that conservatives have a disdain for reality or results-oriented approaches to problems. After all they routinely deny global warming, believe that social security is bankrupt, and that Obama is some sort of foreign black liberation islamosocialist. The entire christian worldview is based on accepting a rigid dogmatic worldview without question or independent thought.
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that.
He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him?
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that.
He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him?
That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution.
Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable!
For me the point is that if someone consider his own opinions on a scientific topic to hold more weight than 100 years of scientific development he is presumably a lot more likely not to listen to expert advice or opinions conflicting to his own on any other topic either.
On August 23 2011 03:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Sadly this pretty much seals his fate of not getting the nomination, not that he had a chance to start with:
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people.
Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok?
Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics).
On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)...
Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true?
Basically, yes. Even here in Ireland, religious people believe in an Evolution facilitated by god. There are an incredibly small number of people who are creationists in the man was created 4-6 thousand years ago sense. And those are all ridiculed in mainstream culture.
On August 22 2011 20:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On August 22 2011 17:39 BlackFlag wrote: People who blatantly refuse to acknowledge at least basic science are idiots. That's why it's important if they believe in evolution. Someone who rejects science because in his 2000 year old book stands something different shouldn't have any responsibility, especially they should not be president of a country.
I don't think that's exactly fair - I have a number of Christian friends who put in a lot of work helping their community either through the church, their jobs, or other charitable work. Unless their acts involve science teaching directly I'm not sure why it matters, they are otherwise upstanding and responsible people.
Obviously I agree when it comes to the presidency of the US but lets not dehumanise people so broadly just because they believe in creationism, ok?
Politics should be based on science, Natural Science and Arts (History and that stuff, I don't really know the common english expression for that type of studies). They can be supernice people I bet, but they shouldn't then work in a field that directly needs science (E.g. Politics).
On a personal level, I don't think I could hang out with people who believe in creationism and the likes. I have religious friends too, none of them believe in that stuff. I think not even the priest of our church believes in creationism. No one does in Europe, and people wouldn't be taken seriously, on no level. They may believe that god kickstarted evolution (or something like that)...
Wait, seriously? I thought many people in Europe(or at least in places like Italy) believe in creationism. I live in the US and have only been to Europe once but is this actually true?
Basically, yes. Even here in Ireland, religious people believe in an Evolution facilitated by god. There are an incredibly small number of people who are creationists in the man was created 4-6 thousand years ago sense. And those are all ridiculed in mainstream culture.
"And then... There are fossils. Whenever anybody tries to tell me that it took place in seven days, I reach for a fossil, and go "Fossil!"And if they keep talking, I throw it just over their head".
And more generally:
"I would like to have the faith that everything was created in seven days but I have thoughts and that fucks up the faith thing."
Anyway. Creationism is so ridiculous it shouldn't even be worth mentioning. Some people need to seriously leave middle age. The fact that serious candidate for the White House can think and publicly admit they think that earth was created in seven days six thousand years ago shows that something is terribly terribly terribly wrong with both the Republican party and the US as a whole.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
Science is exactly how humanity progresses. It's how we obtain knowledge, create technology, and find medicines. Biology (along with chemistry and physics) is one of the most important fields of science (hell, we teach a whole year of it in high school!). To not know the single, most important fact in biology (that evolution is merely true) and to practically brag about rejecting it for a political/ religious agenda is mind-numbing. It's not like you had to reject God in favor of science or anything groundbreaking like that. You just had to be smarter than a fifth grader, Jeff Foxworthy.
Surprisingly enough, Ron Paul is one of the candidates who explicitly denies evolution.
So who is this Huntsman?
Seems he is the only person who takes evolution serious in the republican camp.
There were more, but I got tired of clicking "copy, paste"
On August 22 2011 04:51 TOloseGT wrote: The more I look at Huntsman, the more I like him. Too bad the Republican base can't see that.
He believes in evolution. How could the Republican party possibly nominate him?
That is the #1 issue among TL users apparently, whether or not the candidate believes in evolution.
Who gives a damn their stance on the economy, foreign policy, immigration... I just want my candidate to be likable, and relatable!
I think you miss the point.
He he so true. Doesn't matter what the topic religion and/or evolution are destined to derail the thread.
There is a position that those that use science to back their policy deserve attention but that is as far at it goes. I just hope that no matter who gets the nomination, the affect of this election is not too massive. Right now the US needs stability and these candidates offer the exact opposite.
People get nervous when things change, nervous people save, people saving means less spending which for the US is like cancer. Saying no to everything makes being noticed easy, but it does "wonders" for consumer confidence.
We have the same problem here is Oz. When people hear that the government is run by a muslim socialist, it doesn't matter whether it is true or not. It really shits me that people who put themselves out there get shot down by people who are not held to account.
Anyway, if the republicans win in 2012 I hope it is by a moderate but I don't see that happening.
Its a bit long so skip to about 25 minutes in for the compromise stuff. He seems like its "My way or gtfo". I might have to rethink my opion of Ron Paul.
PS: feel free to watch the whole thing. The questions being asked are much harder than anything the mainstream media could come up with. Gives a lot more insight into the man, for better or worse.
On August 25 2011 08:19 jdseemoreglass wrote: I want to clarify that I'm not using the term "Marxist" as an attack, simply what I consider to be a fairly accurate description. If you believe in Marxist principles, such as "to each according to need, from each according to ability," then don't be afraid of embracing it because you are afraid of labels.
It's true mcc, there might be utilitarian arguments in favor of Marxist principles. From my experience however, most people employ a kind of "anti-rich" hatred to support their philosophy. It can be blatant or it can be subtle, such as using terms like "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans," intended to evoke a certain emotional response.
When this attitude is taken to it's extreme, you have people like BlackFlag and H0i. BF said the only way for a black man to succeed in America was to "become white like Michael Jackson." I know I should just ignore people who make such arguments, but there seem to be so many of them, and the statements from the extremes seem to underscore a similar basic philosophy and worldview of many left-leaning posters around here.
The reason people dislike you calling them marxist is not because they see it as an attack. It is because many people stick this label on someone and then use it as an excuse to don't respond to the actual content of the post, because this "marxist" person is a marxist.
You could say I'm anti rich a bit, but if you read my posts you will see it's not so much anti rich, it's more anti system. The tiny amount of rich having nearly everything and the huge amount of poor having nearly nothing is only a symptom of our diseased system.
Edit: typo.
Do you really believe the poor have nearly nothing?
The definition of poor in this country has been raised so much and expanded so much that most of the people we consider "poor" today would be considered wealthy a few decades ago. The poor almost never go hungry, in fact tend to be obese, typically have housing with electricity, running water, air conditioning, a television, etc. The fact that we can reach such a state for the poorest of our citizens tells me that actually our system is working well, and despite the disparity, the standard of living of the poor continues to increase with each passing generation.
We should ALL have our qualities of life improving as time and technology advances. What kind of environment do you want the poor to live in? Dark Ages serfdom? Screw vaccines, let's give them all malaria and smallpox!
The richest, most well-maintained person back in the early 1900s lived until they were about 50, TOPS. I would hope to god that the poorest people in our society would reap similar benefits of an improving economy over the years.
Just because someone owns a TV, a microwave and a refrigerator in this day and age, does not make them particularly well-off. It's still an environment of extreme stress when you're unemployed/work hard for a pittance relative to those around you and can't see a way to get your kids the education they need to get themselves out of the hole you're also in. Sitting back watching everyone else in the world enjoy themselves, all thanks to better opportunities than you had, is not fun.
The Atlantic had some nice, balanced articles on this very phenomenon. Basically, shit's getting cheap - TVs, computers, refrigerators, etc - which is great for consumers. But it also is a factor that tends to lower real wages, so any good/service that isn't subject to the same increases in productivity becomes relatively more expensive. That's why poor people own refrigerators and televisions but can't afford college or health insurance. It's probably also related to why they find it easier to get their calories from junk food rather than vegetables and high quality meats. (although what foods we subsidize, esp corn, is a factor here too)
I think those articles are absolutely true. The economy needs consumers to consume, and if the poorest are capable of purchasing all of these non-essentials, the economy looks great in the short-term. But, when it comes to education, healthcare and all of the real necessities of a growing, advancing society, it's just getting more expensive. People earning in the bottom income brackets can't afford to both consume and get their essentials. Unfortunately, the way marketing works, it's luring these people into purchasing these non-essentials (video game systems, big screen TVs, fancy clothing etc.) that give them a short-term benefit at the expense of a long-term plan to get their kids the education they need to get out of that rut.
I'm middle-class and I'm terrified of the idea of raising even one kid and putting it through college, let alone the two I need to have just to maintain my part of the population.
Oh and as for evolution vs creationism, it's a debate that cannot be won. No matter how much evidence you find to support it (and there is a LOT), the response will always return to "God put it there to test our faith". Even if you dragged them over to look at a creature fucking evolving right before their eyes, pokemon-style, it would be responded to with the same exact phrase.
You can't change people's beliefs and there's no point trying. Cognitive dissonance is just too godamned powerful. The amount of rewiring the brain needs to get beyond those beliefs, and sacrifice years of devotion to them, is too much work for the majority to deal with. Modern societies will just have to keep trying to move forward while the religious-component burden us with their rhetoric. They'll never stop us, merely slow us down and they'll get weaker and weaker as education improves until they eventually become nothing more than a whisper in politics.
Our grandparents, great grandparents etc. never 'got over' being racist and/or sexist. They simply died out and their outdated ideals with them. Some passed their silly ideals onto the next generation, but more and more chose to ignore their baseless claims. Same will happen with other things that just get in the way of society's progress.
Its a bit long so skip to about 25 minutes in for the compromise stuff. He seems like its "My way or gtfo". I might have to rethink my opion of Ron Paul.
PS: feel free to watch the whole thing. The questions being asked are much harder than anything the mainstream media could come up with. Gives a lot more insight into the man, for better or worse.
"Compromise" is essentially the opposite of idealism, or principles. You don't compromise an ideal or a principle, because that means it really isn't an ideal or principle, just a relative value.
We could get into a deep philosophical debate on idealism vs. pragmatism or something, but I think the simple point to be made, and Ron Paul makes it, is that this nation was founded upon ideals. You don't compromise the right to freedom of speech, because it is a basic ideal. We sometimes call them "human rights" but the terminology hardly matters.
When you are willing to compromise any position, you leave the door open to anything at all. Individuals such as myself think it is better to draw a very clear line in the sand and say, "not one step beyond this point will be compromised." At least that's how I interpret a lot of the rights in our constitution.
People don't like black/white arguments for the most part, but if you honestly believe something is truly good/bad, then you won't be willing to compromise the two. For example, you wouldn't compromise between freedom and slavery, between tolerance and hatred, between peace and violence, because by compromising you are implicitly accepting or granting legitimacy to something you consider to be immoral.
It's a little more difficult to apply such logic to things such as the economy, but if you imagine I came to you and demanded $200 from you, and you refused. I said, let's compromise, give me $100. You would still refuse because you have the believe that you are entitled to keep what you rightfully own, and it's not a matter of compromise or not. I might not be explaining this clearly enough but hopefully I've offered some food for thought.
On August 26 2011 06:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:"Compromise" is essentially the opposite of idealism, or principles. You don't compromise an ideal or a principle, because that means it really isn't an ideal or principle, just a relative value.
No, that's completely false. Compromise it what happens when ideals meets political reality. It's certainly NOT the opposite of idealism, it's a means through which you try to transform your ideals into concrete reality. Let me give you an example. Imagine that I have the ideal that nobody should ever have to sleep on the street. To make this a reality, I need funding to build centers in which poor people without a home will be able to come sleep at night. Let's say I need 1 billion dollars for this. Unfortunately, my party and me don't have enough legislative power by ourselves to enact this project into law, so we need the other party (or at least some of its members) to vote with us. We go ask them and they tell us they are not prepared to spend 1 billion dollars on this, only 500 million dollars. Now I know that if we only spend 500 million dollars on this project only HALF of the poor people will have a center to sleep in, so I won't be able to entirely fulfill my ideal. What do I do? Do I compromise and agree to cede on the amount to be spent, or do I refuse any compromise because then my ideal would not be completely fulfilled? I'm pretty sure you and any rational person would compromise, since the said compromise would still result in half the homeless getting a place to sleep, while not compromising would fail to achieve anything.
You're trying to paint compromise as an indicator that you don't really care about something, and that's completely false.
On August 26 2011 06:32 jdseemoreglass wrote:It's a little more difficult to apply such logic to things such as the economy, but if you imagine I came to you and demanded $200 from you, and you refused. I said, let's compromise, give me $100. You would still refuse because you have the believe that you are entitled to keep what you rightfully own, and it's not a matter of compromise or not. I might not be explaining this clearly enough but hopefully I've offered some food for thought.
Your analogy is flawed because the legislative process is often about deciding what to do, meaning that a failure to compromise will lead to a lack of action and not to an action going your way.
Let me try and clarify my above post. Ideals are relative to the ideals of lesser importance or magnitude.
You see, there is not only a single ideal, there are many. In order for them to have any relative worth, they have to be ordered according to a hierarchy. Here is an example of three possible ideals or values, and the ordering of their hierarchy.
1) The right to life. 2) Freedom of speech. 3) Not offending people.
You should not compromise a lesser ideal for a higher one. Therefore, you should not allow people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because you are putting lives at risk. Likewise, you wouldn't want to restrict people's freedom of speech in order to keep people from getting offended, and you certainly would never advocate killing someone to prevent offense.
Once you have a clear hierarchy of values in your mind, then you will be able to recognize what you truly value most, and therefore when to compromise and when not to.
On August 26 2011 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: Let me try and clarify my above post. Ideals are relative to the ideals of lesser importance or magnitude.
You see, there is not only a single ideal, there are many. In order for them to have any relative worth, they have to be ordered according to a hierarchy. Here is an example of three possible ideals or values, and the ordering of their hierarchy.
1) The right to life. 2) Freedom of speech. 3) Not offending people.
You should not compromise a lesser ideal for a higher one. Therefore, you should not allow people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because you are putting lives at risk. Likewise, you wouldn't want to restrict people's freedom of speech in order to keep people from getting offended, and you certainly would never advocate killing someone to prevent offense.
Once you have a clear hierarchy of values in your mind, then you will be able to recognize what you truly value most, and therefore when to compromise and when not to.
The thing is that if you are 100% sure you are correct in your set of values, then your willingness to accept new ideas or viewpoints with be less. Lets say you are the president and you get told that you are completely wrong about something. That something was based on your values and ideals. Are you wiling to find a compromise or will you be pigheaded and refuse because it conflict with your values? Even when faced with evidence?
Idealism is great but it is hopelessly impractical if you want to get anything done. It only works if everyone agrees with you. Compromise is a nessesary part of politics. If you try to run with an idea and go into it with an "Get onboard or get out of the way" attitude people will be less incliend to work/help you.
This was the impression i got from Ron Paul when he stated that he would never compromise on anything. Frankly i find that kinda of attitude worrying
Its a bit long so skip to about 25 minutes in for the compromise stuff. He seems like its "My way or gtfo". I might have to rethink my opion of Ron Paul.
PS: feel free to watch the whole thing. The questions being asked are much harder than anything the mainstream media could come up with. Gives a lot more insight into the man, for better or worse.
Good. Compromising on your core values - things like liberty and equality in the eyes of the law - is not good. I wouldn't want a leader who would "compromise" on my civil liberties, as every previous President has done for one reason or another, real or imagined.
By the way, in that video he said that he doesn't care about party lines - he is willing to work with anyone who wants to advance the cause of liberty, even if it is just in one area. For example, look at his Marijuana bill with Barney Frank - the bluest of Democrats. What other Republican would attach his name to someone who is so hated by most Republicans, in the leadup to the primary season? Most wouldn't want to be associated with Frank even if the proposal was to stop dropping bombs on orphanages in Detroit. Clearly he places his values - of freedom of choice - above petty political bickering.
Its a bit long so skip to about 25 minutes in for the compromise stuff. He seems like its "My way or gtfo". I might have to rethink my opion of Ron Paul.
PS: feel free to watch the whole thing. The questions being asked are much harder than anything the mainstream media could come up with. Gives a lot more insight into the man, for better or worse.
We could get into a deep philosophical debate on idealism vs. pragmatism or something, but I think the simple point to be made, and Ron Paul makes it, is that this nation was founded upon ideals. You don't compromise the right to freedom of speech, because it is a basic ideal. We sometimes call them "human rights" but the terminology hardly matters.
The Constitution is some pretty hardcore compromise, between big states and small states, slave states and slaveless states, strong federal government vs. states' rights, etc.
Its a bit long so skip to about 25 minutes in for the compromise stuff. He seems like its "My way or gtfo". I might have to rethink my opion of Ron Paul.
PS: feel free to watch the whole thing. The questions being asked are much harder than anything the mainstream media could come up with. Gives a lot more insight into the man, for better or worse.
Good. Compromising on your core values - things like liberty and equality in the eyes of the law - is not good. I wouldn't want a leader who would "compromise" on my civil liberties, as every previous President has done for one reason or another, real or imagined.
By the way, in that video he said that he doesn't care about party lines - he is willing to work with anyone who wants to advance the cause of liberty, even if it is just in one area. For example, look at his Marijuana bill with Barney Frank - the bluest of Democrats. What other Republican would attach his name to someone who is so hated by most Republicans, in the leadup to the primary season? Most wouldn't want to be associated with Frank even if the proposal was to stop dropping bombs on orphanages in Detroit. Clearly he places his values - of freedom of choice - above petty political bickering.
I never said anything about compromising basic human rights. What i was trying to say was that if you assume that your idealistic values are correct, what happens if you are wrong? If you say "im right about X because thats part of my values and i wont change my mind" the what happens when someone comes along and says "I dont agree"?. The willingness to consider all viewpoints and reach a mutually benifitial result should be what defines a good politician. Not stubbornly holding on to your ideal because you assume you are always right.
On August 26 2011 07:06 jdseemoreglass wrote: Let me try and clarify my above post. Ideals are relative to the ideals of lesser importance or magnitude.
You see, there is not only a single ideal, there are many. In order for them to have any relative worth, they have to be ordered according to a hierarchy. Here is an example of three possible ideals or values, and the ordering of their hierarchy.
1) The right to life. 2) Freedom of speech. 3) Not offending people.
You should not compromise a lesser ideal for a higher one. Therefore, you should not allow people to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, because you are putting lives at risk. Likewise, you wouldn't want to restrict people's freedom of speech in order to keep people from getting offended, and you certainly would never advocate killing someone to prevent offense.
Once you have a clear hierarchy of values in your mind, then you will be able to recognize what you truly value most, and therefore when to compromise and when not to.
The thing is that if you are 100% sure you are correct in your set of values, then your willingness to accept new ideas or viewpoints with be less. Lets say you are the president and you get told that you are completely wrong about something. That something was based on your values and ideals. Are you wiling to find a compromise or will you be pigheaded and refuse because it conflict with your values? Even when faced with evidence?
Idealism is great but it is hopelessly impractical if you want to get anything done. It only works if everyone agrees with you. Compromise is a nessesary part of politics. If you try to run with an idea and go into it with an "Get onboard or get out of the way" attitude people will be less incliend to work/help you.
This was the impression i got from Ron Paul when he stated that he would never compromise on anything. Frankly i find that kinda of attitude worrying
Libertarians like Ron Paul do not want to "get things done." Getting things done is always a euphemism for expanding government. Expanding it's role, expanding it's spending, etc. If anything, Ron Paul wants many things to get undone. Therefore it makes perfect sense that he doesn't compromise to expand government.
Personally I prefer gridlock in government. Decreasing what the government is actually able to accomplish is part of the purpose of checks and balances, and having 3 competing branches of government. The less congress or the president "gets done," the better off we all are, in my opinion. The recent "debt debate" was one of the few moments where they were working towards something I agree with, and in the end they all "compromised" and changed literally nothing.
Rick Perry will be the next President of the United States. He will bully Romney down over everything as Romney's a pushover, co-opt Bachmann, pick a moderate VP, and then bully Obama down over unemployment.
Every day Palin doesn't announce Perry becomes a day stronger; she can't beat him. He's a male, smart Sarah Palin who didn't quit his job as governor. That's all Perry has to communicate to Republican voters and he's got Sarah beaten.
This will be the ugliest campaign since the 19th century, Perry and Obama are going to rip each other apart. Debates should be awesome.
The polling data suggests not only that Perry survived his early stumbles on the stump – most notably, his suggestions that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke could be guilty of “treason” if the Fed prints more money, and that Texans would accordingly treat Bernanke “pretty ugly” – but that Perry is, in fact, picking up steam.
Republicans want someone who they imagine will stand facing Obama at a debate and rhetorically gut him in a fashion that makes Obama's jaw drop, they think Perry is that guy, Perry will get the nomination.
On August 26 2011 08:47 DeepElemBlues wrote: Rick Perry will be the next President of the United States. He will bully Romney down over everything as Romney's a pushover, co-opt Bachmann, pick a moderate VP, and then bully Obama down over unemployment.
Every day Palin doesn't announce Perry becomes a day stronger; she can't beat him. He's a male, smart Sarah Palin who didn't quit his job as governor. That's all Perry has to communicate to Republican voters and he's got Sarah beaten.
This will be the ugliest campaign since the 19th century, Perry and Obama are going to rip each other apart. Debates should be awesome.
The polling data suggests not only that Perry survived his early stumbles on the stump – most notably, his suggestions that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke could be guilty of “treason” if the Fed prints more money, and that Texans would accordingly treat Bernanke “pretty ugly” – but that Perry is, in fact, picking up steam.
Republicans want someone who they imagine will stand facing Obama at a debate and rhetorically gut him in a fashion that makes Obama's jaw drop, they think Perry is that guy, Perry will get the nomination.
You think Rick Perry is a good orator? I haven't seen too many interviews with him, but I see a little bit of Bush in this one:
Could you post a video of him coming off as a shining star in his wordplay? I truly like a politician who seems well-educated and well-spoken.
(Even the above Fox link you gave showed Perry stumbling over his words quite adamantly.)
EPT
wrote:
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Huntsman-tweet.gif)
