Fury; Rand Paul Goes All Out For Republican Elite Romney. - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

His support of the Fed alone makes him that. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

But here are some links: Romney’s Big Fat Wet Kiss to Keynesian Economics, Exposed: Romney is a Closet Keynesian and Variations on a Corporatist Theme.

 

 

 

A whole string of question begging. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

It's not "enhanced interrogation," it's torture. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

 

 

Gitmo and what you advocate at Gitmo is all about a police state. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

 

 

I didn't. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

 

 

We're pretty close. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

 

 

I'm not sure it is a SERIOUS illegal (or legal) immigration problem at a mere 6.5%. If you can't see that, you're fucking blind.

 

 

 

Amazed? No. Disappointed? Yes.

1.  Romney is not a Keynesian just because he doesn't want to take a trillion dollars out of the economy the first year.  He has a very good and realistic point here...one that you should take note of.  Government spending does contribute to the economy.  The problem is it requires massive borrowing, is temporary in effect and is not as efficient as the private sector.  But it it does contribute.  

2.  Enhanced interrogation is not torture.  It does not meet the definition of torture, which you can look up for yourself.  As for the rest..I'm not begging anything.  I'm stating what I think we need.  Gitmo is necessary in my opinion.  We need military options to deal with certain situations.  We need government, to a degree.  If you want to debate those points, I'm waiting.

3.  The fact that you're denying illegal immigration is a serious problem is just laughable.  Just look at what it's doing to education and healthcare.  It explodes budgets for English as Second Language instruction, translation services and emergency room care.  "Little Mexicos" pop up instead of cultural assimilation.  It's a problem that's bad even where I live...in Pennsylvania.  My sister-in-law teaches in Houston, TX. You should see what's happening down there.  The point is it's a major problem.  

4.  You're disappointed that I think the government has a role in funding science and technology?  You see, this is where you Ron Paul supporters go over the edge. You're totally out of the mainstream on this.  

Also, I don't appreciate your constant repeating of the phrase "you're fucking blind."  I used it once to make a point.  You're just being, well, something that will get me another infraction within 24 hours.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

1.  Romney is not a Keynesian just because he doesn't want to take a trillion dollars out of the economy the first year.  He has a very good and realistic point here...one that you should take note of.

Yes it does. No he doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

1. Government spending does contribute to the economy.  The problem is it requires massive borrowing, is temporary in effect and is not as efficient as the private sector.  But it it does contribute.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

2.  Enhanced interrogation is not torture.  It does not meet the definition of torture, which you can look up for yourself.

If that helps you sleep better at night. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

2.  As for the rest..I'm not begging anything.  I'm stating what I think we need.  Gitmo is necessary in my opinion.  We need military options to deal with certain situations.  We need government, to a degree.  If you want to debate those points, I'm waiting.

OK. Thanks for clarifying that all of those needs are your opinion. You appeared to be stating them as an undebatable, unquestionable fact, which would be begging the question. I feel that trying to debate you on these points would be wasteful of my time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

3.  The fact that you're denying illegal immigration is a serious problem is just laughable.

OK. :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

4.  You're disappointed that I think the government has a role in funding science and technology?  You see, this is where you Ron Paul supporters go over the edge. You're totally out of the mainstream on this.  

Yes I am.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

4. You're totally out of the mainstream on this.

You say that like: a) It's an insult, and b) what's in the mainstream is how we determine what is right and what is not. Odd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Also, I don't appreciate your constant repeating of the phrase "you're fucking blind."  I used it once to make a point.  You're just being, well, something that will get me another infraction within 24 hours.  

I don't appreciate you using it at all. I used it multiple times to make a point. You're just being hypocritical and if that earns me an infraction, so be it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
Who is begging the question now?  I don't see how you determine Romney is a Keynesian because he hasn't proposed ending the Fed and because he thinks that cutting $1 Trillion immediately would harm the economy. 

Not me. That's a solidly Keynesian perspective. Perhaps you don't fully understand Keynesianism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
Spare me your mock moral outrage. 

There's nothing mock about my moral outrage over your position on that topic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
Yes, MJ, because it's just beneath you to have to explain yourself and actually support your arguments.  That's the message.

No, it's not beneath me. I've done it many times here (and elsewhere.) I said that it would be a waste of my time in this case. There's a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
I simply stated you''re out of the mainstream.  Your position is extreme.  As long as you realize it, that's fine with me. 

Oh I realize it very well and don't need you to tell me so. It doesn't bother me all that much (except for how wrong the mainstream positions are.)

That said, I'd suggest it is a wee bit disingenuous for you to pretend that telling someone they're "out of the mainstream" and "extreme" isn't commonly used in a pejorative sense in an attempt to be insulting and to attempt to poison the well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
So me using it once is offensive.  But you using 6 times is just fine.  

I never said that. Who's putting words into who's mouth now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
Admit it...you were being snarky for the sake of being snarky.

Absolutely! That said, as you believe that I'm "fucking blind" to not see things that you deem to be patently obvious, I also believe you to be "fucking blind" to not see things that I consider to be patently obvious.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
Who is begging the question now?  I don't see how you determine Romney is a Keynesian because he hasn't proposed ending the Fed and because he thinks that cutting $1 Trillion immediately would harm the economy. 

 

Not me. That's a solidly Keynesian perspective. Perhaps you don't fully understand Keynesianism.

It is a Keynesian perspective but SDW has a point that the economy, the mindset of the people within it and the actions all need to undertake cannot stop or turn on a dime. Suppose a real back currency were passed tomorrow. How long does it take for the actual various metals backing the currencies to make their way out to banks and into circulation? How do you prevent runs on banks that are going from something unsound to something sound? How do you unwind various assumptions and all the legal agreements made based on the prior understanding of currency and what becomes the trade offs?

That can't happen overnight. It would be like telling an morbidly obese person to go run a marathon tomorrow. Getting to a healthy state wouldn't happen in a day and getting to a sound currency state can't happen in a day as well.

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 
I simply stated you''re out of the mainstream.  Your position is extreme.  As long as you realize it, that's fine with me. 

 

Oh I realize it very well and don't need you to tell me so. It doesn't bother me all that much (except for how wrong the mainstream positions are.)

 

That said, I'd suggest it is a wee bit disingenuous for you to pretend that telling someone they're "out of the mainstream" and "extreme" isn't commonly used in a pejorative sense in an attempt to be insulting and to attempt to poison the well.

I can see both sides on this matter. MJ you basically admit the lay person and the electorate wouldn't adopt or use the solutions you (and in many ways I) advocate. We've had discussions on this point when discussing the various candidates. How does one lead the populace from point a to point b if a solid percentage won't follow?

I'm reading The Amateur right now and one of the key points wasn't just that Obama has wrong ideas, but that he pissed even those who support, fundraised, voted for and assisted him because he doesn't believe he has to press the flesh, listen to concerns, be pragmatic, or even take any actions beyond giving the big speech. He is an amateur because he has Democratic interest groups warring with each other due to his own lack of communication and inability nor lack of desire to actually, well lead rather than dictate.

Anyone can dictate. Leadership is about much more than just dictating to someone. Rand Paul, the topic of the thread is being pragmatic. He basically realizes you can't convince people to stop lying sometimes and so trading big lies for little lies might be the best you can do. The truth is always best but until you can walk people back a bit, they have no hope of endorsing it when they can't even recognize it.

I have a friend of mine who is not in great shape. I wanted to help him consider some exercise. I found a nice used Trek mountain bike for super cheap at a yard sale and took it home and tuned it up for him. He rode it over to my house and was very proud of himself. He was certain he had likely hit a bit above 40 mph on the flat ride over to my house from his (a very scant 2 miles away.) This is a patently laughable claim but rather than ridiculing him, I offered to ride back with him and check this amazing speed on my cyclometer. We hit about 12-13 mph. Correcting his perspective on and the mileage started to open his mind to other misconceptions. Until he got on a bike though, there wasn't even a chance of it happening.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

It is a Keynesian perspective but SDW has a point that the economy, the mindset of the people within it and the actions all need to undertake cannot stop or turn on a dime.

Agreed. But then I don't think anyone is talking about stopping or turning on a dime here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Suppose a real back currency were passed tomorrow. How long does it take for the actual various metals backing the currencies to make their way out to banks and into circulation? How do you prevent runs on banks that are going from something unsound to something sound? How do you unwind various assumptions and all the legal agreements made based on the prior understanding of currency and what becomes the trade offs?

Actually a transition could be much smoother than you suggest here. It would start with the Fed stopping inflating and continue with the Fed fixing the dollar against a solid asset from here forward. I explained this to SDW before. It would simply start with declaring that a dollar is now worth X ounces of gold (or whatever). I don't know all the logistics, but I think this is navigable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

That can't happen overnight. It would be like telling an morbidly obese person to go run a marathon tomorrow. Getting to a healthy state wouldn't happen in a day and getting to a sound currency state can't happen in a day as well.

I actually don't dispute that at all. I favor a gradual (faster the better IMHO) draw down. The point of contention with SDW I've had is that I actually think Romney is a died-in-the-wool Keynesian and I don't expect substantial changes or improvements from him should he get elected. I hope that I'm very, very wrong about that. I'd be thrilled!

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I can see both sides on this matter. MJ you basically admit the lay person and the electorate wouldn't adopt or use the solutions you (and in many ways I) advocate. We've had discussions on this point when discussing the various candidates. How does one lead the populace from point a to point b if a solid percentage won't follow?

 

Anyone can dictate. Leadership is about much more than just dictating to someone. Rand Paul, the topic of the thread is being pragmatic. He basically realizes you can't convince people to stop lying sometimes and so trading big lies for little lies might be the best you can do. The truth is always best but until you can walk people back a bit, they have no hope of endorsing it when they can't even recognize it.

I get all that and I actually agree. In fact I believe I made the point earlier in this thread that perhaps Rand Paul is "crazy like a fox" here. Maybe he's: a) just playing along to get something done, b) positioning himself to be President very soon (2020), and that this apparent "sell out" isn't any such thing at all in the long run. I'm even willing to believe that possibility or at least hope for it to be true. Maybe it goes even further than that. Maybe Romney is this also. Maybe Romney secretly harbors much more ambitious reform plans but is doing whatever he can to get elected. I guess I hope all of that is true. I'm not sure it is, but I hope it is. I'm much more likely to believe it about Rand Paul than I am about Mitt Romney right now though. I think I also said that, in politics, things aren't always what they seem. This could be an example where that's true in a good way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

It is a Keynesian perspective but SDW has a point that the economy, the mindset of the people within it and the actions all need to undertake cannot stop or turn on a dime.

 

Agreed. But then I don't think anyone is talking about stopping or turning on a dime here.

The Ryan plan is practically considered stopping on a dime by many out there and we both know that isn't even but a small percentage of what needs to be done. A book I have read a sample of, and I also read Crash Proof by him as well, is actually more a middle solution because as far as I can see it actually declares bankruptcy for the U.S and tries to start walking us back. It is by Peter Schiff and you'd probably enjoy reading his stuff as well. Schiff couldn't get elected though when he ran and no one is going to allow the U.S. to officially declare bankruptcy. So the point is another solution will need to be found.

I'm going to disagree with you. You cannot use unsound monetary policy to run up huge debts and then pay it back with sound money. That would be a disaster. You have to default in some manner on the bad debt and then start with sound money after that. You cannot print up 15 trillion in magic money and then pay it back with gold. You pay it back with magic money and then move on. That is why the Schiff book advocates for a form of bankruptcy. Printing an extra 15-17 trillion would still be a default and no one would trust the currency or actions of the government even though everyone was "paid off". A form of bankruptcy is still a form of little lie. I suspect since one will want to do that however that the solution will be getting the craziness down to some manageable level and trying to grow our way out while altering entitlements.

Another factor I've had to come to terms with is that while the U.S. is bad, the rest of the world is much, much worse. Clearly Europe and the Euro are far worse. China isn't much better off even though people think it is because they've got the same issues as Japan and a demographic ticking time bomb. China and Japan are both major currency manipulators. If we could act more like Canada, that would be a very good start and I think a very decent place to try to walk the country back to in regard to policy and currency.

You are probably right about Romney. Yet if he can get us to a more sound footing, that is still better than the alternative. Think about Lincoln who had to contend with such extreme views that his mere election started the Civil War. There were demands that he immediately and unilaterally free all slaves. He didn't do it because several Southern states had not seceded and he needed to keep the war smaller rather than have the problem get bigger. He favored a forced deportation and colonization of former slaves away from the U.S. Many of his views are offensive by modern standards yet he more than split the difference and moved the country in the right direction during his presidency. I'm not saying Romney would be Lincoln. I'm simply noting how if I were a full blown abolitionist, I would have thought Lincoln incapable and too middle ground. I would have been very upset about many of the choices he made and been unable to see how had to lead those with views completely contrary to my view back to a common point and forward as well. I'd probably be pissed off a lot. I'd declare that Lincoln was a sell out and that he was an asshole for not granting immediate and full emancipation. That view, while right, doesn't address or help bring along those who want the old system, who had gone so far as to ban the mere distribution of abolitionist literature and who obviously were ready to die for slavery.

I don't think anyone here is playing along. The biggest mistake Obama ever made was to forget that he is president of the entire country and not just a narrow interest group. Even if the interest group is right, if you piss off the majority all the time, you won't move forward. If you antagonize them to the point to where they actively go to war or work against you, then you've got even more problems.

I've tried to illustrate this to folks with gay marriage which I support. A few states have passed it as legislation and I don't hear any uproar about that. The uproar has been caused by lawsuits and judicial decisions that unilaterally throw away the old definition of marriage, ignore what people want and thing while trying to dictate acceptance of gay marriage. The blow back from this has been dozens of states passing laws and even Constitutional amendments against gay marriage, the exact opposite of what those supporters wanted when filing suit. The point is that gay marriage supporters thought only of what they wanted and not what everyone else would do in response. They empowered their opposition rather than finding a different way that might have brought them along.

No matter how correct and truthful your position, if 50+1 don't come along, it doesn't matter. If you antagonize 50+1 into a contrary position from your own, then you are even more screwed. That is the ultimate reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

The Ryan plan is practically considered stopping on a dime by many out there and we both know that isn't even but a small percentage of what needs to be done. A book I have read a sample of, and I also read Crash Proof by him as well, is actually more a middle solution because as far as I can see it actually declares bankruptcy for the U.S and tries to start walking us back. It is by Peter Schiff and you'd probably enjoy reading his stuff as well. Schiff couldn't get elected though when he ran and no one is going to allow the U.S. to officially declare bankruptcy. So the point is another solution will need to be found.

Fair points. I agree. I read that book recently and would agree with most of it. But, from a practical perspective I agree that even these plans are portrayed as armageddon by our "friends" on the left. I wonder if it is all too late anyway. Which brings us to your next point...

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I'm going to disagree with you. You cannot use unsound monetary policy to run up huge debts and then pay it back with sound money. That would be a disaster. You have to default in some manner on the bad debt and then start with sound money after that. You cannot print up 15 trillion in magic money and then pay it back with gold. You pay it back with magic money and then move on. That is why the Schiff book advocates for a form of bankruptcy. Printing an extra 15-17 trillion would still be a default and no one would trust the currency or actions of the government even though everyone was "paid off". A form of bankruptcy is still a form of little lie. I suspect since one will want to do that however that the solution will be getting the craziness down to some manageable level and trying to grow our way out while altering entitlements.

Again, you're probably right. The country is effectively bankrupt at this point. The best we can hope for is a some kind of graceful draw down. I don't know if that will happen (or is even possible) though even under Romney.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

You are probably right about Romney. Yet if he can get us to a more sound footing, that is still better than the alternative.

True. But it is a big if. I'm contending that a Republican-controlled Congress (House and Senate) with Obama (as much as I cannot stand to hear from him) as President might be a better mix to achieve this. Thinking back to the Clinton era as a guide here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I don't think anyone here is playing along. The biggest mistake Obama ever made was to forget that he is president of the entire country and not just a narrow interest group. Even if the interest group is right, if you piss off the majority all the time, you won't move forward. If you antagonize them to the point to where they actively go to war or work against you, then you've got even more problems.

 

No matter how correct and truthful your position, if 50+1 don't come along, it doesn't matter. If you antagonize 50+1 into a contrary position from your own, then you are even more screwed. That is the ultimate reality.

I get that. I get the my own passion for liberty and small government is more of an educational and intellectual fight at this stage of the game because, it appears, that 50+1 right now is all about living off the remaining 49. Minds need to be changed for sure. Revolutions are ultimately intellectual first and political second. The liberty, small government, lower tax, lower spending, less regulation, less government intervention, fiscally conservative, free-market movement has a lot of work to do in the face of pseudo-liberty, big government, higher tax, huge spending, heavily regulated, heavily interventionist, fiscally insane, anti-market morons that seem to have the propaganda going their way.

I actually think there's a deeper human problem here that I think you recognize and appreciate. There are fundamentally two paths to go down:

1) short-term gain, pleasure and satisfaction and long-term destruction

2) soft-term sacrifices, but long-term stability, success, satisfaction and pleasure

This fundamental choice happens at all levels: personal, business, countries, etc.

The thing that separates the rich from the poor is the so often the poor chose #1, while the rich have chosen #2. The poor spend all their income (and more...borrowing to satisfy immediate wants) and save nothing. Their time horizon is very short. In economic terms they have a very high time preference. The rich typically are doing exactly the opposite.

The "leaders" who basically adopt #1 as their core governing (and campaigning) principle have a lot on their side: Being satisfied in the short term is an easy sell.

This is pretty much my sole point towards MJ and Jazz.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Fair points. I agree. I read that book recently and would agree with most of it. But, from a practical perspective I agree that even these plans are portrayed as armageddon by our "friends" on the left. I wonder if it is all too late anyway. Which brings us to your next point...

I'd argue that it still would be portrayed as armageddon by a fair percentage of the right as well, at least 30% by my guess. The independents don't really pay attention enough to know one way or another. Those are some large numbers to overcome. During a few of the debates I really saw some very nice respect traded between Rick Perry and Ron Paul. Perry specifically noted how Paul had given him several books to read and that their discussions had been enjoyable and enlightening for him. I got a real sense that Perry had reconsidered a few positions thanks to Paul. That can happen when you are inside the big tent. When you are outside pointing fingers, assigning blame or trying to take the tent down, then that isn't possible. We can argue that Romney's position ought to be more like Paul's but the reality is when Paul will want to get something done, he will have to go to Romney. Hopefully Romney is more of a leader than Obama and will realize when he wants to get something done, he has to go to Congressional leaders and play ball some as well.

Well the choices are all among unfavorable options at this stage. In my opinion someone who wants to declare "I told you so" doesn't help much at that stage. Someone who can help sell the choices that have to be made can be helpful. I will say this for Romney after having watched him for this campaign. He never really appears mean or antagonizing, though he has been somewhat forceful and that might be helpful when you've got a Democratic campaign that is going to swear you are hateful in every way possible. Given the terrible state of the rest of the world, we might do just fine. The whole world is leveraged. Large swaths have demographic problems. I really am pretty optimistic for the U.S. I suspect boomers are going to take it hard on the chin the second they step off the stage though. Their smiling kids and grandkids are going to have to knife them in the back to survive.

Clinton and Obama are no where near the same. Clinton is like a good basketball coach. He really was a very masterful politician. He was adaptable. Obama is the guy with one solution. He is taking his hammer to every nail and if it isn't a nail, he still will take a hammer to it. The guy is an idiot.

Well and let us remember that it isn't just the financial poor. It can be those poor in health, poor in their relationships to others, etc. We have to be willing to judge these actions as bad. We need to be willing to truly let people live with the consequences of these choices. We need to make it known that there are things that you can do that are objectively wrong and bad for you. People can't think short or long term if something isn't good or bad in the first place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

That can't happen overnight. It would be like telling an morbidly obese person to go run a marathon tomorrow. Getting to a healthy state wouldn't happen in a day and getting to a sound currency state can't happen in a day as well.

I don't think anyone is claiming that such a dramatic transition can or should happen overnight.

But using your analogy, would that morbidly obese person do what it takes to train for a marathon without having the marathon as a clearly defined goal?

Romney may talk a good game about reducing taxes, promoting the free market, etc. but he hasn't clearly stated what his goal is. It's always the rhetorical "promote American prosperity" and "put Americans back to work" and other such poll-tested phrases. He hasn't articulated anything, hasn't committed to anything specific in terms of real reform.

Would a morbidly obese person even bother to get in shape without a clearly defined, attainable goal such as running a marathon? Would that person work towards that goal without setting a series of "sub goals" to keep himself accountable and measure progress and success?

In reality, all Romney is proposing is reducing the morbidly obese person's daily calorie intake from 10,000 to 9,500 without articulating any plans beyond that.

As far as I am aware, the only candidate who has a clearly articulated goal and a plan to immediately work towards that goal is Ron Paul with his "Plan to Restore America".

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

I don't think anyone is claiming that such a dramatic transition can or should happen overnight.

 

But using your analogy, would that morbidly obese person do what it takes to train for a marathon without having the marathon as a clearly defined goal?

Dramatic is a pretty broad word and for whatever reason, the American people are more receptive to the spending more than the cutting. I believe some pretty dramatic cuts could be absorbed just fine. Perhaps they will happen but the reality for now is that people who are dependent might at a minimum, not need the pot stirred so loudly as to rouse them from their lack of effort to instead go cast their votes or get motivated.

As for the marathon thing, I think people can stumble into better or good habits. I think small things can contribute to big things in terms of planning and outcomes. I finished a half marathon a week ago and when I started it was with a big floppy hat, a camelback and a one mile walk about three years ago.

The world doesn't want to hear solutions. Most of the populace probably can't even understand them. For goodness sakes Obama was basically elected on three words. Historic along with hope and change. The Democratic base is unmotivated and fighting with itself. The election is a referendum on Obama. All Romney has to be is not Obama, have claims of better solutions and motivate his side enough while letting the other side remain unmotivated. He can also be smart and not do anything to fire them up.

How is the plan going to immediately work when he can't get elected? How is it going to immediately work when the Democrats could use it to scare half the population into believing that the government won't just leave them dead and starving, but might even have people hunting them down and killing them?

You have a media apparatus that is fully a propaganda machine for the left. They will take the proposal of eating 9,500 calories instead of eating 10,000 and will declare it a starvation level diet. Look at how many misleading stories and charts they are already producing assigning the entire Obama presidency to George Bush. So of course Romney is going to speak in platitudes. It gives the 24/7 media machine less to work with. He can say we will work towards eating with a healthier outcome. It is specifically non-specific. Then they can go back 40 years and figure out who's hair he cut when he was 16 or maybe who's dog he didn't give enough water when he was seven.

The Obama machine wants engagement. They want specifics. They want anything they can grab to divert attention from their candidate. They don't want the election to focus on him, his performance, his economy or his leadership. If Romney wants to just freeze spending at current levels they will want to argue he is inflexible, unthinking and can't adapt. The Obama campaign is desperate to scare people. Romney needs to give them little to no fuel for that cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

 Is Ron Paul really considering endorsing O'Romney? This senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute seems to think so- http://www.infowars.com/tom-woods-ron-dont-endorse-mitt-romney/

 

Rand has already lost most of his one time supporters. Surely Ron understands that this short term boost within the Republican establishment will become a long term cast off into the wilderness for his son, if he too endorses O'Romney?

Big fan of just making shit up now, hmmm?  

Trump:

This is an excellent point.  As William F. Buckley used to say, "I vote for the most conservative candidate...who can win."  This seems to be the part that our libertarian friends put no emphasis on.  Ron Paul is not going to be elected President (this year, and probably not in the future).  Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be elected President.  That's where we are right now, like it or not.  One can vote for Romney (the clearly better option) and still work to grow the movement in which he believes.  At some point, we may get "there."  But, running around claiming Romney=Obama and you won't vote for the lesser of two evils just on principle alone?  It doesn't accomplish anything.  It doesn't get us any closer to libertarian goals.  In fact, it puts us even further away.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 


Romney is even more of a corporate-owned statist than G. W. Bush, and you actually claim he will move us towards libertarianism? Wake up!

He's not a statist.  He's not corporate-owned.  As for libertarianism, he's closer than Obama.  He'd be more competent than Obama.  He'd be better for the economy than Obama.   What I'm saying is that even if we stop there, one can vote for Romney and still work to build the libertarian movement.  It doesn't have to be about ideological purity.  And I'll repeat:  I have a tough time believing that you don't care if Romney or Obama is the next President.  If you actually feel that way, I think you've made a huge mistake.  Four more years of Obama will make this country nearly unrecognizable.  Even if we end up getting someone like Ron Paul elected, the damage may be done by that point.  There may be no turning back if Barry Soetero is unhindered by needing to get reelected.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

“They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I’m not a libertarian.” - Rand Paul
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

So what is he? Isn't he even a libertarian Republican?

 

 

"In 1975, Ronald Reagan stated, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism" but some libertarians criticize Reagan for unlibertarian policy positions.^[11] Many libertarian conservatives, like Congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, affiliate with the Republican Party and consider themselves libertarian Republican."

~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

 

 

He clearly is going to become increasingly open and supportive to popular opinion among his party. I think he'll have a hard time even standing out from the rest of them over the course of what may be a lifetime in the Senate.

You guys are hilarious.  Rand Paul endorsed Romney because he thinks Romney is a far better option than Obama.  He's placing aside ideological purity for the man that actually can beat Obama, who is as far from Paul's ideas as one can get.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

He's not a statist. 

I'm betting you're wrong on this. I'm even betting that it wouldn't be hard to find both statements and actions that demonstrate that you're wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

He's not corporate-owned.

This, of course, is difficult to prove either way. We'll have to judge by actions and interpret those actions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

As for libertarianism, he's closer than Obama.  He'd be more competent than Obama.  He'd be better for the economy than Obama.  

Maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

And I'll repeat:  I have a tough time believing that you don't care if Romney or Obama is the next President.  If you actually feel that way, I think you've made a huge mistake.  Four more years of Obama will make this country nearly unrecognizable.  Even if we end up getting someone like Ron Paul elected, the damage may be done by that point.  There may be no turning back if Barry Soetero is unhindered by needing to get reelected.  

What you say is possibly true. Possibly not also.

I've suggested a different scenario that potentially keeps both Congress and the President in check with each other. That might actually be the best for the country.

Jazz:

Prove it.  

Bush didn't campaign on non-interventionism.  He campaigned on not nation building.  Romney has not "made it clear" that he supports "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.  He's made it clear that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and dangerous.  That's not "interventionism."  

  His campaign is financed the same way Ron Paul's campaign was financed, actually.  The difference is that "his" PACs take donations from the rich, corporations, etc.  He's publicly condemned McCain-Feingold, which led to where we are.  But until it's gone, he ether plays by those rules or loses.  Just ask McCain what happens when you get outspent 10-1.  

1.  Romney/Bush:  Irrelevant.  The question is Romney/Obama.  

2.  I reject your characterization of Romney simply slowing us down a bit.  Either way, I'll take that over Obama.  That is the choice.  

3.   Right...Paul is a statesmen and his son is merely a politician looking to advanced his career.  Shit, you should hear yourself.  

MJ:

The problem is that car is still going off the cliff at 90mph.  If nothing gets done, it goes over the cliff.  The status quo is not acceptable.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Prove it.  

 

 

Bush didn't campaign on non-interventionism.  He campaigned on not nation building.  Romney has not "made it clear" that he supports "meddling" in the affairs of other nations.  He's made it clear that Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and dangerous.  That's not "interventionism."  

 

 

 

  His campaign is financed the same way Ron Paul's campaign was financed, actually.  The difference is that "his" PACs take donations from the rich, corporations, etc.  He's publicly condemned McCain-Feingold, which led to where we are.  But until it's gone, he ether plays by those rules or loses.  Just ask McCain what happens when you get outspent 10-1.  

 

 

 

 

1.  Romney/Bush:  Irrelevant.  The question is Romney/Obama.  

 

2.  I reject your characterization of Romney simply slowing us down a bit.  Either way, I'll take that over Obama.  That is the choice.  

 

3.   Right...Paul is a statesmen and his son is merely a politician looking to advanced his career.  Shit, you should hear yourself.

You're all over the place. Making excuses for Bush, then saying comparing comparing Romney to Bush is irrelevant.  It's really quite comical.

Telling sovereign nations - under threat of violence - what they can and cannot do is not interventionism? Really?

I'm not talking about the WAY the campaigns were financed, I'm talking about WHO financed them. Mega-corporations and banks are funding Obamney. They are bought and paid for. They are puppets.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

You're all over the place. Making excuses for Bush, then saying comparing comparing Romney to Bush is irrelevant.  It's really quite comical.

 

Telling sovereign nations - under threat of violence - what they can and cannot do is not interventionism? Really?

 

I'm not talking about the WAY the campaigns were financed, I'm talking about WHO financed them. Mega-corporations and banks are funding Obamney. They are bought and paid for. They are puppets.

1.  You raised Bush, not I.  I simply explained what Bush campaigned upon.  It wasn't "non-interventionism."  

2.  "Sovereign nation" has become nothing but a weasel term.  All nations are sovereign, but not all are equal in our geopolitical reality.  You can pretend that North Korea and Iran are the moral equivalent to the U.S. and our allies, but the world simply doesn't work that way.  In the real world, Iran having nuclear weapons is a nightmare.  It sounds wonderful to say we just leave everyone alone, but that's not the world in which we live.  

3.  Show me how they are "bought and paid for."  And show me what you'd do to stop it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 


1. If it's irrelevant why defend him?
2. If you think that the U.S. Is "morally superior" to other nations you have been duped.
3. Follow the money. Look at the individuals and organizations donating to their campaigns. Look at the people they surround themselves with. Look at the connections these people have to lobbyists, banks, and corporations. They are puppets. What would I do to stop it? Don't vote for them.

1.  From what I can tell, this is the only "defense" of Bush I engaged in.  So, uh..WTF are you talking about?  

2.  I knew you wouldn't like the term "moral equivalent."  I don't like the term "morally superior."  I'm not sure what term applies, so I'll just say this:  Not all nations can have nuclear weapons.  Not all nations can be engaged in the same way.  Western democracies having nuclear weapons is not the same as radical theocracies and dictatorships having them.   And this is an important point, because it's exactly where Ron Paul goes off the deep end.  Iran is not going to leave everyone alone and behave peacefully if we just leave them alone.  North Korea is not going to stop threatening the region if we let them do whatever they want.  These are but two examples.   

3.  I'm not doing your homework for you.  Please provide me evidence that the candidates are "bought and paid for."  The mere existence of corporate money (which cannot be donated directly anyway) is not evidence.  Your implication is that Romney is beholden to private corporate interests because of their financial support.  Evidence would be nice.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

The Guardian reported that Romney was seen at Bilderberg. 

 

 

"Four eyewitnesses on the hotel staff told me Willard Mitt Romney was here at Bilderberg 2012. My four eyewitnesses place him inside. That's one more than Woodward and Bernstein used. Romney's office initially refused to confirm or deny his attendance as Bilderberg is "not public". His people later said it wasn't him.

So, was he being crowned, or singing for his supper? Will Mitt Romney follow in the august footsteps of Clinton, Cameron and Blair to have attended Bilderberg and then shortly become leader? Four years ago, Senator Obama shook off his press detail and nipped (many think) into Bilderberg. This exact same hotel.

Did Romney have to get down on one knee in front of David Rockefeller? This sounds flippant, but it's a serious question: has Bilderberg switched allegiance? Are they going to toss away Obama after just one term?"

~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-blog/2012/jun/05/bilderberg-2012-chantilly-occupy

And Rand Paul who has spoken out about the evils of Bilderberg before becoming a Senator, now will just campaign for O'Romney and arrange meetings with his new friends- Video-http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WtO5INu-VY4

Go back to surfing Prison Planet and reading Dan Brown novels.  Shit.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon 

But Rand Paul himself spoke out about Bilderberg. Don't you get it? 

 

Watch here what Rand used to say- Start at 1.45 mins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9sctUOlOw8&feature=player_embedded

 

Just reading some of the latest Rand (And Ron) Paul comments at one time very supportive Info Wars (they gave millions in donations to Rand when he ran for the senate in money bombs). These really are a straight copy,-

 

...

I don't see what posting internet comments really accomplishes.  The true PaulTards are obviously going to be upset, because anything short of absolute ideological purity is a betrayal to them.  Meanwhile, they are ignoring that fact that clearly, Romney and Ron Paul came to some kind of agreement.  Paul never went after Romney, and won't run as a third party.  In fact, there are stories that the two men became friends.  The PaulTards should be more concerned about that.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

I don't see what posting internet comments really accomplishes.  The true PaulTards are obviously going to be upset, because anything short of absolute ideological purity is a betrayal to them.  Meanwhile, they are ignoring that fact that clearly, Romney and Ron Paul came to some kind of agreement.  Paul never went after Romney, and won't run as a third party.  In fact, there are stories that the two men became friends.  The PaulTards should be more concerned about that.  

Ron Paul supporters openly and willingly acknowledge the man's flaws. We just prefer his flaws to Obamney's.

And the rumors about him cutting a deal with Romney are not new and are unsubstantiated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

...The true PaulTards...The PaulTards...

Will you grow up please. You do yourself or your positions no favors by such name-calling. It just makes you look petty and immature. PaulTards? That's fucking junior high school stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Will you grow up please. You do yourself or your positions no favors by such name-calling. It just makes you look petty and immature. PaulTards? That's fucking junior high school stuff.

I'm not addressing anyone here with that term, FYI.  And in all seriousness, I think you know exactly the kind of Paul supporter I mean.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

 

Ron Paul supporters openly and willingly acknowledge the man's flaws. We just prefer his flaws to Obamney's.

 

And the rumors about him cutting a deal with Romney are not new and are unsubstantiated.

There you go again...comparing Ron Paul to Romney and/or Obama.  You just don't get it.  It's Romney vs. Obama now.  That is all.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

There you go again...comparing Ron Paul to Romney and/or Obama.  You just don't get it.  It's Romney vs. Obama now.  That is all.  

The status quo vs. the status quo? What a compelling choice...

The only REAL choice has been Ron Paul vs. every one else.

Although Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson could make some waves after the GOP Convention in Tampa.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm not addressing anyone here with that term, FYI.  And in all seriousness, I think you know exactly the kind of Paul supporter I mean.  

It doesn't really matter. It's rude, immature and only makes you look foolish when you use it. I suspect that you're a better person than that, certainly compared to other notable posers here who are fond of using pejorative name-calling towards people who hold (often strongly) different views.

Furthermore, when you can only view someone through a name suggesting mental retardation you have closed down the opportunity, however small you might imagine it to be, to learn something new and possibly adjust your own views legitimately and rationally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

It doesn't really matter. It's rude, immature and only makes you look foolish when you use it. I suspect that you're a better person than that, certainly compared to other notable posers here who are fond of using pejorative name-calling towards people who hold (often strongly) different views.

 

Furthermore, when you can only view someone through a name suggesting mental retardation you have closed down the opportunity, however small you might imagine it to be, to learn something new and possibly adjust your own views legitimately and rationally.

I really didn't ask for your assessment.  Also, get a sense of humor.  

I see that someone has a pride problem too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I really didn't ask for your assessment.  Also, get a sense of humor.  

I know you didn't. I gave it anyway. That's what happens when you post things in a public forum. If you can't see the immaturity in your name-calling, then I don't know what to say. You could man-up and just admit, "Yeah, that was a bit junior high school of me." and move on. But, you've chosen the "dig my heels in" approach instead. Good for you!

P.S. I have a great sense of humor...until it comes to people implying that those who hold starkly different views than themselves are mentally retarded.